# "You didn't get there on your own"



## Mac1958

.

Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."

On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.

This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.

Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.

*Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*

.


----------



## Sallow

It's not mocking anything.

That's the truth.


----------



## OODA_Loop

You had to drive on the road you previously and continuously paid for by being taxed to get to work in order to succeed therefore more government is the answer and the reason for your success?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Democrats are finally admitting they're Socialists/Communists!

Praise Allah!


----------



## Mr. H.

So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?

And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?


----------



## Mac1958

CrusaderFrank said:


> Democrats are finally admitting they're Socialists/Communists!
> 
> Praise Allah!




Yikes.

I think the foundational issue is...

All, hell with it.

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dems 2012: Embrace your inner Mao!


----------



## tinydancer

The "Class warfare strategy" isn't working. The latest Gallup poll is a testament to Obama's failure to make Romney's wealth an issue.

And other polls show that the average blue collar working is not going to be cheering The O on like they did last time. His popularity is dropping like a stone. 

*"An overwhelming majority of voters &#8211; 75 percent &#8211; say that Mitt Romney&#8217;s $200 million net worth makes no difference in their choice between him and President Barack Obama, according to a new Gallup poll.

Meanwhile, 20 percent of voters say Romney&#8217;s wealth makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Breaking it down by party affiliation, among Republicans, 89 percent say Romney&#8217;s riches make no difference, 8 percent say they are a reason to vote for him, and 4 percent say they are a reason to vote against him. Among Democrats, 62 percent don&#8217;t care about Romney&#8217;s wealth, 37 percent say it&#8217;s a negative factor, and 1 percent say it&#8217;s positive.

The sentiment of independents may be most important, as they are likely to decide the election&#8217;s outcome. In this demographic 76 are indifferent to Romney&#8217;s wealth, 19 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Gallup: Majority Say Romney&#8217;s Wealth Won&#8217;t Affect Their Vote

*http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-obama-election-wealth/2012/07/12/id/445125

*Insert links, not just references or posts will be deleted. Thanks.*


----------



## boilermaker55

Mr. H. said:


> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?



Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mac1958 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are finally admitting they're Socialists/Communists!
> 
> Praise Allah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> I think the foundational issue is...
> 
> All, hell with it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise


----------



## OODA_Loop

boilermaker55 said:


> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.



Infrastructure is paid for by tax dollars.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama's centrally planned, free enterprise hating economy has worked so well, we should do more...amiright?


----------



## Stephanie

I'm sure all the BUSINESS people in the country LOVE hearing this shit from Obama

UnFrikenbelievable

please vote this Progressive idiot out


----------



## CrusaderFrank

And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American

Dems are the American't Party


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. The economy is in the crap-per, and no one is to blame but Obama now.
2. His constant attack on rich people make him a hypocrite, for he is rich.
3. He stole his way to where he is, and fraud-ed his constituents, and the general public.
4. Why he is not impeached is beyond me.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## RDD_1210

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. The economy is in the crap-per, and no one is to blame but Obama now.
> 2. His constant attack on rich people make him a hypocrite, for he is rich.
> 3. He stole his way to where he is, and fraud-ed his constituents, and the general public.
> 4. Why he is not impeached is beyond me.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas



1. I fucking love your posts.


----------



## salem.hills

It was a stupid thing to say? and we can hold that national conversation in November.


----------



## bripat9643

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



They may not do it entirely on their own, but how does that entitle the federal government to anything they earn?  The federal government doesn't buy what they produce.  They pay far more int taxes than the value of the services they receive from the government.

This argument is just another rationalization for parasites to take another bite from the hides of productive Americans.


----------



## Truthmatters

CrusaderFrank said:


> Democrats are finally admitting they're Socialists/Communists!
> 
> Praise Allah!



was the cumberland road a commy plot?


----------



## bripat9643

boilermaker55 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
Click to expand...


Even if that's the case, how does that justify government taking more of what you earn?  What did government do that it hasn't already been paid to do?


----------



## Truthmatters

National Road - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Road

Construction of the Cumberland Road (which later became part of the National Road) was authorized on March 29, 1806, by President Thomas Jefferson. The Cumberland Road would replace the Braddock Road for travel between the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, following roughly the same alignment until just east of Uniontown, Pennsylvania. From there, where the Braddock Road turned north to Pittsburgh, the Cumberland Road would continue west to Wheeling, West Virginia (then part of Virginia), also on the Ohio River.

The contract for the construction of the first section was awarded to Henry McKinley on May 8, 1811,[3] and construction began later that year, with the road reaching Wheeling on August 1, 1818


----------



## Dr Grump

RDD_1210 said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. The economy is in the crap-per, and no one is to blame but Obama now.
> 2. His constant attack on rich people make him a hypocrite, for he is rich.
> 3. He stole his way to where he is, and fraud-ed his constituents, and the general public.
> 4. Why he is not impeached is beyond me.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I fucking love your posts.
Click to expand...


I stopped reading them a long time ago. If I wanted to listen to that type of drivel I'd tune in to Fox and listen to Hannity or Beck (when he was on)...I do watch O'Reilly on occasion though - when I need a good laugh at a grown man making a fool of himself on national tv


----------



## CrusaderFrank

This is what happens when you have a President and political party that hates America


----------



## Truthmatters

Yeap that jefferson was a real commie huh?


----------



## Stephanie

Dr Grump said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. The economy is in the crap-per, and no one is to blame but Obama now.
> 2. His constant attack on rich people make him a hypocrite, for he is rich.
> 3. He stole his way to where he is, and fraud-ed his constituents, and the general public.
> 4. Why he is not impeached is beyond me.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I fucking love your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading them a long time ago. If I wanted to listen to that type of drivel I'd tune in to Fox and listen to Hannity or Beck (when he was on)...I do watch O'Reilly on occasion though - when I need a good laugh at a grown man making a fool of himself on national tv
Click to expand...


who cares?


----------



## Katzndogz

Words the government hates:

Thank God 

Words the government loves:

Thank government.

More people are successful in spite of the government than because of it.


----------



## copsnrobbers

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dems 2012: Embrace your inner Mao!



Anita Dunn......... Commie Lover, Fan of the mass murderer.


----------



## Mr. H.

boilermaker55 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
Click to expand...


Republican? I'm a business owner, fighting to keep what I've earned by among other things paying for the labor and effort of others. You think there's no "labor and effort" in owning and operating a business? Typical of a democrat.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Sallow said:


> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.



What's truthful about it?


----------



## RDD_1210

Dr Grump said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. The economy is in the crap-per, and no one is to blame but Obama now.
> 2. His constant attack on rich people make him a hypocrite, for he is rich.
> 3. He stole his way to where he is, and fraud-ed his constituents, and the general public.
> 4. Why he is not impeached is beyond me.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I fucking love your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading them a long time ago. If I wanted to listen to that type of drivel I'd tune in to Fox and listen to Hannity or Beck (when he was on)...I do watch O'Reilly on occasion though - when I need a good laugh at a grown man making a fool of himself on national tv
Click to expand...


Well you described 95% of the posts on this site. His are extra special because there is obviously something "off" with him and everytime he posts it makes me imagine what his deal is. 

I'm constantly torn between some sort of mental illness that isn't crippling enough to keep him off the computer or perhaps he is in some sort of group home and he's typing his posts from the community computer in the rec room. I don't know, but I love imagining.


----------



## RDD_1210

Stephanie said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I fucking love your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading them a long time ago. If I wanted to listen to that type of drivel I'd tune in to Fox and listen to Hannity or Beck (when he was on)...I do watch O'Reilly on occasion though - when I need a good laugh at a grown man making a fool of himself on national tv
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who cares?
Click to expand...


You do, otherwise why would you comment?


----------



## salem.hills

I'm honestly dumbfounded how anyone with a brain can rationalize taxing more knowing its a sword in our heart. I'm ready for the shish to hit the fan if it happens we just have to many indoctrinated and dumb in the USA?  That's the only logical answer! or am I wrong? I'm suppose to want to work until August 15th instead of today  for  the liberal anti constitutional corrupt governnent? OK but I don't


----------



## RDD_1210

Katzndogz said:


> Words the government hates:
> 
> Thank God
> 
> Words the government loves:
> 
> Thank government.
> 
> More people are successful in spite of the government than because of it.



Words you hate.

Personal Responsibility.

Freedom.

Honesty.

Facts.


----------



## bripat9643

Truthmatters said:


> Yeap that jefferson was a real commie huh?



How does building roads entitle the federal government to a bigger piece of my hide?


----------



## GuyPinestra

Truthmatters said:


> National Road - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Road
> 
> Construction of the Cumberland Road (which later became part of the National Road) was authorized on March 29, 1806, by President Thomas Jefferson. The Cumberland Road would replace the Braddock Road for travel between the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, following roughly the same alignment until just east of Uniontown, Pennsylvania. From there, where the Braddock Road turned north to Pittsburgh, the Cumberland Road would continue west to Wheeling, West Virginia (then part of Virginia), also on the Ohio River.
> 
> The contract for the construction of the first section was awarded to Henry McKinley on May 8, 1811,[3] and construction began later that year, with the road reaching Wheeling on August 1, 1818



What, they haven't paid for that road YET???


----------



## Skull Pilot

boilermaker55 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
Click to expand...


So did your hard work make my business thrive?

Did you risk any of your money to start my business?

Did you put in 80 hours a week for the past 5 years building my business?

Are you paying my employees and my bills so  my business can stay open?

If you're not then who exactly is keeping my business open if it's not me?


