Yours seems based on ignoring the "WE THE PEOPLE" at the top of the document creating US government. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 02/09/2012 02:50:39 AM
Which, I might add, is a common disconnect in conservatives, and causes the various contradictory positions you rightly note in many Republicans. Another good example: Government has no right to take, and every obligation to defend, all life—except those too old, infirm or underpaid to feed, house and provide themselves medical care, who are on their own, and, of course, heinous criminals, whom government is actually obligated to KILL. The rule of thumb is that when politicians do things one supports they are faithful public servants implementing the democratically expressed will of those who elected them; otherwise, they are tyrants. 
Community does not mean government. But hey, nothing like drawing a false choice between all or nothing alternatives where "more than one person's involvement" equals proof of the moral supremacy of government solutions, and a straw man position of individual accomplishment defined as accomplishments that relied on nothing from no one else. SOMEBODY ELSE MADE THE FOOD YOU ATE WHILE INVENTING THAT DEVICE IN YOUR HAND_BUILT GARAGE! OMG! YOU ARE TOTALLY RELIANT ON THE COMMUNITY, THEREFORE SOCIALISM WORKS!!!
In republican and democratic states, community DOES mean government, or rather, government means community: Community exists in many other forms than government, but unless one believes all elections rigged, it manifestly exists throughout that one. Collectives mean community; any human collective can be accurately defined as a "a community of individuals," and largely is. Even were that not true, the statement "We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together" covers far more than just government, though it obviously covers that, too. It covers entrepreneurs and investors, as well as employees, consumers and yes, even government.
The only people who made it exclusive to one facet of community are the Republicans who had entrepreneurs and investors on stage to pat each other on the back while employees, consumers and government workers who contributed watched on TV, wondering why the Republican Party does not think them worth mentioning.
That claim was conceded the moment the RNC brought business owners on stage to thank people without whom their success would have been impossible. Now we are just debating whether they included everyone they should have, or whether "Mitt Romney built that."
The roads were already built and the municipal bonds already bought by whom, the Magical Capitalist Individualism Fairy? How 'bout GOVERNMENT. Government did not create community, no, but community created government as an extension of itself. Or at least you better hope it did; if the US government, at the local, state or federal level, represents any single individual exclusively, I guarantee it is not you.
The people built the government, which is an extension and servant of them; it is right there in the first words of our highest national law: "WE THE PEOPLE...." The Framers even wrote it much larger than the rest of the words in case someone was so myopic they thought the federal government some tyrannical individual instead of MANY individuals democratically chosen by all legally voting individuals to represent them.
If that democratically elected government does not do everything you think it should, or does do things you think it should not, that does not mean it is tyranny, it means you should run a more effective campaign in the next election. I am no more fan of adventurism (as distinct from defending the US and its existing overseas interests) than you are, but the Senate legally authorized the Iraq war so all I could do is try to elect a president and Senators who would legally end it.
Convening in a stadium mostly built with municipal (i.e. government) bonds and trotting out successful entrepreneurs to thank Romney and Bain for all the help that got them started is a poor example of self-reliance. It says Staples, Steel Dynamics etc. only succeeded thanks to investor, supplier, employee and consumer contributions IN ADDITION TO (not instead of) its owners notable ones. Successful American businesses are the result of the American economic system, and are therefore community, not individual, achievements.
Community does not mean government. But hey, nothing like drawing a false choice between all or nothing alternatives where "more than one person's involvement" equals proof of the moral supremacy of government solutions, and a straw man position of individual accomplishment defined as accomplishments that relied on nothing from no one else. SOMEBODY ELSE MADE THE FOOD YOU ATE WHILE INVENTING THAT DEVICE IN YOUR HAND_BUILT GARAGE! OMG! YOU ARE TOTALLY RELIANT ON THE COMMUNITY, THEREFORE SOCIALISM WORKS!!!
In republican and democratic states, community DOES mean government, or rather, government means community: Community exists in many other forms than government, but unless one believes all elections rigged, it manifestly exists throughout that one. Collectives mean community; any human collective can be accurately defined as a "a community of individuals," and largely is. Even were that not true, the statement "We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together" covers far more than just government, though it obviously covers that, too. It covers entrepreneurs and investors, as well as employees, consumers and yes, even government.
The only people who made it exclusive to one facet of community are the Republicans who had entrepreneurs and investors on stage to pat each other on the back while employees, consumers and government workers who contributed watched on TV, wondering why the Republican Party does not think them worth mentioning.
Since the Republican National Convention culminated in that admission, what remains to debate? 
Obama's implict claim that someone else is entitled to a claim for the credit and/or profits.That claim was conceded the moment the RNC brought business owners on stage to thank people without whom their success would have been impossible. Now we are just debating whether they included everyone they should have, or whether "Mitt Romney built that."
The road was already built from taxes already paid, the municipal bonds were voluntarily purchased (not that I agree with bonds being sold for such purposes), and the community which enabled all this to happen, was established and built well before the socialist ball got rolling. Government did not create that community, it subsists off of it. Government is more concerned with interfering in the community when it does not meet the racial makeup the government thinks appropriate, or wants to consume substances the government disapproves of it buying and selling, or wants to engage in private business transactions that people who know nothing about business dislike on the grounds that the transactions might make people rich.
The roads were already built and the municipal bonds already bought by whom, the Magical Capitalist Individualism Fairy? How 'bout GOVERNMENT. Government did not create community, no, but community created government as an extension of itself. Or at least you better hope it did; if the US government, at the local, state or federal level, represents any single individual exclusively, I guarantee it is not you.
Your comparison is like saying that anyone who buys health insurance but opposes Obamacare is a hypocrite. Not that there aren't more than their fair share of hypocrites at the RNC (i.e. anyone who opposes or supports some but not all of the various Wars on Abstract Concepts: War on Terror, War on Poverty, War on Drugs etc). Sure we'll trumpet free enterprise and lack of regulation, but pot, oh HELL no! Romney has explicitly declared military cuts off the table, IIRC, but we have no land enemies, and our naval dominance makes the British Empire's Admiralty look like pikers for merely settling for a navy bigger than any two. Ours out-floats the REST OF THE WORLD, but no. THAT government program is untouchable. If the government did not build this country, the greatest in the world (and I dare any speaker at the RNC to say otherwise), why is it okay for government to try building the Happy Democratic Utopias of Iraq & Afghanistan (and presumably Iran)?
Not that it really matters. Chris Christie effectively threw in the towel for the presidential race with a speech that was not so much in support of the Romney 2012 Campaign as the Christie 2016 Campaign.
Not that it really matters. Chris Christie effectively threw in the towel for the presidential race with a speech that was not so much in support of the Romney 2012 Campaign as the Christie 2016 Campaign.
The people built the government, which is an extension and servant of them; it is right there in the first words of our highest national law: "WE THE PEOPLE...." The Framers even wrote it much larger than the rest of the words in case someone was so myopic they thought the federal government some tyrannical individual instead of MANY individuals democratically chosen by all legally voting individuals to represent them.
If that democratically elected government does not do everything you think it should, or does do things you think it should not, that does not mean it is tyranny, it means you should run a more effective campaign in the next election. I am no more fan of adventurism (as distinct from defending the US and its existing overseas interests) than you are, but the Senate legally authorized the Iraq war so all I could do is try to elect a president and Senators who would legally end it.