goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 16, 2012, 12:59:44 AM
-
Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government. :dubious:
President Barack Obama addressed supporters in Roanoke, Virginia on Saturday afternoon and took a shot at the business community. President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
-
God he's such a dictator.
-
Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government. :dubious:
President Barack Obama addressed supporters in Roanoke, Virginia on Saturday afternoon and took a shot at the business community. President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
I go out of my way to steer clear of opinionated political types, but it blows my mind how people are making a big deal about this quote.
He's making a standard, pretty elementary, argument against pure libertarianism. Anyone with half a brain would subscribe to the basic argument against pure libertarianism. He's not "attacking" business, he's citing the environment in which our version of capitalism can exist as a positive implication of the validity of his anti-pure libertarianism argument.
He's saying that without all the common, general, benefits our society offers (infrastructure, education, etc), conducting business would be far more difficult. I wouldn't have thought anyone would disagree, because to do so is absolutely stupid.
Further, to say that "President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success" is simply not true and irresponsible:
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
See? "Individual initiative." Right there.
I hate politics and people who do this so much.
-
he's saying the internet is not yours and we need to control it.
-
Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government. :dubious:
President Barack Obama addressed supporters in Roanoke, Virginia on Saturday afternoon and took a shot at the business community. President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
I go out of my way to steer clear of opinionated political types, but it blows my mind how people are making a big deal about this quote.
He's making a standard, pretty elementary, argument against pure libertarianism. Anyone with half a brain would subscribe to the basic argument against pure libertarianism. He's not "attacking" business, he's citing the environment in which our version of capitalism can exist as a positive implication of the validity of his anti-pure libertarianism argument.
He's saying that without all the common, general, benefits our society offers (infrastructure, education, etc), conducting business would be far more difficult. I wouldn't have thought anyone would disagree, because to do so is absolutely stupid.
Further, to say that "President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success" is simply not true and irresponsible:
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
See? "Individual initiative." Right there.
I hate politics and people who do this so much.
You are not trying very hard to go out of your way.
I hate it when people make a statement like that and then try to defend some asinine comment made by an elected official.
-
Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government. :dubious:
President Barack Obama addressed supporters in Roanoke, Virginia on Saturday afternoon and took a shot at the business community. President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
I go out of my way to steer clear of opinionated political types, but it blows my mind how people are making a big deal about this quote.
He's making a standard, pretty elementary, argument against pure libertarianism. Anyone with half a brain would subscribe to the basic argument against pure libertarianism. He's not "attacking" business, he's citing the environment in which our version of capitalism can exist as a positive implication of the validity of his anti-pure libertarianism argument.
He's saying that without all the common, general, benefits our society offers (infrastructure, education, etc), conducting business would be far more difficult. I wouldn't have thought anyone would disagree, because to do so is absolutely stupid.
Further, to say that "President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success" is simply not true and irresponsible:
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
See? "Individual initiative." Right there.
I hate politics and people who do this so much.
So which is it? These two statements are absolutely contrary.
-
didn't realize the government invented the internet. :dunno:
-
didn't realize the government invented the internet. :dunno:
They've invented lots of stuff.
-
people are making a big deal about it because it's amazing to have a sitting president say something so absurd and he still may win the election. Its hilarious and sad. Im just going to sit back and enjoy the band.
-
Why quote so much context if you just want to ignore it? I'm no mind reader, but it seems pretty reasonable that "that" might refer to "this unbelievable American system that we have" :dunno:
-
people are making a big deal about it because it's amazing to have a sitting president say something so absurd and he still may win the election. Its hilarious and sad. Im just going to sit back and enjoy the band.
He "may still win the election" because we're expected to accept the lesser of two evils. In this context, I can only assume the GOP simply doesn't care what anyone wants and to a certain extent, their interest are satisfied just as much if the incumbent stays in as oppose to their puppet getting in.
-
Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government. :dubious:
President Barack Obama addressed supporters in Roanoke, Virginia on Saturday afternoon and took a shot at the business community. President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
I go out of my way to steer clear of opinionated political types, but it blows my mind how people are making a big deal about this quote.
He's making a standard, pretty elementary, argument against pure libertarianism. Anyone with half a brain would subscribe to the basic argument against pure libertarianism. He's not "attacking" business, he's citing the environment in which our version of capitalism can exist as a positive implication of the validity of his anti-pure libertarianism argument.
He's saying that without all the common, general, benefits our society offers (infrastructure, education, etc), conducting business would be far more difficult. I wouldn't have thought anyone would disagree, because to do so is absolutely stupid.
Further, to say that "President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success" is simply not true and irresponsible:
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
See? "Individual initiative." Right there.
I hate politics and people who do this so much.
So which is it? These two statements are absolutely contrary.
He's talking about the general shared goods of our society, like roads, bridges, education.
I have no idea how this statement is at all controversial.
-
Pretty funny/great to see Dlew12 come in here and speak logically and have the Dunning-Kruger regulars have no idea how to react.
-
didn't realize the government invented the internet. :dunno:
Saying the govt created the internet is like saying the Wright bros invented the space shuttle.
-
great post dlew. i hate the people that become intentionally stupid as a debating tactic too. although some of the responses to your post suggest that it may not always be intentional.
-
I like to be able to fire people.
-
great post dlew. i hate the people that become intentionally stupid as a debating tactic too. although some of the responses to your post suggest that it may not always be intentional.
:thumbs:
-
[quoted :weirdrobert: author=Dlew12 link=topic=21714.msg560062#msg560062 date=1342456100]
Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government. :dubious:
President Barack Obama addressed supporters in Roanoke, Virginia on Saturday afternoon and took a shot at the business community. President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
I go out of my way to steer clear of opinionated political types, but it blows my mind how people are making a big deal about this quote.
He's making a standard, pretty elementary, argument against pure libertarianism. Anyone with half a brain would subscribe to the basic argument against pure libertarianism. He's not "attacking" business, he's citing the environment in which our version of capitalism can exist as a positive implication of the validity of his anti-pure libertarianism argument.
He's saying that without all the common, general, benefits our society offers (infrastructure, education, etc), conducting business would be far more difficult. I wouldn't have thought anyone would disagree, because to do so is absolutely stupid.
Further, to say that "President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success" is simply not true and irresponsible:
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
See? "Individual initiative." Right there.
I hate politics and people who do this so much.
So which is it? These two statements are absolutely contrary.
He's talking about the general shared goods of our society, like roads, bridges, education.