----------



## copsnrobbers

tinydancer said:


> The "Class warfare strategy" isn't working. The latest Gallup poll is a testament to Obama's failure to make Romney's wealth an issue.
> 
> And other polls show that the average blue collar working is not going to be cheering The O on like they did last time. His popularity is dropping like a stone.
> 
> *"An overwhelming majority of voters  75 percent  say that Mitt Romneys $200 million net worth makes no difference in their choice between him and President Barack Obama, according to a new Gallup poll.
> 
> Meanwhile, 20 percent of voters say Romneys wealth makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.
> 
> Breaking it down by party affiliation, among Republicans, 89 percent say Romneys riches make no difference, 8 percent say they are a reason to vote for him, and 4 percent say they are a reason to vote against him. Among Democrats, 62 percent dont care about Romneys wealth, 37 percent say its a negative factor, and 1 percent say its positive.
> 
> The sentiment of independents may be most important, as they are likely to decide the elections outcome. In this demographic 76 are indifferent to Romneys wealth, 19 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.
> 
> Read more on Newsmax.com: Gallup: Majority Say Romneys Wealth Wont Affect Their Vote
> 
> *



Obama wasn't all that wealthy when he was elected. He made 4 mil last year while still president. 

He never spent a day in the business world.

A community organizer........... You dicks that voted for him have caused us a world of shit.
You vote for him again and he wins, that shit is going to reek. Don't be blind sided again,


----------



## Stephanie

bripat9643 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeap that jefferson was a real commie huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does building roads entitle the federal government to a bigger piece of my hide?
Click to expand...


I always love when they throw that one out there.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Stephanie said:


> I'm sure all the BUSINESS people in the country LOVE hearing this shit from Obama
> 
> UnFrikenbelievable
> 
> please vote this Progressive idiot out



What do you expect from a guy who never had a real job and certainly never risked everything he had to open a business?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."


Perhaps. 

But the president is also telling the truth; their success is predicated not only on the labor and efforts of others, but on the public sectors contributions as well. From providing roads to transport raw materials and fished products, to educating and training their workforce, and yes, to the regulatory policy that protects business from its worst enemy: itself.


----------



## Mac1958

bripat9643 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may not do it entirely on their own, but how does that entitle the federal government to anything they earn?  The federal government doesn't buy what they produce.  They pay far more int taxes than the value of the services they receive from the government.
> 
> This argument is just another rationalization for parasites to take another bite from the hides of productive Americans.
Click to expand...



What I'm not sure about is the context. I'm assuming that this is part of the argument for higher taxes on the wealthy, which would fall under what you're saying.  Essentially that the wealthy, whom conservatives say are the job creators, owe it to their employees to even things out more than they are.

My point is that this approach seems new, and that it flies right in the face of what Republicans feel is their strength.  An example of this working in the opposite direction would have been if Romney had told the NAACP, obviously a Dem stronghold, that they need to challenge American blacks to take more responsibility.  Imagine the response he would have received.

In both cases, it's a conversation worth having.

.


----------



## OODA_Loop

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But the president is also telling the truth; their success is predicated not only on the labor and efforts of others, but on the public sectors contributions as well. From providing roads to transport raw materials and fished products, to educating and training their workforce, and yes, to the regulatory policy that protects business from its worst enemy: itself.



Public sector doesn't PROVIDE anything.

It takes.  Then administers.  Poorly.


----------



## RDD_1210

Skull Pilot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure all the BUSINESS people in the country LOVE hearing this shit from Obama
> 
> UnFrikenbelievable
> 
> please vote this Progressive idiot out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect from a guy who never had a real job and certainly never risked everything he had to open a business?
Click to expand...


What has Romney risked? Besides being labeled as consistent.


----------



## OODA_Loop

RDD_1210 said:


> What has Romney risked? Besides being labeled as consistent.



The very capital you excoriate him for succeeding with.


----------



## RDD_1210

OODA_Loop said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has Romney risked? Besides being labeled as consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very capital you excoriate him for succeeding with.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Skull Pilot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps.
> 
> But the president is also telling the truth; their success is predicated not only on the labor and efforts of others, but on the public sectors contributions as well. From providing roads to transport raw materials and fished products, to educating and training their workforce, and yes, to the regulatory policy that protects business from its worst enemy: itself.
Click to expand...


You fail to mention that business owners paid their share for those roads.  You also fail to mention that businesses that ship freight over the roads pay higher taxes for the use of those roads than do the average driver.

And I don't but any finished goods from the government because the government doesn't produce finished goods.

As far as education goes I haven't had too many employees that I didn't have to provide some remedial training for.  In fact i find that most HS grads can barely spell or do simple math.  I spend hours every week correcting mistakes on the day sheets and sales reports.

And regulatory policy does not help businesses it just makes it more expensive to stay open therefore it makes your products and services more expensive.


----------



## Mr. H.

Truthmatters said:


> National Road - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Road
> 
> Construction of the Cumberland Road (which later became part of the National Road) was authorized on March 29, 1806, by President Thomas Jefferson. The Cumberland Road would replace the Braddock Road for travel between the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, following roughly the same alignment until just east of Uniontown, Pennsylvania. From there, where the Braddock Road turned north to Pittsburgh, the Cumberland Road would continue west to Wheeling, West Virginia (then part of Virginia), also on the Ohio River.
> 
> The contract for the construction of the first section was awarded to Henry McKinley on May 8, 1811,[3] and construction began later that year, with the road reaching Wheeling on August 1, 1818



I own commercial property fronting the original National Road. 

Fully leased. 

For sale.

Cheap.


----------



## Truthmatters

Stephanie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeap that jefferson was a real commie huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does building roads entitle the federal government to a bigger piece of my hide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always love when they throw that one out there.
Click to expand...


where does the money for roads come from in this country?


----------



## Katzndogz

Mr. H. said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republican? I'm a business owner, fighting to keep what I've earned by among other things paying for the labor and effort of others. You think there's no "labor and effort" in owning and operating a business? Typical of a democrat.
Click to expand...


To democrats, you owe them for the very air you breathe.


----------



## Skull Pilot

RDD_1210 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure all the BUSINESS people in the country LOVE hearing this shit from Obama
> 
> UnFrikenbelievable
> 
> please vote this Progressive idiot out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect from a guy who never had a real job and certainly never risked everything he had to open a business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has Romney risked? Besides being labeled as consistent.
Click to expand...


Why do you assume I am supporting Romney when I criticize Bam Bam?


----------



## OODA_Loop

RDD_1210 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has Romney risked? Besides being labeled as consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very capital you excoriate him for succeeding with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


You need a link to show Romney risked capital and was enriched by it so much he lives on capital gains ?


----------



## CandySlice

When did making money in this country become a crime? I thought the whole IDEA was to achieve and succeeed. Just because a few have nots are jealous their thing didn't work out is no reason to condemn the rest of the country to standing in line for Gov't hand outs.

Obama has done NOTHING for this country except attempting to make us more dependent on Big Gov.


In Nov, out he goes!!


----------



## Truthmatters

who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?


who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.

who would put the fire out if it caught fire?


How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?


who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?


Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?


----------



## RDD_1210

Skull Pilot said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect from a guy who never had a real job and certainly never risked everything he had to open a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has Romney risked? Besides being labeled as consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you assume I am supporting Romney when I criticize Bam Bam?
Click to expand...


I don't. I was just asking a question. Because I don't see much of a difference in the two.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Truthmatters said:


> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?
> 
> 
> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.
> 
> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?
> 
> 
> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?
> 
> 
> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?
> 
> 
> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?



All provided by pre-paid tax dollars by those working to succeed and business to be administered poorly by .gov in most cases.


----------



## RDD_1210

OODA_Loop said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very capital you excoriate him for succeeding with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a link to show Romney risked capital and was enriched by it so much he lives on capital gains ?
Click to expand...


I meant the part where I excoriated him for it.


----------



## OODA_Loop

RDD_1210 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show Romney risked capital and was enriched by it so much he lives on capital gains ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant the part where I excoriated him for it.
Click to expand...


YOU was collective.


----------



## Mr. H.

Truthmatters said:


> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?
> 
> 
> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.
> 
> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?
> 
> 
> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?
> 
> 
> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?
> 
> 
> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?



Who's the black private dick
That's a sex machine to all the chicks?

Who is the man
That would risk his neck for his brother man?

Who's the cat that won't cop out
When there's danger all about?


----------



## RDD_1210

OODA_Loop said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show Romney risked capital and was enriched by it so much he lives on capital gains ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant the part where I excoriated him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU was collective.
Click to expand...


Oh I see, sweeping generalizations again. Just like YOU always like to do.


----------



## peach174

Truthmatters said:


> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?
> 
> 
> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.
> 
> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?
> 
> 
> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?
> 
> 
> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?
> 
> 
> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?




Yeah Right TM
No Republican ever pays taxes.
Prove that Republicans pay zero taxes.


----------



## Murf76

When are you libs going to give up and stop defending this moron?  What does it take to recognize incompetence??? 

Every time he gets off-prompter his utter ignorance and naive ideology is on display for everyone to see.  You people already KNOW that small businesses are taxed to frigging perdition.  *94% of our taxes are paid by the top 20% of taxpayers*.  They're paying more than enough for the use of infrastructure, which btw. belongs to us all and NOT the federal government.  Small businesses are not only taxed on their real estate property, but on their inventories, their labor, licensing, and countless other ways.  You people SAY you're for the little guy and against big, "heartless", corporations but everything you stand for, higher taxes, more regulations, SUPPORTS big business.  The little guy doesn't have a cadre of lawyers guiding him through the jungle of tax and regulatory law.

We DO NOT have a revenue problem.  Since 1965, revenue has tripled, and that's in adjusted dollars.  But spending has more than quintupled.  The interest on our debt alone will be a trillion dollars ANNUALLY by the end of the decade.  Go ahead, count to a trillion sometime.  It would only take you in excess of 32,000 years by some estimates. 

