government is responsible for all successful business

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government.   

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.

[kstatefreak42]

God he's such a dictator.

[DQ12]

Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government.   

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.

[kstatefreak42]

he's saying the internet is not yours and we need to control it.

[slobber]

Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government.   

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.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government.   

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.

[HeinBallz]

didn't realize the government invented the internet.   

[Rage Against the McKee]

didn't realize the government invented the internet.   

They've invented lots of stuff.

[p1k3]

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.

[husserl]

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"   

[HeinBallz]

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.

[DQ12]

Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government.   

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. 

[Stevesie60]

Pretty funny/great to see Dlew12 come in here and speak logically and have the Dunning-Kruger regulars have no idea how to react.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

didn't realize the government invented the internet.   

Saying the govt created the internet is like saying the Wright bros invented the space shuttle.

[sys]

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.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I like to be able to fire people.

[michigancat]

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.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

[quoted author=Dlew12 link=topic=21714.msg560062#msg560062 date=1342456100]

Hard work isn't enough to succeed, you need more government.   

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

[star seed 7]

boy, dlew really buttfucked all the haters here.

[DQ12]

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.

[star seed 7]

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.   

[Stevesie60]

You remember Neo in The Matrix? That's Dlew12 in The Dunning-Kruger Dome.

[HeinBallz]

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.

[HeinBallz]

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.

[chuckjames]

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.