I have no idea how this statement is at all controversial.
[/quote]
Why do you feel the need to take B.O. out of context here. That's not at all what he's saying.
Weird how you came full circle from your snotty self righteous little rant. Hypocrite
-
boy, dlew really buttfucked all the haters here.
-
Why do you feel the need to take B.O. out of context here. That's not at all what he's saying.
Weird how you came full circle from your snotty self righteous little rant. Hypocrite
I do not think I took him out of context. I'm genuinely confused.
If what he's saying isn't what I believe it was, I'd be interested to hear (1) what you think he was saying, (2) why he was saying it, (3) why he contradicted himself 3 sentences after he said it and (4) whether or not his apparent argument was in his self interest, .
Secondly, I'm not a hypocrite. Participating in something I dislike, because I feel compelled to do so, doesn't make me a hypocrite. I believe everyone that regularly participates in "discussions" (and I use that word extremely loosely) like the one we're having is prone to polarity, which I think we can all agree, is dangerous. So it's important to keep that in mind when we do it.
I don't believe my argument was snotty or self-righteous, but I regret if it came across that way.
-
Why do you feel the need to take B.O. out of context here. That's not at all what he's saying.
Weird how you came full circle from your snotty self righteous little rant. Hypocrite
I do not think I took him out of context. I'm genuinely confused.
If what he's saying isn't what I believe it was, I'd be interested to hear (1) what you think he was saying, (2) why he was saying it, (3) why he contradicted himself 3 sentences after he said it and (4) whether or not his apparent argument was in his self interest, .
Secondly, I'm not a hypocrite. Participating in something I dislike, because I feel compelled to do so, doesn't make me a hypocrite. I believe everyone that regularly participates in "discussions" (and I use that word extremely loosely) like the one we're having is prone to polarity, which I think we can all agree, is dangerous. So it's important to keep that in mind when we do it.
I don't believe my argument was snotty or self-righteous, but I regret if it came across that way.
don't apolgize to him. :dubious:
-
You remember Neo in The Matrix? That's Dlew12 in The Dunning-Kruger Dome.
-
I don't entirely disagree with your assessment of the quote, but I believe there's a bit I social engineering at play here. There's a sneaky little chess move with the below portion of the quote:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.
It presents an ultimatum that if you're wealthy, you want to give back and if you don't want to, you're greedy i.e. a bad person. Leaving liberals with the opening to call anyone who disagrees with obama's policy as greedy sob's that don't care about anyone, including the people that got them where they are. The best response to this entire quote, IMO, is to ask why is it necessary for the government facilitate giving back? If the wealthy want to give back, they will. And by the virtue of giving, some will derive pleasure from this act. Allowing a government to force this transaction morally robs people from the pleasure they would receive just as much as it financially robs those who are not willing to give back.
In summary, I disagree with general sentiments of his statement. True innovators work within the environment they're in and to say they deserve no credit is preposterous. Indeed Ford would never have invented the mass produced vehicle without the invention of the wheel, But to suggest Ford deserves no credit because they didn't also invent the wheel leads me to ask who are the true innovators? Government would not have "invented the Internet" (what a joke btw) without first inventing electricity. Electricity would not have been invented without the copper wire; and so on.
-
The point I forgot to make as well, comparing emergency services like fire and police response to portions of government that COULD be privatized and run much more efficiently is also ridiculous and doesn't belong in any discussion on a federal level. If a city wants to provide that service, they can. If a state wants to provide roads and highways to facilitate commerce and drive taxes at a local level, they can. But I live in Kansas because I don't agree with some of the tax spending in states like California. Federal discussions on everything he stated above makes people think we're one step closer to a one world government, which is why it's to be expected to see such outrage of such discussions.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
the most frustrating thing about being a liberal is being called a socialist for anything you say. I think most liberals would agree that 90% of things that should be for profit motives. But there are things that just don't work as a for profit motive, healthcare, education, public works etc. The pure free market struggles to fix externalities, pollution for example.
-
So it seems that many people in here agree with the POTUS that, without the government's help, nobody would ever innovate anything, or the government should get some credit for helping.
If you read all of that and don't think POTUS is being the least bit arrogant, then you are blindly following him. I happen to think that innovators innovate in spite of the government in more cases than not, and that is regardless of who is in office. Also, remember that if there is even one instance where the government didn't help in the innovation of the product, the government (taxes) and the rest of us (use of/access to the product) all get the benefit of the product.
I don't recall who made the comment that the rest of us that find fault with that statement are stupid, but if that is the case, then color me stupid.
#stupid
-
The biggest driver of innovation in the 20th century was war...I assume government had something with that innovation.
-
the most frustrating thing about being a liberal is being called a socialist for anything you say. I think most liberals would agree that 90% of things that should be for profit motives. But there are things that just don't work as a for profit motive, healthcare, education, public works etc. The pure free market struggles to fix externalities, pollution for example.
How did the government fix pollution?
-
The biggest driver of innovation in the 20th century was war...I assume government had something with that innovation.
Then I guess POTUS wanted everyone to respond, "THANK YOU FOR THE WARS, GOVERNMENT!"?
-
the most frustrating thing about being a liberal is being called a socialist for anything you say. I think most liberals would agree that 90% of things that should be for profit motives. But there are things that just don't work as a for profit motive, healthcare, education, public works etc. The pure free market struggles to fix externalities, pollution for example.
how do you continue being liberal after someone confronts you with the statement that anything taken by force, by definition, is theft. There are those that don't agree with the way tax dollars are spent. Is it okay to steal from them?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
the most frustrating thing about being a liberal is being called a socialist for anything you say. I think most liberals would agree that 90% of things that should be for profit motives. But there are things that just don't work as a for profit motive, healthcare, education, public works etc. The pure free market struggles to fix externalities, pollution for example.
How did the government fix pollution?
I didn't say government fixed pollution, but I'm saying in a free market there is nothing to to capture the cost of pollution.
-
the most frustrating thing about being a liberal is being called a socialist for anything you say. I think most liberals would agree that 90% of things that should be for profit motives. But there are things that just don't work as a for profit motive, healthcare, education, public works etc. The pure free market struggles to fix externalities, pollution for example.
how do you continue being liberal after someone confronts you with the statement that anything taken by force, by definition, is theft. There are those that don't agree with the way tax dollars are spent. Is it okay to steal from them?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
As a Liberal I was pissed that my tax dollars went to Iraq during Bush's term but I understand "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."