Math doesn't lie, folks.  But Obama does.  He's standing there, bold as brass, LYING when he insists that these people aren't doing their "fair share".  They're doing it ALL, and yet he wants to rob them of more.


----------



## Truthmatters

peach174 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?
> 
> 
> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.
> 
> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?
> 
> 
> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?
> 
> 
> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?
> 
> 
> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah Right TM
> No Republican ever pays taxes.
> Prove that Republicans pay zero taxes.
Click to expand...


your whole world revolves arround trying to NOT pay any taxes.


face what you believe is people should not have to pay taxes anymore if they dont want to.


----------



## Katzndogz

Truthmatters said:


> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?
> 
> 
> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.
> 
> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?
> 
> 
> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?
> 
> 
> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?
> 
> 
> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?



That would be the business owners who pay taxes.  The poor who pay no taxes at all, contributed nothing but get to use all of those benefits for free.

The federal government built the interstate highway system by the use of pay as you go bonds.  No part of the road was built before the bonds were paid.    Neat, that means only the rich paid for the roads.  Maybe only the rich should get to use them.   Local infrastructure is paid for largely by property taxes.   Rich people own property.  Maybe the rich should be the only ones that can direct where their money goes.  Maybe the vote should only belong to property owners.

Who does pay for teaching the kids who grow up to be employees?   Public school teaches kids nothing as the illiteracy rate among high school graduates.   It's only 31% among COLLEGE graduates!   So whoever is teaching future employees would be private schools used by the rich to send their children.    

Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline

Literacy experts and educators say they are stunned by the results of a recent adult literacy assessment, which shows that the reading proficiency of college graduates has declined in the past decade, with no obvious explanation. 

"It's appalling -- it's really astounding," said Michael Gorman, president of the American Library Association and a librarian at California State University at Fresno. "Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That's not saying much for the remainder

Democrats are destroyers.   Who ever is successful are those who can struggle beyond the destruction.  In spite of it, not because of it.


----------



## Truthmatters

Murf76 said:


> When are you libs going to give up and stop defending this moron?  What does it take to recognize incompetence???
> 
> Every time he gets off-prompter his utter ignorance and naive ideology is on display for everyone to see.  You people already KNOW that small businesses are taxed to frigging perdition.  *94% of our taxes are paid by the top 20% of taxpayers*.  They're paying more than enough for the use of infrastructure, which btw. belongs to us all and NOT the federal government.  Small businesses are not only taxed on their real estate property, but on their inventories, their labor, licensing, and countless other ways.  You people SAY you're for the little guy and against big, "heartless", corporations but everything you stand for, higher taxes, more regulations, SUPPORTS big business.  The little guy doesn't have a cadre of lawyers guiding him through the jungle of tax and regulatory law.
> 
> We DO NOT have a revenue problem.  Since 1965, revenue has tripled, and that's in adjusted dollars.  But spending has more than quintupled.  The interest on our debt alone will be a trillion dollars ANNUALLY by the end of the decade.  Go ahead, count to a trillion sometime.  It would only take you in excess of 32,000 years by some estimates.
> 
> Math doesn't lie, folks.  But Obama does.  He's standing there, bold as brass, LYING when he insists that these people aren't doing their "fair share".  They're doing it ALL, and yet he wants to rob them of more.



why do you spend your entire life trying to lick the ass of the likes of robmoneys five sons?


----------



## Truthmatters

Katzndogz said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?
> 
> 
> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.
> 
> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?
> 
> 
> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?
> 
> 
> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?
> 
> 
> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the business owners who pay taxes.  The poor who pay no taxes at all, contributed nothing but get to use all of those benefits for free.they are customers and you cant squeeze blood out of a turnip, You seem to think debtors prison would be a good idea
> 
> The federal government built the interstate highway system by the use of pay as you go bonds.  No part of the road was built before the bonds were paid.    Neat, that means only the rich paid for the roads.  Maybe only the rich should get to use them.   Local infrastructure is paid for largely by property taxes.   Rich people own property.  Maybe the rich should be the only ones that can direct where their money goes.  Maybe the vote should only belong to property owners.why is it you think only rich people pay taxes? Do you understand all infrastructure must be not only built but maintaned?
> 
> Who does pay for teaching the kids who grow up to be employees?   Public school teaches kids nothing as the illiteracy rate among high school graduates.   It's only 31% among COLLEGE graduates!   So whoever is teaching future employees would be private schools used by the rich to send their children. maybe we should invest in schools like we used to when we got great results from public schools
> 
> Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline
> 
> Literacy experts and educators say they are stunned by the results of a recent adult literacy assessment, which shows that the reading proficiency of college graduates has declined in the past decade, with no obvious explanation.
> 
> "It's appalling -- it's really astounding," said Michael Gorman, president of the American Library Association and a librarian at California State University at Fresno. "Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That's not saying much for the remainderthat is what happens when you teach to the test instead of teaching kids to access information and think
> 
> Democrats are destroyers.   Who ever is successful are those who can struggle beyond the destruction.  In spite of it, not because of it.
Click to expand...




your a partisan idiot who refuses to understand what your endless desire for tax cuts does to our infrastructure


----------



## CandySlice

Truthmatters said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you libs going to give up and stop defending this moron?  What does it take to recognize incompetence???
> 
> Every time he gets off-prompter his utter ignorance and naive ideology is on display for everyone to see.  You people already KNOW that small businesses are taxed to frigging perdition.  *94% of our taxes are paid by the top 20% of taxpayers*.  They're paying more than enough for the use of infrastructure, which btw. belongs to us all and NOT the federal government.  Small businesses are not only taxed on their real estate property, but on their inventories, their labor, licensing, and countless other ways.  You people SAY you're for the little guy and against big, "heartless", corporations but everything you stand for, higher taxes, more regulations, SUPPORTS big business.  The little guy doesn't have a cadre of lawyers guiding him through the jungle of tax and regulatory law.
> 
> We DO NOT have a revenue problem.  Since 1965, revenue has tripled, and that's in adjusted dollars.  But spending has more than quintupled.  The interest on our debt alone will be a trillion dollars ANNUALLY by the end of the decade.  Go ahead, count to a trillion sometime.  It would only take you in excess of 32,000 years by some estimates.
> 
> Math doesn't lie, folks.  But Obama does.  He's standing there, bold as brass, LYING when he insists that these people aren't doing their "fair share".  They're doing it ALL, and yet he wants to rob them of more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you spend your entire life trying to lick the ass of the likes of robmoneys five sons?
Click to expand...


Truth ya know I love ya but why is it whenever an argument (and two damn good ones, right here by the way) comes up all  the libs can do is reference ass-licking or some nonsense? I WANT a strong country. I'm not a socialist and I refuse to become one.
Why can't THAT be the argumnet instead of something better heard on a playground?


----------



## Murf76

Truthmatters said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?
> 
> 
> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.
> 
> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?
> 
> 
> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?
> 
> 
> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?
> 
> 
> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah Right TM
> No Republican ever pays taxes.
> Prove that Republicans pay zero taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your whole world revolves arround trying to NOT pay any taxes.
> 
> 
> face what you believe is people should not have to pay taxes anymore if they dont want to.
Click to expand...


Well, actually... that would be John Kerry, who docked his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid taxation in his own state.  Come to think of it, didn't he have it built overseas as well? 
Sen. Kerry docks yacht in R.I., saves on taxes - politics - msnbc.com


----------



## peach174

Truthmatters said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?
> 
> 
> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.
> 
> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?
> 
> 
> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?
> 
> 
> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?
> 
> 
> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah Right TM
> No Republican ever pays taxes.
> Prove that Republicans pay zero taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your whole world revolves arround trying to NOT pay any taxes.
> 
> 
> face what you believe is people should not have to pay taxes anymore if they dont want to.
Click to expand...


Liar
Prove it


----------



## blackhawk

Yes a business owners success is determined in part by the people who work for them but let's remember it is the business owner who picks and hires the people who work for them and it's up to them to hire smart, dedicated, quality people. The business owner is also the one who decides on the direction of the company and is the person who takes most if not all the financial risk at the end of the day it is really the decisions of the owner that determines there businesses success or failure.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Truthmatters said:


> your a partisan idiot who refuses to understand what your endless desire for tax cuts does to our infrastructure



Poor administration and allocation of tax dollars harms infrastructure not lack of tax funds.


----------



## Vel

Truthmatters said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does building roads entitle the federal government to a bigger piece of my hide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always love when they throw that one out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where does the money for roads come from in this country?
Click to expand...


From the backs of business. Where the hell else do you think it comes from? Obama's stash perhaps?


----------



## Full-Auto

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



We can say with certainty he didnt.

He made his like most democrats .......off the back of a tax payer.


----------



## Katzndogz

TM what you are saying is that the poor are customers, but only if I give them the money to be customers first.

It makes sense only to a democrat.  

Even if it was true that schools were teaching to the test, a student would first have to be able to read the test.

You can't win no matter how hard you try.   Because your premise is wrong.


----------



## Murf76

Truthmatters said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you libs going to give up and stop defending this moron?  What does it take to recognize incompetence???
> 
> Every time he gets off-prompter his utter ignorance and naive ideology is on display for everyone to see.  You people already KNOW that small businesses are taxed to frigging perdition.  *94% of our taxes are paid by the top 20% of taxpayers*.  They're paying more than enough for the use of infrastructure, which btw. belongs to us all and NOT the federal government.  Small businesses are not only taxed on their real estate property, but on their inventories, their labor, licensing, and countless other ways.  You people SAY you're for the little guy and against big, "heartless", corporations but everything you stand for, higher taxes, more regulations, SUPPORTS big business.  The little guy doesn't have a cadre of lawyers guiding him through the jungle of tax and regulatory law.
> 
> We DO NOT have a revenue problem.  Since 1965, revenue has tripled, and that's in adjusted dollars.  But spending has more than quintupled.  The interest on our debt alone will be a trillion dollars ANNUALLY by the end of the decade.  Go ahead, count to a trillion sometime.  It would only take you in excess of 32,000 years by some estimates.
> 
> Math doesn't lie, folks.  But Obama does.  He's standing there, bold as brass, LYING when he insists that these people aren't doing their "fair share".  They're doing it ALL, and yet he wants to rob them of more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you spend your entire life trying to lick the ass of the likes of robmoneys five sons?
Click to expand...


Refusing to "lick the ass" of Barack Obama and his socialist cronies in Washington doesn't mean anyone has to "lick the ass" of another candidate by default.  Only dedicated "ass-lickers" would think in those terms.  Certainly not freedom-loving people who actually DO believe in equal treatment under the law.

Again, math doesn't lie.  Dispute the fact that 94% of taxes are paid by the top-earning 20% if you can.  Otherwise, they're already paying MORE than their "fair share".


----------



## CandySlice

My grandfather was a millionaire several times over. When he died the Federal Gov DECIMATED his lifes work. Don't tell me the rich don't pay because it's utter CRAP.


----------



## Katzndogz

It was never about paying a fair share.  It's about getting a fair share.  It is about a tax rate high enough to reduce what people can keep.   If we had a tax of 99% but the very rich still made over a million dollars a year, it wouldn't be a fair share compared to someone who made $20,000 a year and paid no taxes at all.


----------



## Vel

Obama continues to demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of how economies are formed and how they function. Commerce has existed long before government. 

My family came to what is now Tennessee in the 1700's. There were no roads, no stores, no towns and no government and yet they survived and thrived. They engaged in commerce with others who came that way. They didn't need government to build their business.

 Barack Obama needs to realize that the PEOPLE created government. Government did not create the American people. Governments job is to SERVE the people, not command them.


----------



## Vel

Skull Pilot said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect from a guy who never had a real job and certainly never risked everything he had to open a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has Romney risked? Besides being labeled as consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you assume I am supporting Romney when I criticize Bam Bam?
Click to expand...


Well Skull, if you're not supporting Romney, I suggest you consider it. Obama has got to go.


----------



## boilermaker55

Skull Pilot said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did your hard work make my business thrive?
> 
> Did you risk any of your money to start my business?
> 
> Did you put in 80 hours a week for the past 5 years building my business?
> 
> Are you paying my employees and my bills so  my business can stay open?
> 
> If you're not then who exactly is keeping my business open if it's not me?
Click to expand...


Exactly what I am saying. You are taking all of the credit. The answer is right in front of your narcissistic  face.
No one is taking away your effort or your responsibility yet you refuse to credit all the others that helped make a company successful.
If you cannot see that then you prove my point oh! so well.


----------



## Full-Auto

Murf76 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you libs going to give up and stop defending this moron?  What does it take to recognize incompetence???
> 
> Every time he gets off-prompter his utter ignorance and naive ideology is on display for everyone to see.  You people already KNOW that small businesses are taxed to frigging perdition.  *94% of our taxes are paid by the top 20% of taxpayers*.  They're paying more than enough for the use of infrastructure, which btw. belongs to us all and NOT the federal government.  Small businesses are not only taxed on their real estate property, but on their inventories, their labor, licensing, and countless other ways.  You people SAY you're for the little guy and against big, "heartless", corporations but everything you stand for, higher taxes, more regulations, SUPPORTS big business.  The little guy doesn't have a cadre of lawyers guiding him through the jungle of tax and regulatory law.
> 
> We DO NOT have a revenue problem.  Since 1965, revenue has tripled, and that's in adjusted dollars.  But spending has more than quintupled.  The interest on our debt alone will be a trillion dollars ANNUALLY by the end of the decade.  Go ahead, count to a trillion sometime.  It would only take you in excess of 32,000 years by some estimates.
> 
> Math doesn't lie, folks.  But Obama does.  He's standing there, bold as brass, LYING when he insists that these people aren't doing their "fair share".  They're doing it ALL, and yet he wants to rob them of more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you spend your entire life trying to lick the ass of the likes of robmoneys five sons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refusing to "lick the ass" of Barack Obama and his socialist cronies in Washington doesn't mean anyone has to "lick the ass" of another candidate by default.  Only dedicated "ass-lickers" would think in those terms.  Certainly not freedom-loving people who actually DO believe in equal treatment under the law.
> 
> Again, math doesn't lie.  Dispute the fact that 94% of taxes are paid by the top-earning 20% if you can.  Otherwise, they're already paying MORE than their "fair share".
Click to expand...


You nailed TM

DEDICATED ASS LICKER.

Good job............


----------



## Skull Pilot

Truthmatters said:


> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?



I have a private septic system that I paid 30,000 dollars to have installed and I pay to have it pumped out every year.

I also have a private will with a 2500 dollar filtration system that I paid for and maintain




> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.



FYI police don't stop people from getting robbed all they do is show up after people are robbed and most of the time they never catch the crooks.  I pay for an alarm monitoring company and i installed video and audio surveillance. 



> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?



My local volunteer fire department to which I donate generously every year




> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?



I pay my share for roads.  And people who are in the business of delivering freight pay more taxes than average citizens that are supposed to be for roads.



> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?



If you ever hired a recent high school grad you would wonder who the hell teaches them because they ain't too bright.




> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?



Why is it that liberals sheep feel they should get credit for someone else's success in business?


----------



## Skull Pilot

RDD_1210 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has Romney risked? Besides being labeled as consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume I am supporting Romney when I criticize Bam Bam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't. I was just asking a question. Because I don't see much of a difference in the two.
Click to expand...


Romney ran a business that by all benchmarks was very successful.  

I still won't vote for him but IMO he would be a better choice if even marginally so.


----------



## JoeNormal

CrusaderFrank said:


> This is what happens when you have a President and political party that hates America



We can always count on you for an in-depth analysis of the days events.


----------



## EriktheRed

Mac1958 said:


> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.



Speaking of which....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu61aU4N8mM]Elizabeth Warren Announces Her Bid for Senate - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## EriktheRed

Mac1958 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are finally admitting they're Socialists/Communists!
> 
> Praise Allah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> I think the foundational issue is...
> 
> All, hell with it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That's the right approach to dealing with Frank. Actually, you could improve on it by not responding at all.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JoeNormal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you have a President and political party that hates America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can always count on you for an in-depth analysis of the days events.
Click to expand...


While _"hates America"_ is too strong, I think _"wants to fundamently change America"_ is accurate to coin the words of his spouse.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

EriktheRed said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which....
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu61aU4N8mM]Elizabeth Warren Announces Her Bid for Senate - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


She has some high cheekbones!


----------



## healthmyths

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



TAXES?????  Who pays taxes?  

as far as "effort" from labor and "others"...
A) labor gets paid for their effort or they won't work.  Their only concern that a business succeeds is that their paycheck is secured!
B) "others"  who are the Others????


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcFDF87-SdQ&feature=player_detailpage]Elizabeth Warren on The Myth of Class Warfare: Nobody Got Rich on His Own... - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## OODA_Loop

I'll bet Romney has paid more in tax and created more jobs than Steven King.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Lakhota said:


> Elizabeth Warren on The Myth of Class Warfare: Nobody Got Rich on His Own... - YouTube



Liz Warren: Still not an Indian


----------



## OODA_Loop

To disingenuously use Native American heritage as means of self-promotional advantage and advancement based on the scant evidence she relied upon cuts to the quick with alot of honest folks.

It further undermines her credibility on matters where she may put forth accurate criticism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sallow said:


> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.



Spoken like a person who's never contributed anything to anything, other than body heat to the room.

Only a damned fool looks at successful business owners and says, "You're taking more out of the system than you're putting into it."


----------



## Cecilie1200

boilermaker55 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
Click to expand...


Just like a Democrat to think there's nothing more to becoming a successful business owner than "having an idea".

If you think YOU are putting more into someone's successful business than they are, you're narcissistic to the point of delusional.

Why don't you tell us what this "truth" is that you've airily dismissed us as being unable to see?  'Cause you know what "there's no way to make you see the truth" means when I hear the likes of you saying it?  It means, "I'm full of shit, and I know it, but I'm hoping I can bluff you into believing I have something important to say."

So if you really believe you've got some "truth" to show us, pony up and show it.  Otherwise, your bluff's been called, and you lose.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps.
> 
> But the president is also telling the truth; their success is predicated not only on the labor and efforts of others, but on the public sectors contributions as well. From providing roads to transport raw materials and fished products, to educating and training their workforce, and yes, to the regulatory policy that protects business from its worst enemy: itself.
Click to expand...


Considering how much red tape, aggravation, and hassle the public sector adds to the life of anyone trying to do more than be a wage slave, I think their "contribution" to that effort is, at best, a wash.

And how about YOU consider how much business owners add to the system, compared to what they take out?  First, they're providing a shit-ton more in taxes to fund all those lovely roads and schools than individuals are, and everyone gets to profit from them, don't they?  (By the way, most transport is done by private business, not the vaunted "public sector".)  Second, they provide jobs to all those people, so that they don't move away and take their taxes with them.  Third, they provide goods and services for those individual people to purchase.  Fourth, it's very common for businesses, large and small, to put some of their advertising dollars toward community programs that support things like athletic programs for kids and community donation programs for the poor.

And you're contributing what to their success again?  Your measly pittance of taxes, the value of which you MORE than get back through your own use of public resources?  Your grudging attendance at work, where you do as little as you can possibly get away with because you don't think your paycheck is worth a full effort?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Truthmatters said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does building roads entitle the federal government to a bigger piece of my hide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always love when they throw that one out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where does the money for roads come from in this country?
Click to expand...