Olivier Wendall Holmes, a republican said that quote.
-
The biggest driver of innovation in the 20th century was war...I assume government had something with that innovation.
Then I guess POTUS wanted everyone to respond, "THANK YOU FOR THE WARS, GOVERNMENT!"?
Im just trying to show that government can lead innovation.
-
Agree - but to suggest that if it wasn't for federal spending - things would never progress is not true. I'm all for state level governance, and I think most people are, but what's good for new York is not necessarily good for Arkansas and they should not be forced to adhere to the same micro managed styled legislature.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
I don't entirely disagree with your assessment of the quote, but I believe there's a bit I social engineering at play here. There's a sneaky little chess move with the below portion of the quote:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.
It presents an ultimatum that if you're wealthy, you want to give back and if you don't want to, you're greedy i.e. a bad person. Leaving liberals with the opening to call anyone who disagrees with obama's policy as greedy sob's that don't care about anyone, including the people that got them where they are. The best response to this entire quote, IMO, is to ask why is it necessary for the government facilitate giving back? If the wealthy want to give back, they will. And by the virtue of giving, some will derive pleasure from this act. Allowing a government to force this transaction morally robs people from the pleasure they would receive just as much as it financially robs those who are not willing to give back.
In summary, I disagree with general sentiments of his statement. True innovators work within the environment they're in and to say they deserve no credit is preposterous. Indeed Ford would never have invented the mass produced vehicle without the invention of the wheel, But to suggest Ford deserves no credit because they didn't also invent the wheel leads me to ask who are the true innovators? Government would not have "invented the Internet" (what a joke btw) without first inventing electricity. Electricity would not have been invented without the copper wire; and so on.
The point I forgot to make as well, comparing emergency services like fire and police response to portions of government that COULD be privatized and run much more efficiently is also ridiculous and doesn't belong in any discussion on a federal level. If a city wants to provide that service, they can. If a state wants to provide roads and highways to facilitate commerce and drive taxes at a local level, they can. But I live in Kansas because I don't agree with some of the tax spending in states like California. Federal discussions on everything he stated above makes people think we're one step closer to a one world government, which is why it's to be expected to see such outrage of such discussions.
First of all, tremendous response. I agree that Obama's quote and general argument may be poor. However, to point to the "...you didn't build that" part is silly and destructive to any intelligent discussion on the topic.
I bolded two parts of your argument. I want to speak on the second one first:
I agree that "to say true innovators deserve no credit" is preposterous. The things is, Obama never said that. Like I pointed out earlier, he literally stated "we succeed because of our individual initiative." But his argument, essentially, is that we don't succeed ONLY because of our individual initiative. We need other things. Namely, a government to help facilitate progress by means of infrastructure, education, and regulation (he never said "regulation", but he didn't have to), and that we shouldn't take that for granted. So, yes, individual initiative is generally necessary but not sufficient to "success."
The first part I bolded isn't very clear. I'm not sure what you mean by "giving back." You used it pretty broadly. For the purposes of this conversation, I'll assume you mean "giving back" as taxes that fund things like social security, social welfare benefits and stuff like that.
Regarding the first bolded area - First of all, your viewpoint and the question you ask is a completely rational one. It's a sound argument that cannot be soundly defeated imo. It's an extremely broad question that asks a ton of philosophical questions. I don't have an absolute answer I'm comfortable with, and I'm not sure one exists. I doubt I'm capable of giving the question you asked an answer it deserves (especially in this medium), but here's a kind of wreckless, hurried attempt to explain my view on the subject:
Not everyone can be rich. In fact, a lot of people can't make enough to support themselves. In many cases, it isn't because they lack initiative or because they're not smart or drugs or whatever, but simple math. Whether our economy isn't capable of eliminating the "have-not" class or maybe some crazy circumstances occurred that was beyond individuals' control or something, there will always be poor people. Our society, our economy isn't this bizarre environment that automatically rewards people based on their amount of effort and intelligence. Guys on wall-street aren't 100x smarter or less lazy than the nurse, or stay at home mom, or whatever. I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. My point is, I think it's true that there are some poor people who are poor through no fault of their own. That's very important. With that in mind, it begs the philosophical question:
Should we, as a society, leave the survival of these (in many cases) innocent have-nots and the survival of their children, up to the altruistic whims of the society's "haves?"
I think that's probably dangerous. I think it's a bit naive and idealistic to imagine that if all social welfare programs were cut, that our country's poor would be in a better state they're currently in. I understand the counter-argument and if we're talking strictly economic liberty, then yeah, it's pretty sound.
However, if we're talking about doing what's best for the poor, then I think assuming a social welfare free society will be altruistic is definitely not the answer.
-
Some parts of his speech may be open for interpretation, but the overall crux of the speech is a call for higher taxes on all business owners. A death knell for the economy.
-
I never said that the federal government is responsible for progress, it's just not the death star that conservitives make it out to be. It actually does some good, and sometimes the federal government has to step in..like in the 1960s with equal rights.
-
Dlew12, you have a brilliant response. One that I wish I could have articulated, but would have been able to. Unfortunately, it is too logical for the people on this board to understand.
-
Dlew12, you have a brilliant response. One that I wish I could have articulated, but would have been able to. Unfortunately, it is too logical for the people on this board to understand.
Get a room. :sdeek:
-
I don't entirely disagree with your assessment of the quote, but I believe there's a bit I social engineering at play here. There's a sneaky little chess move with the below portion of the quote:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.
It presents an ultimatum that if you're wealthy, you want to give back and if you don't want to, you're greedy i.e. a bad person. Leaving liberals with the opening to call anyone who disagrees with obama's policy as greedy sob's that don't care about anyone, including the people that got them where they are. The best response to this entire quote, IMO, is to ask why is it necessary for the government facilitate giving back? If the wealthy want to give back, they will. And by the virtue of giving, some will derive pleasure from this act. Allowing a government to force this transaction morally robs people from the pleasure they would receive just as much as it financially robs those who are not willing to give back.
In summary, I disagree with general sentiments of his statement. True innovators work within the environment they're in and to say they deserve no credit is preposterous. Indeed Ford would never have invented the mass produced vehicle without the invention of the wheel, But to suggest Ford deserves no credit because they didn't also invent the wheel leads me to ask who are the true innovators? Government would not have "invented the Internet" (what a joke btw) without first inventing electricity. Electricity would not have been invented without the copper wire; and so on.