Taxpayers, and businesses pay more taxes than you do, Sparkles.  Businesses pay more taxes even than PRODUCTIVE people,let alone you.


----------



## Mac1958

.

One of these days a partisan ideologue is going to tell me how they have a vice-like grip on The Truth and I'm gonna barf right on their shoes.  I won't mean to, it will just happen.  I hope they're wearing sandals at that moment, holy crap, seriously.  

.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



And just when we thought he couldn't possibly be any more clueless.....


----------



## Cecilie1200

Truthmatters said:


> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?



And they pay for it through their taxes, don't they?  In fact, they pay enough in taxes to subsidize YOUR usage of the sewer system, too.  Or did you really think your personal taxes were enough to cover your share?



Truthmatters said:


> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.



Yeah, ask any store owner how much good the cops are doing at "making sure they don't get robbed."  Ask them about the insurance premiums they have to pay to cover theft because the cops are "making sure they don't get robbed."

By the way, Sparkles, they ALSO pay for the cops in their taxes, plus subsidizing YOUR use of law enforcement as well.  Once again, they pay a shit-ton more than you do, and get exactly the same amount of "service".



Truthmatters said:


> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?



Same answer, punkin.  More taxes for the same service you're getting.




Truthmatters said:


> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?



Did you know that trucking companies pay A LOT MORE in taxes that goes to roads than the average four-wheeler driver does?  And you'd best believe they're passing that cost on to the customers.  And YOU PERSONALLY could just walk to the store if you didn't have roads.  It used to be quite common in urban areas, back before the automobile boom led people to move to the suburbs.



Truthmatters said:


> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?



Judging by the amazing amount of illiteracy in this country, I'd say no one.  But still and again, individuals are benefitting from this more than businesses are, and more directly, and yet they don't pay nearly as much for it.



Truthmatters said:


> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?



Why is it that leftists want everyone else to provide a society for them, and then whine that they aren't being given enough?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Truthmatters said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> who runs the sewer systems that keep the private business owners land from filling with shit or flooding when it rains?
> 
> 
> who polices the area to make sure they dont get robbbed.
> 
> who would put the fire out if it caught fire?
> 
> 
> How would the customer get to the property if the roads where not there?
> 
> 
> who teaches the kids that grow up to be their employees?
> 
> 
> Why is it republicans dont want to take part in society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah Right TM
> No Republican ever pays taxes.
> Prove that Republicans pay zero taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your whole world revolves arround trying to NOT pay any taxes.
> 
> 
> face what you believe is people should not have to pay taxes anymore if they dont want to.
Click to expand...


No, lately our world revolves around trying not to pay taxes to support YOUR lazy ass, while being told ALL of our taxes are going to "roads and cops and firemen".  Yeah?  How much of the NEA's budget goes to roads and cops and firemen?  How much of the Department of Agriculture's budget goes there (they administer the Food Stamp program, for those who don't know)?

And then lazy shits like you, who lounge around enjoying all the things that other people's tax dollars pay for, want to tell us that we're greedy because we're sick of being soaked to support your lifestyle and "compassion".

Face it.  What you believe is that the government should just own everything, and give us all an allowance to live on.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Truthmatters said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you libs going to give up and stop defending this moron?  What does it take to recognize incompetence???
> 
> Every time he gets off-prompter his utter ignorance and naive ideology is on display for everyone to see.  You people already KNOW that small businesses are taxed to frigging perdition.  *94% of our taxes are paid by the top 20% of taxpayers*.  They're paying more than enough for the use of infrastructure, which btw. belongs to us all and NOT the federal government.  Small businesses are not only taxed on their real estate property, but on their inventories, their labor, licensing, and countless other ways.  You people SAY you're for the little guy and against big, "heartless", corporations but everything you stand for, higher taxes, more regulations, SUPPORTS big business.  The little guy doesn't have a cadre of lawyers guiding him through the jungle of tax and regulatory law.
> 
> We DO NOT have a revenue problem.  Since 1965, revenue has tripled, and that's in adjusted dollars.  But spending has more than quintupled.  The interest on our debt alone will be a trillion dollars ANNUALLY by the end of the decade.  Go ahead, count to a trillion sometime.  It would only take you in excess of 32,000 years by some estimates.
> 
> Math doesn't lie, folks.  But Obama does.  He's standing there, bold as brass, LYING when he insists that these people aren't doing their "fair share".  They're doing it ALL, and yet he wants to rob them of more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you spend your entire life trying to lick the ass of the likes of robmoneys five sons?
Click to expand...


The alternative is to be an ignorant, lazy, greedy dipshit like you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

boilermaker55 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did your hard work make my business thrive?
> 
> Did you risk any of your money to start my business?
> 
> Did you put in 80 hours a week for the past 5 years building my business?
> 
> Are you paying my employees and my bills so  my business can stay open?
> 
> If you're not then who exactly is keeping my business open if it's not me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly what I am saying. You are taking all of the credit. The answer is right in front of your narcissistic  face.
> No one is taking away your effort or your responsibility yet you refuse to credit all the others that helped make a company successful.
> If you cannot see that then you prove my point oh! so well.
Click to expand...


They already credit those assholes more than they deserve by paying their taxes for all the services that you leftist idiots now want applause for, AND paying enough to subsidize everyone ELSE having those services, too.


----------



## Cecilie1200

OODA_Loop said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you have a President and political party that hates America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can always count on you for an in-depth analysis of the days events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While _"hates America"_ is too strong, I think _"wants to fundamently change America"_ is accurate to coin the words of his spouse.
Click to expand...


One doesn't try to "fundamentally change" something that one loves as it is.  So I think "hates" is perfectly accurate.


----------



## Cecilie1200

OODA_Loop said:


> I'll bet Romney has paid more in tax and created more jobs than Steven King.



Dunno about the taxes.  Stephen King is pretty damned rich himself, and most of his money comes from investments, so he's paying capital gains tax, not income.

Created more jobs?  Definitely.


----------



## Dante

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.


----------



## tererun

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



How is this going to backfire?

First off Romney did not even come close to making it on his own. His parents and grandparents made it for him, and even they had to actually run a business. 

The only businesses I know who make it on the hard work and sweat of their owners might be self owned and run businesses with no employees, but even they probably have help from friends, things like the SBA, the government, and they rely on their customers. 

If mittens wants to claim he, and he alone, did it then the Obama campaign will have a field day showing his completely misplaced ideas, and that he doesn't care about anyone but himself, and certainly does not care about the people he trashed while at Bain. 

It is actually a well planned attack. If Mittens tries to claim he cares about his workers they have some soundbites from him to run against pictures of people who's lives he destroyed at Bain. If Romney ignores it they can go along the line that Romney is way out of touch. If Romney's ego takes over and he declares he is the sole reason for his success they can slam him with the fact he inherited most of it and destroyed the people underneath him.


----------



## Mac1958

tererun said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this going to backfire?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway.

As I pointed out, the danger is that he's _appearing _to do precisely what the GOP has been accusing him of:  Being anti-business.  No, I'm saying he is anti-business, I'm talking about image, which is pretty much what politics has deteriorated into.  The GOP will almost certainly try to bang on this, and we'll see what happens.  My guess is that Obama's attacks will be relatively effective, but then I also thought the Broncos were going to the Super Bowl last year.

.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.



How does that entitle the federal government or welfare parasites one additional dime of my money?

Apparently you like to spout meaningless platitudes.


----------



## bripat9643

tererun said:


> How is this going to backfire?
> 
> First off Romney did not even come close to making it on his own. His parents and grandparents made it for him, and even they had to actually run a business.



Again, how does that justify raising taxes on the rich?



tererun said:


> The only businesses I know who make it on the hard work and sweat of their owners might be self owned and run businesses with no employees, but even they probably have help from friends, things like the SBA, the government, and they rely on their customers.



ROFL!  Most successful businesses do not get small business loans or help from the government.  Solyndra is the kind of business that gets government assistance.  The main talent of the executives of such businesses is schmoozing politicians and bureaucats rather then producing a superior product. 



tererun said:


> If mittens wants to claim he, and he alone, did it then the Obama campaign will have a field day showing his completely misplaced ideas, and that he doesn't care about anyone but himself, and certainly does not care about the people he trashed while at Bain.



If liberal numbskulls like you and Obama want to claim that capitalists aren't entitled to the money the receive, then you unmask yourselves as Marxists who despise capitalism and private property.  I doubt that message will go over well with the majority of voters.



tererun said:


> It is actually a well planned attack. If Mittens tries to claim he cares about his workers they have some soundbites from him to run against pictures of people who's lives he destroyed at Bain. If Romney ignores it they can go along the line that Romney is way out of touch.



They've already tried both approaches and both have fallen flat.



tererun said:


> If Romney's ego takes over and he declares he is the sole reason for his success they can slam him with the fact he inherited most of it and destroyed the people underneath him.



Romney has never claimed any such thing.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that entitle the federal government or welfare parasites one additional dime of my money?
> 
> Apparently you like to spout meaningless platitudes.
Click to expand...


go take a suck pill


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that entitle the federal government or welfare parasites one additional dime of my money?
> 
> Apparently you like to spout meaningless platitudes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go take a suck pill
Click to expand...



I didn't think you would have any kind of comeback.


----------



## tererun

bripat9643 said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this going to backfire?
> 
> First off Romney did not even come close to making it on his own. His parents and grandparents made it for him, and even they had to actually run a business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how does that justify raising taxes on the rich?
Click to expand...