The point I forgot to make as well, comparing emergency services like fire and police response to portions of government that COULD be privatized and run much more efficiently is also ridiculous and doesn't belong in any discussion on a federal level. If a city wants to provide that service, they can. If a state wants to provide roads and highways to facilitate commerce and drive taxes at a local level, they can. But I live in Kansas because I don't agree with some of the tax spending in states like California. Federal discussions on everything he stated above makes people think we're one step closer to a one world government, which is why it's to be expected to see such outrage of such discussions.
First of all, tremendous response. I agree that Obama's quote and general argument may be poor. However, to point to the "...you didn't build that" part is silly and destructive to any intelligent discussion on the topic.
I bolded two parts of your argument. I want to speak on the second one first:
I agree that "to say true innovators deserve no credit" is preposterous. The things is, Obama never said that. Like I pointed out earlier, he literally stated "we succeed because of our individual initiative." But his argument, essentially, is that we don't succeed ONLY because of our individual initiative. We need other things. Namely, a government to help facilitate progress by means of infrastructure, education, and regulation (he never said "regulation", but he didn't have to), and that we shouldn't take that for granted. So, yes, individual initiative is generally necessary but not sufficient to "success."
The first part I bolded isn't very clear. I'm not sure what you mean by "giving back." You used it pretty broadly. For the purposes of this conversation, I'll assume you mean "giving back" as taxes that fund things like social security, social welfare benefits and stuff like that.
Regarding the first bolded area - First of all, your viewpoint and the question you ask is a completely rational one. It's a sound argument that cannot be soundly defeated imo. It's an extremely broad question that asks a ton of philosophical questions. I don't have an absolute answer I'm comfortable with, and I'm not sure one exists. I doubt I'm capable of giving the question you asked an answer it deserves (especially in this medium), but here's a kind of wreckless, hurried attempt to explain my view on the subject:
Not everyone can be rich. In fact, a lot of people can't make enough to support themselves. In many cases, it isn't because they lack initiative or because they're not smart or drugs or whatever, but simple math. Whether our economy isn't capable of eliminating the "have-not" class or maybe some crazy circumstances occurred that was beyond individuals' control or something, there will always be poor people. Our society, our economy isn't this bizarre environment that automatically rewards people based on their amount of effort and intelligence. Guys on wall-street aren't 100x smarter or less lazy than the nurse, or stay at home mom, or whatever. I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. My point is, I think it's true that there are some poor people who are poor through no fault of their own. That's very important. With that in mind, it begs the philosophical question:
Should we, as a society, leave the survival of these (in many cases) innocent have-nots and the survival of their children, up to the altruistic whims of the society's "haves?"
I think that's probably dangerous. I think it's a bit naive and idealistic to imagine that if all social welfare programs were cut, that our country's poor would be in a better state they're currently in. I understand the counter-argument and if we're talking strictly economic liberty, then yeah, it's pretty sound.
However, if we're talking about doing what's best for the poor, then I think assuming a social welfare free society will be altruistic is definitely not the answer.
This, there will always be poor and I think you can make an arguement that laissaez faire economic policy leads to a very small aristocrat class, no middle class and a very big lower class. Very similar to the lat 1800's, early 1900's before the progressive movement.
-
Dlew12, you have a brilliant response. One that I wish I could have articulated, but would have been able to. Unfortunately, it is too logical for the people on this board to understand.
Get a room. :sdeek:
Oh weird, a homophobic republican.
-
Dlew12, you have a brilliant response. One that I wish I could have articulated, but would have been able to. Unfortunately, it is too logical for the people on this board to understand.
Get a room. :sdeek:
Oh weird, a homophobic republican.
LOL you couldn't be more wrong.
-
you're edgy. we get it, jakesie60
-
What are SBA loans and are they in any way businessy?
tia
-
you're edgy. we get it, jakesie60
The homophobic comment was a joke of pure silliness, not trying to take a stab at anybody because it's so ridiculous.
If you are also referring to my "logic" comments, it is a legitimate complaint. It's so difficult to discuss politics because anyone who knows anything has found their information from a biased source. There is no such thing as a media outlet that is not trying to persuade the reader in one direction or another, and therefore everyone just becomes more polarized. I wish that informed liberals could point out flaws in their party, and I wish informed conservatives could do the same. But every member of each party thinks the entire party could crap ice cream because they are so perfect. I really enjoy talking to anyone who can admit the flaws in their party.
So, if I'm being edgy then it is not intended. And if I am then I guess I should just take comfort in the fact that I'm not "trying too hard to be edgy" but simply "edgy".
-
you're edgy. we get it, jakesie60
The homophobic comment was a joke of pure silliness, not trying to take a stab at anybody because it's so ridiculous.
If you are also referring to my "logic" comments, it is a legitimate complaint. It's so difficult to discuss politics because anyone who knows anything has found their information from a biased source. There is no such thing as a media outlet that is not trying to persuade the reader in one direction or another, and therefore everyone just becomes more polarized. I wish that informed liberals could point out flaws in their party, and I wish informed conservatives could do the same. But every member of each party thinks the entire party could crap ice cream because they are so perfect. I really enjoy talking to anyone who can admit the flaws in their party.
So, if I'm being edgy then it is not intended. And if I am then I guess I should just take comfort in the fact that I'm not "trying too hard to be edgy" but simply "edgy".
well, i agree with everything you just wrote. Nevermind.
-
The biggest driver of innovation in the 20th century was war...I assume government had something with that innovation.
Not just the 20th century, but in history. War drives innovation - innovation drives debt - debt creates wealth for bankers. There's a missing link in that cycle that I'll let everyone else connect.
But Sorry... I'm getting off topic. My supreme apologies.
-
the most frustrating thing about being a liberal is being called a socialist for anything you say. I think most liberals would agree that 90% of things that should be for profit motives. But there are things that just don't work as a for profit motive, healthcare, education, public works etc. The pure free market struggles to fix externalities, pollution for example.
how do you continue being liberal after someone confronts you with the statement that anything taken by force, by definition, is theft. There are those that don't agree with the way tax dollars are spent. Is it okay to steal from them?
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
As a Liberal I was pissed that my tax dollars went to Iraq during Bush's term but I understand "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."
Olivier Wendall Holmes, a republican said that quote.
Would you agree with the statements that 40 cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed? Does that borrowed money have interest? Do your taxes pay for services rendered or to pay interest on borrowed money? If nearly all of our federal tax dollars go to interest (that is manipulated by an independent banker - The same banker that has a vested interest in that war you so vehemently disagree with)... do we need a federal income tax?
-
First of all, tremendous response. I agree that Obama's quote and general argument may be poor. However, to point to the "...you didn't build that" part is silly and destructive to any intelligent discussion on the topic.
I bolded two parts of your argument. I want to speak on the second one first:
I agree that "to say true innovators deserve no credit" is preposterous. The things is, Obama never said that. Like I pointed out earlier, he literally stated "we succeed because of our individual initiative." But his argument, essentially, is that we don't succeed ONLY because of our individual initiative. We need other things. Namely, a government to help facilitate progress by means of infrastructure, education, and regulation (he never said "regulation", but he didn't have to), and that we shouldn't take that for granted. So, yes, individual initiative is generally necessary but not sufficient to "success."
The first part I bolded isn't very clear. I'm not sure what you mean by "giving back." You used it pretty broadly. For the purposes of this conversation, I'll assume you mean "giving back" as taxes that fund things like social security, social welfare benefits and stuff like that.
Regarding the first bolded area - First of all, your viewpoint and the question you ask is a completely rational one. It's a sound argument that cannot be soundly defeated imo. It's an extremely broad question that asks a ton of philosophical questions. I don't have an absolute answer I'm comfortable with, and I'm not sure one exists. I doubt I'm capable of giving the question you asked an answer it deserves (especially in this medium), but here's a kind of wreckless, hurried attempt to explain my view on the subject:
Not everyone can be rich. In fact, a lot of people can't make enough to support themselves. In many cases, it isn't because they lack initiative or because they're not smart or drugs or whatever, but simple math. Whether our economy isn't capable of eliminating the "have-not" class or maybe some crazy circumstances occurred that was beyond individuals' control or something, there will always be poor people. Our society, our economy isn't this bizarre environment that automatically rewards people based on their amount of effort and intelligence. Guys on wall-street aren't 100x smarter or less lazy than the nurse, or stay at home mom, or whatever. I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. My point is, I think it's true that there are some poor people who are poor through no fault of their own. That's very important. With that in mind, it begs the philosophical question:
Should we, as a society, leave the survival of these (in many cases) innocent have-nots and the survival of their children, up to the altruistic whims of the society's "haves?"
I think that's probably dangerous. I think it's a bit naive and idealistic to imagine that if all social welfare programs were cut, that our country's poor would be in a better state they're currently in. I understand the counter-argument and if we're talking strictly economic liberty, then yeah, it's pretty sound.
However, if we're talking about doing what's best for the poor, then I think assuming a social welfare free society will be altruistic is definitely not the answer.
Dlew12, my sincerest gratitude for you debating with dignity and respect. You have elevated yourself in my eyes above the rest of the forum as a true intellect and if I have ever treated you disrespectful in the past, or if I ever do in the future - I have forgotten whome I was talking to, and you have my sincerest apologies. We, You and I, can have a civil conversation and I hope to gain perspective through our discussion, and hope to impart some of my own.
As to the insinuated "you didn't build that" statement quoted of Obama - I don't really wish to continue this discussion. My input was rather hollow and not so much directed at the taboo's of Obama's possible insinuation, but as you put it - It is entirely up to interpretation - and I was positioning for anyone that could have taken his statement as I put it. I cede to this particular argument and wish to move on. After all, statements left open to interpretation are nothing but mud slinging fuel and really do nothing to gain traction in the elevation of society.
The issue I am excited to speak about were in regards to the first part you bolded. I’ll be honest, I do not know the context of the original quote, and as to “giving back” – I pulled it directly from the quote, and you and I both arrived upon the same conclusion of helping the impoverished. Surely two intelligent people such as ourselves making the same assumptions can only indicate the accuracy in our assumptions. After all, perception dictates reality.
Anyway, I agree – there will always be the poor and many will arrive at this point through no fault of their own. My issue with the current system is multi-faceted, but it centers around three major themes.
1. Will ALL of society be elevated through this system?
2. Is it treating the cause or the symptom?
3. Is the very nature of our financial structure creating victims that fall into poverty?
Let me answer #1 and #2 with a hopefully short and engaging story. Six years ago I was getting gas at a local Quiktrip and was approached by a clearly poor dirty elderly man who did not ask for money or food. He asked for gasoline. He was traveling to Oklahoma and did not have enough money to make it, and had relegated himself to humility. I’m ashamed to admit that I declined his request. I’ll never forget the look on his face as I turned him down; his hope in humanity was slowly fading through my actions. My initial thought as he approached was: “get a job, you worthless drain on society.” It wasn’t until I was back in my vehicle driving home before I realized what I had done. I was bitter, hateful, and selfish. I tried to think of how I had arrived at such a miserable existence and it occurred to me, that I felt I was doing enough – paying my taxes. “How dare that bad person approach ME and ask for more! Couldn’t he see that I had my work badge on, and I was clearly a tax payer?” I’m still ashamed to repeat that, but that was exactly how I felt when he approached me. That’s how millions of Americans feel – They’re doing their part by keeping their mouth shut and paying their taxes and any request for MORE is met with disgust. I began attempts to change my thought process that day – I decided that 10 dollars in gas meant nothing to me, but could be the difference in 1 man witnessing his grandchild being born. That is how the gift of giving is born. That is how employees of large corporations donate a portion of their income, through their company, to things like “Good Neighbor Fund” A pure charity where 100% of all money and time goes to fund soup kitchens – donates time to build habitat for humanity – and collects donations for “tools for school” an organization that gives school supplies to the impoverished children of Kansas, among many other worthy causes. I’m not saying people will donate to these charities more if they’re not paying taxes, but I am saying it will exponentially decrease the “get a job bad person” mentality. There is a sense of satisfaction and great reward in giving and it drives people to continue giving. Paying taxes robs people of this satisfaction of helping and does nothing for the elevation of all society.
I’m sure some people may be able to construe that as selfishness…. Only giving to feel something in return? But what about the people on the receiving end? How much better does that person feel when they humbly ask for help, and they receive it? They feel WORTHY. It shows them Love. It provides Hope. Hope often translates into opportunity. Opportunity translates into ability to better their life. It treats the cause of poverty, not the symptom. No one wants to be dependant – asking for money, or waiting on a government check. The satisfaction of doing something yourself is eternally rewarding and everyone has that built into them. That is why I question the governments need to facilitate this transaction. People will help, and as a result, I believe people will help themselves more. It can be a hand up, not a hand out.