I did not say it did. That is a whole different issue, please stop trying to deflect. Obama is very correct in showing Romney, or any rich person in his position, did not make it there on their own. Please try to keep up with the actual argument, if you want to make a new on, or in this case the same old bullshit, make another post. 


bripat9643 said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only businesses I know who make it on the hard work and sweat of their owners might be self owned and run businesses with no employees, but even they probably have help from friends, things like the SBA, the government, and they rely on their customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Most successful businesses do not get small business loans or help from the government.  Solyndra is the kind of business that gets government assistance.  The main talent of the executives of such businesses is schmoozing politicians and bureaucats rather then producing a superior product.
Click to expand...


Actually, many small businesses that become big start up with loans. The SBAS offers up insured loans for businesses with good ideas that have trouble getting financing from the government. Also, depending on what your business is you may be able to get grants from the government. Don't fool yourself, large businesses make an effort to get corporate welfare from the government. Any good businessperson knows risking uncle sam's money is a hell of a lot better than risking your own. Even Bain capital has taken government money, and i also operates off the investments of other people. Bain has never run on Mitt and Mitt alone. 

Your statements show you have little to no experience in small business ownership. I have so before you start making claims full of complete shit based off your assumptions or what some guy on the news has told you, I actually know what i talk about from experience. Seriously, did you really think an example of one company out of the millions that exists, which you even got wrong, supports anything you say? 




bripat9643 said:


> If liberal numbskulls like you and Obama want to claim that capitalists aren't entitled to the money the receive, then you unmask yourselves as Marxists who despise capitalism and private property.  I doubt that message will go over well with the majority of voters.



Again you are going off into nowhereland with shitty rhetoric based on what some guy at fix noise told you. This is just a distraction based on a point i never even made. Romney did not do shit on his own and you can shout things like marxist and other catch phrases all day long, it certainly does not help your point. Had you not gone down the stupid knee jerk republican reaction you might know i have personally made a lot of money on making my own businesses. So yeah, I am a capitalist, and a much better one than you are. 


bripat9643 said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is actually a well planned attack. If Mittens tries to claim he cares about his workers they have some soundbites from him to run against pictures of people who's lives he destroyed at Bain. If Romney ignores it they can go along the line that Romney is way out of touch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've already tried both approaches and both have fallen flat.
Click to expand...


Yes, to your mind they have, i have no doubt. But your mind was already made up, and Obama could be god himself and you would still stick your head in the sand to avoid the truth. 


bripat9643 said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Romney's ego takes over and he declares he is the sole reason for his success they can slam him with the fact he inherited most of it and destroyed the people underneath him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney has never claimed any such thing.
Click to expand...


I did not say he did. perhaps your problem is you do not understand english?


----------



## Dr Grump

CandySlice said:


> I'm not a socialist and I refuse to become one.
> Why can't THAT be the argumnet instead of something better heard on a playground?



Well don't become one. There are none in your govt at the moment either. People accusing Obama of being a socialist don't know the meaning of the word...


----------



## Inthemiddle

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are finally admitting they're Socialists/Communists!
> 
> Praise Allah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> I think the foundational issue is...
> 
> All, hell with it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
Click to expand...


The foundational issue is that you are a liar.  You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism.  What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.  The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti  holding a ton of feathers.


----------



## Moonglow

well you know that all rich people paved all the roads they needed to become a rich. It's the poor people that don't contribute enough roads for the rich to build their business on.


----------



## Moonglow

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that entitle the federal government or welfare parasites one additional dime of my money?
> 
> Apparently you like to spout meaningless platitudes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go take a suck pill
Click to expand...


I am sure he does not give that much in taxes.


----------



## Avatar4321

So he thinks telling people that he is responsible for their greatest achievements is really going to be a good selling point?


----------



## Avatar4321

Inthemiddle said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> I think the foundational issue is...
> 
> All, hell with it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar.  You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism.  What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.  The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti  holding a ton of feathers.
Click to expand...


Any progressives are doing exactly that. What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?


----------



## Moonglow

Avatar4321 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar.  You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism.  What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.  The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti  holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any progressives are doing exactly that. What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?
Click to expand...


fortunately not a theocracy, but don't worry, when you die you can go to hevean where you will be in utopian communstic sytem under God.


----------



## Avatar4321

Moonglow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar.  You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism.  What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.  The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti  holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any progressives are doing exactly that. What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fortunately not a theocracy, but don't worry, when you die you can go to hevean where you will be in utopian communstic sytem under God.
Click to expand...


God doesnt run a communist system.

Nice attempt to dodge though. Progressives progress towards socialism/communism. It's historical fact that that is their goal. They argue for evolution versus revolution of the new economic order.


----------



## Dr Grump

Avatar4321 said:


> God doesnt run a communist system.
> 
> Nice attempt to dodge though. Progressives progress towards socialism/communism. It's historical fact that that is their goal. They argue for evolution versus revolution of the new economic order.



What type of system is it? A benevolent dictatorship?


----------



## grunt11b

I expected to hear rubbish like this coming out of the idiot in the oval offices mouth. Of course he never worked a day in his life in the private sector and the only knowledge he has of business is what he was indoctrinated to think in colleges like Occidental.  I am actually surprised people are really that bored enough to listen to anything he says anymore. 
 One must be very sick in the head to listen and believe anything that comes from this mans mouth anymore. Sick indeed.


----------



## Mac1958

Inthemiddle said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> I think the foundational issue is...
> 
> All, hell with it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar.  You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism.  What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.  The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti  holding a ton of feathers.
Click to expand...



The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types.  Therefore:

Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them.  Keeps things nice and simple.

Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.

.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Mac1958 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar.  You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism.  What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.  The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti  holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types.  Therefore:
> 
> Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
> Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
> Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
> It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them.  Keeps things nice and simple.
> 
> Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The dimwitcraps are just as bad.

If one wants to cut the size, cost and intrusiveness of government then they are anarchists that want poor people to starve.

So don't get too high on that soap box.


----------



## Mac1958

Skull Pilot said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar.  You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism.  What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.  The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti  holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types.  Therefore:
> 
> Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
> Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
> Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
> It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them.  Keeps things nice and simple.
> 
> Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dimwitcraps are just as bad.
> 
> If one wants to cut the size, cost and intrusiveness of government then they are anarchists that want poor people to starve.
> 
> So don't get too high on that soap box.
Click to expand...



I was responding to a post.  As I've droned on and on about, I'm not a fan of either end of the political spectrum.   Right now, however, it appears to me that the GOP is clearly the more rigid party.  The fact that they've somehow put Romney out there, however, also shows it's a party that's off the rails.  Any party that can make Pelosi & Co. look reasonable and moderate is fucked up, big time.

I remain hopeful that it will get past this soon, as America needs the two parties to work together, stat.

.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Mac1958 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types.  Therefore:
> 
> Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
> Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
> Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
> It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them.  Keeps things nice and simple.
> 
> Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dimwitcraps are just as bad.
> 
> If one wants to cut the size, cost and intrusiveness of government then they are anarchists that want poor people to starve.
> 
> So don't get too high on that soap box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to a post.  As I've droned on and on about, I'm not a fan of either end of the political spectrum.   Right now, however, it appears to me that the GOP is clearly the more rigid party.  The fact that they've somehow put Romney out there, however, also shows it's a party that's off the rails.  Any party that can make Pelosi & Co. look reasonable and moderate is fucked up, big time.
> 
> I remain hopeful that it will get past this soon, as America needs the two parties to work together, stat.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What we need is a third party that will forever end the possibility of super majorities.


----------



## PredFan

Obama is absolutely full of shit as usual. I can start a business, get it up and running without a dime from the government. All I need is an idea and some elbow grease.


----------



## PredFan

Mac1958 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar.  You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism.  What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.  The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti  holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types.  Therefore:
> 
> Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
> Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
> Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
> It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them.  Keeps things nice and simple.
> 
> Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


This shows a complete lack of understanding of the Tea Party, and you aren't as non-partisan as you  pretend to be.


----------



## Skull Pilot

PredFan said:


> Obama is absolutely full of shit as usual. I can start a business, get it up and running without a dime from the government. All I need is an idea and some elbow grease.



People do it all the time but Bam Bam doesn't understand that and he can't admit that some people are succeeding in spite of the government.

If our business didn't work out my wife and I would have been sleeping in our car.

All the people who want to take credit for the success of others don't understand the concept of risking everything you own to make a dream come true.


----------



## Mac1958

PredFan said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar.  You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism.  What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.  The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti  holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types.  Therefore:
> 
> Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
> Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
> Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
> It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them.  Keeps things nice and simple.
> 
> Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows a complete lack of understanding of the Tea Party, and you aren't as non-partisan as you  pretend to be.
Click to expand...



I'm not "non-partisan".  I'm ANTI-partisan.

And you're trying to claim that the Tea Party and the people they support are not absolutist?  That they're not running around shoving "pledges" in the faces of their politicians?  That they're not nominating people who are somehow to the right of committed conservatives?  That they're not spurting the words "commie" and "socialist" at everything that moves?

Then you're in abject denial.

.


----------



## sitarro

Mr. H. said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republican? I'm a business owner, fighting to keep what I've earned by among other things paying for the labor and effort of others. You think there's no "labor and effort" in owning and operating a business? Typical of a democrat.
Click to expand...


No, they don't Mr. H...... it's that whole union speak. Management and labor, labor is the working class and management just sits back all day counting their money that labor earned for them and drinking martinis....... what's funny is what happens to a business when labor takes it over(always a huge failure, like if the mexicans would "take back" California, it would look exactly like that shithole Mexico within a year)...... it's a mentality that the dems have been pushing for years. The communist have a different name for each, they call them the Bourgeois and the Proletarians...... when are the democrats going to finally bring out the communist manifesto and admit that that is their belief system.......be honest for once. Are they afraid to admit that their "ideas" are those of the third world?