#3 of my major concerns addresses something you said about everyone’s ability to be wealthy. In this system, I agree, but partially disagree in that it doesn’t have to be that way. Everyone can be wealthy, based off of their own definition of wealth. $30,000 to one, may be as much as $300,000 to some. It’s all relative, but what creates the really enormous gap, and assures that there is a poor class, in my opinion, is the very nature of our financial structure. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, our currency is controlled by a private organization that can print excess of money, inflate the economy – charge interest, then deflate the economy – all with no checks and balances. Right now, as I stated above, we borrow 40% of every government dollar spent. All of that borrowed money is supplied by the federal reserve, who in turn charges interest. The tax money we pay, barely covers the interest alone. So what are we doing? We’re paying off a credit card, with another credit card. Our taxes aren’t even paying for the services we’re being sold on. The debt is never ending. When more debt is created, the banks need more money to loan out, the government borrows more money, the Fed prints more money to give out, charges more interest, creating more debt & the increasing amount of money being printed inflates the dollar making the people printing the money richer and the people spending the money poorer. That’s the argument against Fiat money. People may argue that without being able to manipulate the economy, you cannot stimulate it. This is a lie, propagated by bankers in the early 1900’s and propagated by spreading lies of bankers going bankrupt – which people were weary of. As panic spread, people rushed to the banks to pull out their $$ causing debts to be recalled – causing mass bankruptcy for those who had borried and were not able to pay their debt at a moments notice. The bankers had manipulated the market to advocate for a centralized banking system that would supposedly prevent mass hysteria and fears of bankruptcy. What people forget however, is centralized banking is the very reason the early colonies fought to escape British rule – and we successfully evaded a banker owned government for over 100 years. You can draw whatever assumptions you like, but the facts remain, and no one can argue, that the U.S. dollar is controlled by a private bank who only makes $$ when they loan out $$. If you can accept that, you may start to wonder just what a capitalist that controls the market would do to make a little more. You may question why we pay federal taxes. You may wonder why our public education has gone to crap and kids are taught to pass a test instead of learning to think for themselves. You may wonder why we’re in these countless wars that seem to do nothing but breed hunger for more contracts, more spending, & more control over the world as we chase an elusive possibly non-existent enemy. You may wonder if there are politicians out there thirsting for power that would agree to legislate anything to get it.
I don’t have strong enough convictions in believing anything I insinuated above, at least enough so, to make an ass of myself… but I do wonder. I’m also not going to ask people to believe any of these things above, but I do hope people ask questions.
-
The biggest driver of innovation in the 20th century was war...I assume government had something with that innovation.
also the space race
-
The biggest driver of innovation in the 20th century was war...I assume government had something with that innovation.
also the space race
Which was driven by war.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
The biggest driver of innovation in the 20th century was war...I assume government had something with that innovation.
also the space race
and, captured alien technology
-
The biggest driver of innovation in the 20th century was war...I assume government had something with that innovation.
also the space race
and, captured alien technology
which was driven by the space race
-
Space and war, the two departments B.O. and dems have/want to cut. Think about that libtards. Even when you're pursuing your false premises, mistruths and lies your rough ridin' yourselves. Hilarious.
-
I don't understand your point of view. Who in this thread are the lib tards? Libertarians or liberals? Based on the discussions that have taken place, who is rough ridin' themselves? I may have missed some hypocrisy, but I feel it is more likely that you're confusing posters.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
I don't understand your point of view. Who in this thread are the lib tards? Libertarians or liberals? Based on the discussions that have taken place, who is rough ridin' themselves? I may have missed some hypocrisy, but I feel it is more likely that you're confusing posters.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
God help us all if the libertarians ever start subscribing to the mindless drivel pouring out of B.O. and the libtards mouth.
Anyone one that thinks space and war are the primary drivers of innovation in this era or any other is either hopelessly naive or so indoctrinated, and therefore ignorant, they can't be taken seriously. I just assumed many of the posts concerning the same were tongue-in-cheek.
-
Anyone that thinks any portion of government can lead innovation clearly doesn't know anyone that works for the government.
Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmotorcitytimes.com%2Fmct%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2FObama-you-didnt-build-that.jpg&hash=0839dfa9ac698ee543c436349250e0c2e2dc1734)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTvBL-KoWlletBL5S4kF7Yd5MP1HI6IAP5C8IsX8GxBvhUt81i4Cr9dQqvu&hash=8b2c24f2a6da0de4d3422fa23d7e56d69455bbe0)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcRyPXin9E1K6H96jVe3IU2f8v5wj_kdDONFZnIH3qAsArKhCmHQJMcPkm_AGg&hash=f872842dd57ec44c7ba04aad302915c78704a1a8)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQOipgWgcESakru3KHFGyPvHgVPa4G8rIVXvyO7gHF2sZqZFcQAy5eeTq2q&hash=1658a08b86ad44138b1443eead7c649d336ad4fe)
-
:lol:
-
Maybe if the government did not build all of the frickin' roads, we'd all be flying planes today! :lol:
-
Why do you feel the need to take B.O. out of context here. That's not at all what he's saying.
Weird how you came full circle from your snotty self righteous little rant. Hypocrite
I do not think I took him out of context. I'm genuinely confused.
If what he's saying isn't what I believe it was, I'd be interested to hear (1) what you think he was saying, (2) why he was saying it, (3) why he contradicted himself 3 sentences after he said it and (4) whether or not his apparent argument was in his self interest, .
Secondly, I'm not a hypocrite. Participating in something I dislike, because I feel compelled to do so, doesn't make me a hypocrite. I believe everyone that regularly participates in "discussions" (and I use that word extremely loosely) like the one we're having is prone to polarity, which I think we can all agree, is dangerous. So it's important to keep that in mind when we do it.
I don't believe my argument was snotty or self-righteous, but I regret if it came across that way.
GMAFB. You're comment about "all he's saying" is probably further out of context than Dougie's bait and reel comment.
To read that quote and come up with that interpretation, taken in context, inter alia, with the 3 1/2 years of bitching and moaning about "fair share", the 3 1/2 years of not-so-thinly-veiled class warfare and more recently the ridiculous Jane character, makes you look painfully naive and out of touch. You are either that, or the hypocrite I accused you of.
Do we really need to be reminded that trucks drive on highways and that checks are delivered via the USPS? eff no, that's not at all what he's saying.
If "all he's saying" is that we all benefit from public goods, why frame it so it appears that the "successful" people are just lucky benefactors of public goods and that there's lots of identical people doing the same thing as those "successful" people and it's just not working out? He does it to set up the phony and non-existent social compact which is in danger of being destroyed. The social compact where everyone puts in and benefits in proportionate and "fair shares" (as decided by B.O. and crew), the one he needs to set up his straw man. Unfortunately our country has never been further from this phony social compact, as we have more people putting nothing in while taking more out than ever.
He continues to develop his false premise, that we're all in this together, that we all live by the social compact. He sets up and burns down the liberals' favorite straw man; that all republicans are against public goods, regulation, etc. (as you called it "pure libertarianism"). Nevermind nobody is debating the country needs roads, bridges and education (and he didn't bother with them in his first 3 1/2 years). He does this to confuse the republican opposition to the enormous, damning, social welfare state that already exists, and which he wants to expand, as opposition to so-called public goods*. This of course is to misrepresent that these luck-of-the-draw "successful" people, who would not have anything but for the benefit of the phony social compact (public goods), want to take away the public goods that allowed them to be successful in the first place. That they want to rip away the very lifeblood of success that would otherwise allow those who haven't been successful (lucky) so they can have it all to themselves, on the back of the working man.
It's a horrifically dishonest message. It's also a horrifying look into the vision of our society that our elected leader possesses.
It's these types of speeches, which expose the B.O.'s values and morals and which were kept under wraps until now, that are going to propel Romney into the WH in November. Ironically, Obama is the exact person Fox News portrayed him as, and the more and more he has to talk about something more substantive than Hope and Change, the more people are starting to recognize it and run from it like it has leprosy.
*The part about the government inventing the internet so everyone can make money is so utterly asinine I can't even begin to address it.
-
Similar pov
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/19/trashing_achievements_114842.html
-
GMAFB. You're comment about "all he's saying" is probably further out of context than Dougie's bait and reel comment.
To read that quote and come up with that interpretation, taken in context, inter alia, with the 3 1/2 years of bitching and moaning about "fair share", the 3 1/2 years of not-so-thinly-veiled class warfare and more recently the ridiculous Jane character, makes you look painfully naive and out of touch. You are either that, or the hypocrite I accused you of.
Do we really need to be reminded that trucks drive on highways and that checks are delivered via the USPS? eff no, that's not at all what he's saying.
If "all he's saying" is that we all benefit from public goods, why frame it so it appears that the "successful" people are just lucky benefactors of public goods and that there's lots of identical people doing the same thing as those "successful" people and it's just not working out? He does it to set up the phony and non-existent social compact which is in danger of being destroyed. The social compact where everyone puts in and benefits in proportionate and "fair shares" (as decided by B.O. and crew), the one he needs to set up his straw man. Unfortunately our country has never been further from this phony social compact, as we have more people putting nothing in while taking more out than ever.
He continues to develop his false premise, that we're all in this together, that we all live by the social compact. He sets up and burns down the liberals' favorite straw man; that all republicans are against public goods, regulation, etc. (as you called it "pure libertarianism"). Nevermind nobody is debating the country needs roads, bridges and education (and he didn't bother with them in his first 3 1/2 years). He does this to confuse the republican opposition to the enormous, damning, social welfare state that already exists, and which he wants to expand, as opposition to so-called public goods*. This of course is to misrepresent that these luck-of-the-draw "successful" people, who would not have anything but for the benefit of the phony social compact (public goods), want to take away the public goods that allowed them to be successful in the first place. That they want to rip away the very lifeblood of success that would otherwise allow those who haven't been successful (lucky) so they can have it all to themselves, on the back of the working man.
It's a horrifically dishonest message. It's also a horrifying look into the vision of our society that our elected leader possesses.
It's these types of speeches, which expose the B.O.'s values and morals and which were kept under wraps until now, that are going to propel Romney into the WH in November. Ironically, Obama is the exact person Fox News portrayed him as, and the more and more he has to talk about something more substantive than Hope and Change, the more people are starting to recognize it and run from it like it has leprosy.
*The part about the government inventing the internet so everyone can make money is so utterly asinine I can't even begin to address it.
I typed a pretty long winded and annoying response that I felt uncomfortable with, upon re-reading it, when I think we could progress this discussion more efficiently if you answer the 4 questions in the post you quoted. I'm not trying to be an bad person, I just think I could better understand your argument if you said exactly what you thought Obama meant and why he was arguing it, why he contradicted himself, and whether it was in his own self-interest.
Before you do, though, I'd like to reiterate that I don't think BO's (sic) argument was necessarily at all profound or new or worthwhile, only that I think that what he was arguing wasn't to the effect of "business owners are in no way responsible for building their businesses." Which, to my understanding, is what most of his criticizers (in this instance) are claiming his argument was. If I'm wrong about that*, I'm happy to concede that we both agree on the subject.
*when I say "that" I'm referring specifically to the opinions of those with whom i disagree with about their analysis of the President's argument. There seems to be some serious confusion focusing solely on the subject of demonstrative pronouns in this whole argument, so I'm trying to be as specific as possible here.
-
I think the nonsensical contradictory statements can be explained quite easily. It seems his teleprompter was inoperable that day due to the rain.
-
Why do you feel the need to take B.O. out of context here. That's not at all what he's saying.
Weird how you came full circle from your snotty self righteous little rant. Hypocrite
I do not think I took him out of context. I'm genuinely confused.
If what he's saying isn't what I believe it was, I'd be interested to hear (1) what you think he was saying, (2) why he was saying it, (3) why he contradicted himself 3 sentences after he said it and (4) whether or not his apparent argument was in his self interest, .
Secondly, I'm not a hypocrite. Participating in something I dislike, because I feel compelled to do so, doesn't make me a hypocrite. I believe everyone that regularly participates in "discussions" (and I use that word extremely loosely) like the one we're having is prone to polarity, which I think we can all agree, is dangerous. So it's important to keep that in mind when we do it.
I don't believe my argument was snotty or self-righteous, but I regret if it came across that way.
GMAFB. You're comment about "all he's saying" is probably further out of context than Dougie's bait and reel comment.
To read that quote and come up with that interpretation, taken in context, inter alia, with the 3 1/2 years of bitching and moaning about "fair share", the 3 1/2 years of not-so-thinly-veiled class warfare and more recently the ridiculous Jane character, makes you look painfully naive and out of touch. You are either that, or the hypocrite I accused you of.