----------



## HomeInspect

Katzndogz said:


> Words the government hates:
> 
> Thank God
> 
> Words the government loves:
> 
> Thank government.
> 
> More people are successful in spite of the government than because of it.




What a great line, and how true !!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama is losing the argument big time and I hope he keeps beating the Redistribution drum because it a huge loser


----------



## WillowTree

grunt11b said:


> I expected to hear rubbish like this coming out of the idiot in the oval offices mouth. Of course he never worked a day in his life in the private sector and the only knowledge he has of business is what he was indoctrinated to think in colleges like Occidental.  I am actually surprised people are really that bored enough to listen to anything he says anymore.
> One must be very sick in the head to listen and believe anything that comes from this mans mouth anymore. Sick indeed.



It's commiecrap.


----------



## zeke

> So did your hard work make my business thrive?
> 
> Did you risk any of your money to start my business?
> 
> Did you put in 80 hours a week for the past 5 years building my business?
> 
> Are you paying my employees and my bills so my business can stay open?
> 
> If you're not then who exactly is keeping my business open if it's not me?




Anyonr else read the bullshit above and wonder wtf this dude is going on about.
The last questions is really the one that tells all. He/she can't even figure out that it is CUSTOMERS that keep a business open.

Repubs are so stupid now that they think they just open a business, have no customers and then they succeed. Pitiful.

And then he wants patted on the back for putting up some money. And working 80 hours.
Big fuking deal. It was your choice wasn't it? Then quit bitching about it and go to work cause you sure as hell ain't a "successful" businessman wasting all the time you do on a message board.

Or is this where you troll for "customers"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

You know our educational system is a sabotaged when Dems openly embrace an economic system that comes with a 100% Guaranteed Fail


----------



## CrusaderFrank

zeke said:


> So did your hard work make my business thrive?
> 
> Did you risk any of your money to start my business?
> 
> Did you put in 80 hours a week for the past 5 years building my business?
> 
> Are you paying my employees and my bills so my business can stay open?
> 
> If you're not then who exactly is keeping my business open if it's not me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyonr else read the bullshit above and wonder wtf this dude is going on about.
> The last questions is really the one that tells all. He/she can't even figure out that it is CUSTOMERS that keep a business open.
> 
> Repubs are so stupid now that they think they just open a business, have no customers and then they succeed. Pitiful.
> 
> And then he wants patted on the back for putting up some money. And working 80 hours.
> Big fuking deal. It was your choice wasn't it? Then quit bitching about it and go to work cause you sure as hell ain't a "successful" businessman wasting all the time you do on a message board.
> 
> Or is this where you troll for "customers"?
Click to expand...


I'd back him over you any day of the week


----------



## CrusaderFrank

sitarro said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican? I'm a business owner, fighting to keep what I've earned by among other things paying for the labor and effort of others. You think there's no "labor and effort" in owning and operating a business? Typical of a democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't Mr. H...... it's that whole union speak. Management and labor, labor is the working class and management just sits back all day counting their money that labor earned for them and drinking martinis....... what's funny is what happens to a business when labor takes it over(always a huge failure, like if the mexicans would "take back" California, it would look exactly like that shithole Mexico within a year)...... it's a mentality that the dems have been pushing for years. The communist have a different name for each, they call them the Bourgeois and the Proletarians...... when are the democrats going to finally bring out the communist manifesto and admit that that is their belief system.......be honest for once. Are they afraid to admit that their "ideas" are those of the third world?
Click to expand...


Dividing people into labor and capital is Communist thinking


----------



## Stephanie

zeke said:


> So did your hard work make my business thrive?
> 
> Did you risk any of your money to start my business?
> 
> Did you put in 80 hours a week for the past 5 years building my business?
> 
> Are you paying my employees and my bills so my business can stay open?
> 
> If you're not then who exactly is keeping my business open if it's not me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyonr else read the bullshit above and wonder wtf this dude is going on about.
> The last questions is really the one that tells all. He/she can't even figure out that it is CUSTOMERS that keep a business open.
> 
> Repubs are so stupid now that they think they just open a business, have no customers and then they succeed. Pitiful.
> 
> And then he wants patted on the back for putting up some money. And working 80 hours.
> Big fuking deal. It was your choice wasn't it? Then quit bitching about it and go to work cause you sure as hell ain't a "successful" businessman wasting all the time you do on a message board.
> 
> Or is this where you troll for "customers"?
Click to expand...


good grief, you should get off the message boards


----------



## zeke

> I'd back him over you any day of the week



Really? Oh Frankie say it ain't so. Heartbroken I am. I tell you, fuk you.


Frankie, are you one of those successful businessmen who spend all day every day on this message board? You know. Waiting for those customers to walk in. Or is your business successful without customers. Like the other dudes.


----------



## zeke

> good grief,




Hey. Another ignorant fool checks in. Get a fuking job you dead beat.


----------



## Stephanie

zeke said:


> good grief,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey. Another ignorant fool checks in. Get a fuking job you dead beat.
Click to expand...


go to hell


----------



## The T

Is it any wonder that in his book 'Dreams From my Father' he wrote that working in the private sector was like "being behind enemy lines"?

Is there any doubt he's waging war against capitalism, private enterprise?

Does this sound familiar? Remember Elizabeth Warren last year?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLF088A010EEB2ECC0"]Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation - YouTube[/ame]

_________________________

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZO7XOpwa8"]Obama 7.13.2012: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. - YouTube[/ame]

Two raging Marxists speak.


----------



## WillowTree

zeke said:


> So did your hard work make my business thrive?
> 
> Did you risk any of your money to start my business?
> 
> Did you put in 80 hours a week for the past 5 years building my business?
> 
> Are you paying my employees and my bills so my business can stay open?
> 
> If you're not then who exactly is keeping my business open if it's not me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyonr else read the bullshit above and wonder wtf this dude is going on about.
> The last questions is really the one that tells all. He/she can't even figure out that it is CUSTOMERS that keep a business open.
> 
> Repubs are so stupid now that they think they just open a business, have no customers and then they succeed. Pitiful.
> 
> And then he wants patted on the back for putting up some money. And working 80 hours.
> Big fuking deal. It was your choice wasn't it? Then quit bitching about it and go to work cause you sure as hell ain't a "successful" businessman wasting all the time you do on a message board.
> 
> Or is this where you troll for "customers"?
Click to expand...


kinda like obummer worked hard to get his job and all we get for his paycheck is bitchin and a blaming. We need to fire his ass and enjoy doing it.


----------



## Stephanie

My gawd I hope the people have wised up to the Socialist-commie in Chief..

we can't take four more years of this idiot

vote him out people


----------



## CrazedScotsman

What President Obama is saying is that no business is successful without labor and it's on the backs of labor that gets a man rich. It's just more class warfare and people are eating it up. President Obama and the left in this country needs to be stopped, now. I just wonder how much more damage they can do before the guy is finally thrown out of office.


----------



## The T

Obama thinks because he didn't make it on his own means that's what he's going to do to the rest of us.

Wonder why he won't release any of his records?


----------



## teapartysamurai

Dante said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success. He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.
Click to expand...

 
And all it means is, YOU are entitled to the hard work of others!

This is liberalism peeps and it hasn't changed since the Soviet Union screamed the same things.

It's about greed for other people's hard work and how you rationalize a justification for all that.

All Obama is doing is stirring up more resentment for people who work hard to build their own business.

Instead of praising the small business owner, Obama's saying, that he and all others are entitled to their hard work!


----------



## The T

(Image: EIB Network )​


----------



## The T

teapartysamurai said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success. He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all it means is, YOU are entitled to the hard work of others!
> 
> This is liberalism peeps and it hasn't changed since the Soviet Union screamed the same things.
> 
> It's about greed for other people's hard work and how you rationalize a justification for all that.
> 
> All Obama is doing is stirring up more resentment for people who work hard to build their own business.
> 
> Instead of praising the small business owner, Obama's saying, that he and all others are entitled to their hard work!
Click to expand...

 
Class Warfare/Envy all the way.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Dante said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success. He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.
Click to expand...

 

Speak for yourself.


----------



## teapartysamurai

tererun said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success. He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this going to backfire?
> 
> First off Romney did not even come close to making it on his own. His parents and grandparents made it for him, and even they had to actually run a business.
> 
> The only businesses I know who make it on the hard work and sweat of their owners might be self owned and run businesses with no employees, but even they probably have help from friends, things like the SBA, the government, and they rely on their customers.
> 
> If mittens wants to claim he, and he alone, did it then the Obama campaign will have a field day showing his completely misplaced ideas, and that he doesn't care about anyone but himself, and certainly does not care about the people he trashed while at Bain.
> 
> It is actually a well planned attack. If Mittens tries to claim he cares about his workers they have some soundbites from him to run against pictures of people who's lives he destroyed at Bain. If Romney ignores it they can go along the line that Romney is way out of touch. If Romney's ego takes over and he declares he is the sole reason for his success they can slam him with the fact he inherited most of it and destroyed the people underneath him.
Click to expand...

 
Well, guess what you hypocrites!

The KENNEDY'S started off rich and privileged and you libs LOVED (and still love) them!

How hypocritical can you get! A lot of your liberal heros were and are always rich!

Obama was raised as a kid of privilege, yet you turn a blind eye to that!

I don't see you morons ranting about other rich people like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky.

It's ONLY become bad to be rich, since Obama started ramping up his mindless drones to how all the hard work of others really belongs to you and your ilk.

And, you'll fall for it, like all mindless drones have since the French Revolution. 

Look through the history of class warefare. Do you EVER see the "little people" getting rich? Or do you ONLY see the leaders getting rich--and off your stupidity to boot!