Do we really need to be reminded that trucks drive on highways and that checks are delivered via the USPS? eff no, that's not at all what he's saying.
If "all he's saying" is that we all benefit from public goods, why frame it so it appears that the "successful" people are just lucky benefactors of public goods and that there's lots of identical people doing the same thing as those "successful" people and it's just not working out? He does it to set up the phony and non-existent social compact which is in danger of being destroyed. The social compact where everyone puts in and benefits in proportionate and "fair shares" (as decided by B.O. and crew), the one he needs to set up his straw man. Unfortunately our country has never been further from this phony social compact, as we have more people putting nothing in while taking more out than ever.
He continues to develop his false premise, that we're all in this together, that we all live by the social compact. He sets up and burns down the liberals' favorite straw man; that all republicans are against public goods, regulation, etc. (as you called it "pure libertarianism"). Nevermind nobody is debating the country needs roads, bridges and education (and he didn't bother with them in his first 3 1/2 years). He does this to confuse the republican opposition to the enormous, damning, social welfare state that already exists, and which he wants to expand, as opposition to so-called public goods*. This of course is to misrepresent that these luck-of-the-draw "successful" people, who would not have anything but for the benefit of the phony social compact (public goods), want to take away the public goods that allowed them to be successful in the first place. That they want to rip away the very lifeblood of success that would otherwise allow those who haven't been successful (lucky) so they can have it all to themselves, on the back of the working man.
It's a horrifically dishonest message. It's also a horrifying look into the vision of our society that our elected leader possesses.
It's these types of speeches, which expose the B.O.'s values and morals and which were kept under wraps until now, that are going to propel Romney into the WH in November. Ironically, Obama is the exact person Fox News portrayed him as, and the more and more he has to talk about something more substantive than Hope and Change, the more people are starting to recognize it and run from it like it has leprosy.
*The part about the government inventing the internet so everyone can make money is so utterly asinine I can't even begin to address it.
Honestly enjoyed about 80% of this post as well thought out position, the rest is asinine dribbling that makes all conservatives look like idiots. I really like the class warfare argument...I mean its not like your corporate master haven't been leveling that gun at middle America for the past 10 years.
The rest is just a distortion of history. The staple industries in America which spur innovation, investment, and growth are entirely there because of US government intervention. My favorite is using rail roads and autos. The only reasonable response to some of your claims is the willy wonka meme.
-
Honestly enjoyed about 80% of this post as well thought out position, the rest is asinine dribbling that makes all conservatives look like idiots. I really like the class warfare argument...I mean its not like your corporate master haven't been leveling that gun at middle America for the past 10 years.
The rest is just a distortion of history. The staple industries in America which spur innovation, investment, and growth are entirely there because of US government intervention. My favorite is using rail roads and autos. The only reasonable response to some of your claims is the willy wonka meme.
80% well thought has to be some kind of record for the Pit. Thanks.
Also thanks for inserting another libtard favorite strawman, the corpoboogieman.
Seriously, I don't think anyone with a brain is unwilling to recognize the endless class warfare drivel pouring out of B.O.'s mouth, Seriously.
Your comment re: government intervention is hilariously analogous to B.O.'s speech. Confuse innovation and intervention as the same thing. Plug in strawman that someone is arguing against public goods like roads, a line item which equals less than 1% of the fed budget, and then credit the government with everything. So Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
Nevermind nobody is debating the country needs roads, bridges and education (and he didn't bother with them in his first 3 1/2 years).
The ARRA 2009 set aside $100 billion for education and nearly $50 billion for transportation, the majority went to highways and bridges. :dunno:
-
Nevermind nobody is debating the country needs roads, bridges and education (and he didn't bother with them in his first 3 1/2 years).
The ARRA 2009 set aside $100 billion for education and nearly $50 billion for transportation, the majority went to highways and bridges. :dunno:
I saw somewhere that our infrastructure is a D-. It was needed. Education can suck it.
-
If mitt romney hadn't sent all our jobs overseas we wouldn't be in this mess.
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/romney-to-olympic-athletes-you-didnt-win-that.html
-
probably lukes
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/570621/romneys-you-didnt-build-that-attack-ad-stars-businessman-who-received-millions-in-government-money/?mobile=nc
maybe the right can get their head's out of their ass' before launching an attack add with someone that violates the principles they are fighting for.
-
probably lukes
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/570621/romneys-you-didnt-build-that-attack-ad-stars-businessman-who-received-millions-in-government-money/?mobile=nc
maybe the right can get their head's out of their ass' before launching an attack add with someone that violates the principles they are fighting for.
lol's
also, love how well romey's "we did build this" rolls off the tongue.
-
probably lukes
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/570621/romneys-you-didnt-build-that-attack-ad-stars-businessman-who-received-millions-in-government-money/?mobile=nc
maybe the right can get their head's out of their ass' before launching an attack add with someone that violates the principles they are fighting for.
lol's
also, love how well romey's "we did build this" rolls off the tongue.
Sounds socialist.
-
I wonder if Romeny, savior of the Salt Lake Olympics, did it by himself as well....he only received the most federal dollars....EVER for the games (even discounting federal road monies which were coming anyway).
-
didn't realize the government invented the internet. :dunno:
Saying the govt created the internet is like saying the Wright bros invented the space shuttle.
Good call Fake Sugar Dick....because in fact, government played a huge role in funding, developing, and building the space shuttle. Not to mention many governments who pooled resources for the Int. Space Station.
-
Wow
-
probably lukes
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/570621/romneys-you-didnt-build-that-attack-ad-stars-businessman-who-received-millions-in-government-money/?mobile=nc
maybe the right can get their head's out of their ass' before launching an attack add with someone that violates the principles they are fighting for.
Stupid. Being bright enough to use all of the tools put in front of you is smart business. Not taking advantage of it puts you at a disadvantage. And doing work for the government is just that, work.
-
probably lukes
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/23/570621/romneys-you-didnt-build-that-attack-ad-stars-businessman-who-received-millions-in-government-money/?mobile=nc
maybe the right can get their head's out of their ass' before launching an attack add with someone that violates the principles they are fighting for.
Stupid. Being bright enough to use all of the tools put in front of you is smart business. Not taking advantage of it puts you at a disadvantage. And doing work for the government is just that, work.
Thinkprogress is some kind of crazy never seen before. An awkward stream of irrational consciousness.
Unsurprisingly, bookouts sole source of info. Must be weird living in unreality.