So keep up the mindless rhetoric. It will never make you a dime, but it will keep those manipulating you in power.

And the sad part is, Obama KNOWS he's manipulating you to keep himself in power.  He couldn't be more cynical.

And I bet, you will never get that.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Mac1958 said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success. He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this going to backfire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway.
> 
> As I pointed out, the danger is that he's _appearing _to do precisely what the GOP has been accusing him of: Being anti-business. No, I'm saying he is anti-business, I'm talking about image, which is pretty much what politics has deteriorated into. The GOP will almost certainly try to bang on this, and we'll see what happens. My guess is that Obama's attacks will be relatively effective, but then I also thought the Broncos were going to the Super Bowl last year.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
It "appears" he's anti-business?  

For pity sake!  If Obama beat his wife tomorrow, would you say it "appears" he beat his wife?  

Keep trying to mealy mouth your way out of this libs.

Perception?


----------



## teapartysamurai

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that entitle the federal government or welfare parasites one additional dime of my money?
> 
> Apparently you like to spout meaningless platitudes.
Click to expand...

 
It entitles them to your money because they SAY it entitles them to your money.

You didn't expect these parasites on the left to give logical reasons did you?

It's just the mindless droning of those in the cart, telling those who are pulling the cart, the cart is only moving because of those IN the cart.

It makes no sense whatsoever, but those in the cart will feel better about themselves and Obama will gain power from those mindless drones.

That's all it's about!


----------



## rightwinger

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



To assume that business operates in a vacuum and does not need the society from which it profits is ridiculous

Our society educates and trains the employees you profit off of
Our society provides transportation and communications infrastructure that makes it possible for you to function
Our society protects your business interests abroad
Our society provides police and fire protection to your business
Our society protects your patents and protects you from unfair competition


----------



## teapartysamurai

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that entitle the federal government or welfare parasites one additional dime of my money?
> 
> Apparently you like to spout meaningless platitudes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go take a suck pill
Click to expand...

 
BWAHAHAHA!

What did I tell you?  

There's no reason or logic to the "platitudes" of the left.

It's about resentment and anger toward those who work hard.

The left doesn't want to work hard.  They want others to work hard FOR THEM!  

But when confronted with this, the left can't deny it.  They just spout angry vitriol and go back demanding the hard work of others.

Funny, I thought slavery was outlawed in this Country.

But the left demand others work hard for them--and that still is slavery.


----------



## Moonglow

Lonestar_logic said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success. He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
Click to expand...


Youdidn't even need a mother, you carried yourself and gave birth to yourself.


----------



## Moonglow

teapartysamurai said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that entitle the federal government or welfare parasites one additional dime of my money?
> 
> Apparently you like to spout meaningless platitudes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go take a suck pill
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHA!
> 
> What did I tell you?
> 
> There's no reason or logic to the "platitudes" of the left.
> 
> It's about resentment and anger toward those who work hard.
> 
> The left doesn't want to work hard.  They want others to work hard FOR THEM!
> 
> But when confronted with this, the left can't deny it.  They just spout angry vitriol and go back demanding the hard work of others.
> 
> Funny, I thought slavery was outlawed in this Country.
> 
> But the left demand others work hard for them--and that still is slavery.
Click to expand...


Yada-Yada, you are stupid, come with me to work and I'll show yo the meaning of sweat and toil.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Dr Grump said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a socialist and I refuse to become one.
> Why can't THAT be the argumnet instead of something better heard on a playground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well don't become one. There are none in your govt at the moment either. People accusing Obama of being a socialist don't know the meaning of the word...
Click to expand...

 
OH really?????????????

We can't say Obama is a socialist?????  

Why not?  Because you libs can't really refute that?

HOW is it NOT socialism to claim small business owners really got there because of others and therefore these "others" are entitled to their hard work?

That is COMPLETELY socialism.  It is a justification for WEALTH DISTRIBUTION!

And you are telling me there are no people in our government that believe that?

BWAHAHAHAHAA, what part of the "Great Society" or the "War on Poverty" did YOU miss?  

Wealth distribution is VERY MUCH a component of socialism.

You just don't want people to say that, because the truth will get Obama voted out of office.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Moonglow said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a refrain I always use: No one in America gets there on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youdidn't even need a mother, you carried yourself and gave birth to yourself.
Click to expand...


The discussion is in the context of "starting a business" moron.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> I think the foundational issue is...
> 
> All, hell with it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar. You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism. What they are calling for is what they believe would be *a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.* The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti holding a ton of feathers.
Click to expand...

 
Do you get this?  FIRST he denies Obama is advocating socialism THEN HE ADMITS IT!

This is typical liberalism.  

Look "IN the Middle of lies" All you are saying is we have "a little socialism" going on.

But socialism is SOCIALISM, whether you call it a "mixed economy" or not.

Obama is demanding that "MIX" get a little stronger, and you libs are trying to shut up anyone who says that really means.

IT'S SOCIALISM.  That's NOT a lie.  The LIE is coming from you libs denying the obvious, while you still try to admit it (and justify it).


----------



## Moonglow

teapartysamurai said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a socialist and I refuse to become one.
> Why can't THAT be the argumnet instead of something better heard on a playground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well don't become one. There are none in your govt at the moment either. People accusing Obama of being a socialist don't know the meaning of the word...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH really?????????????
> 
> We can't say Obama is a socialist?????
> 
> Why not?  Because you libs can't really refute that?
> 
> HOW is it NOT socialism to claim small business owners really got there because of others and therefore these "others" are entitled to their hard work?
> 
> That is COMPLETELY socialism.  It is a justification for WEALTH DISTRIBUTION!
> 
> And you are telling me there are no people in our government that believe that?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAA, what part of the "Great Society" or the "War on Poverty" did YOU miss?
> 
> Wealth distribution is VERY MUCH a component of socialism.
> 
> You just don't want people to say that, because the truth will get Obama voted out of office.
Click to expand...


the only wealth distribution in the US is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.


----------



## Stephanie

Face it people, Obama hates us and our country..

I think he wants to be a Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro

You were warned and still voted for him


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Class warfare is the opening salvo in every Totalitarian Dictatorship.

"Capital is exploiting the labor of the masses!  Rise up! Throw off your shackles!! Join us in Glorious revolution, come experience a real workers paradise! Free Stuff! We will give you all the stuff your boss owned!"

Then after the Revolution, the leaders round up the ones who were really enthusiastic about revolution, because revolutionaries are a threat. Then all the workers get to work for the Government -- but instead of wages you get government rations. 

If you complain you join your Revolutionary bretheren in the Mass Graves


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Moonglow said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well don't become one. There are none in your govt at the moment either. People accusing Obama of being a socialist don't know the meaning of the word...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH really?????????????
> 
> We can't say Obama is a socialist?????
> 
> Why not?  Because you libs can't really refute that?
> 
> HOW is it NOT socialism to claim small business owners really got there because of others and therefore these "others" are entitled to their hard work?
> 
> That is COMPLETELY socialism.  It is a justification for WEALTH DISTRIBUTION!
> 
> And you are telling me there are no people in our government that believe that?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAA, what part of the "Great Society" or the "War on Poverty" did YOU miss?
> 
> Wealth distribution is VERY MUCH a component of socialism.
> 
> You just don't want people to say that, because the truth will get Obama voted out of office.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only wealth distribution in the US is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Click to expand...


If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor. 

Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.


----------



## Moonglow

Lonestar_logic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH really?????????????
> 
> We can't say Obama is a socialist?????
> 
> Why not?  Because you libs can't really refute that?
> 
> HOW is it NOT socialism to claim small business owners really got there because of others and therefore these "others" are entitled to their hard work?
> 
> That is COMPLETELY socialism.  It is a justification for WEALTH DISTRIBUTION!
> 
> And you are telling me there are no people in our government that believe that?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAA, what part of the "Great Society" or the "War on Poverty" did YOU miss?
> 
> Wealth distribution is VERY MUCH a component of socialism.
> 
> You just don't want people to say that, because the truth will get Obama voted out of office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only wealth distribution in the US is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor.
> 
> Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.
Click to expand...


oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?


----------



## Stephanie

Moonglow said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only wealth distribution in the US is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor.
> 
> Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
Click to expand...


get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS


----------



## Moonglow

Stephanie said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor.
> 
> Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
Click to expand...


true even if you are parapallegic,you should pull your own wieght in society.


----------



## The T

Stephanie said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor.
> 
> Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
Click to expand...

 
Indeed. Obama and the Statist progressives don't belive in the individual. Equal outcome is everything for their purpose of ultimate control.


----------



## Moonglow

Stephanie said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor.
> 
> Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
Click to expand...


I am guessing your christian ideals have led you to help people when thy are down and in need of help?


----------



## The T

Moonglow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true even if you are parapallegic,you should pull your own wieght in society.
Click to expand...

 
You are pathetic. No one has said that but you and your ilk. Liar.


----------



## Moonglow

The T said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama and the Statist progressives don't belive in the individual. Equal outcome is everything for their purpose of ultimate control.
Click to expand...


I thought it was about the cartooned underwear we are promised if we let Obama turn this nation into Russia?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Moonglow said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only wealth distribution in the US is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor.
> 
> Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
Click to expand...


You refute my opinion but offer no examples of your own.

Typical liberal....

If it's not a fact the education is the key to success then what is? Government handouts?


----------



## DiamondDave

Moonglow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true even if you are parapallegic,you should pull your own wieght in society.
Click to expand...


----------



## teapartysamurai

Avatar4321 said:


> So he thinks telling people that he is responsible for their greatest achievements is really going to be a good selling point?


 
But it's more than that.  

Yes, Obama is a narcissist, but so are many of his followers.

So, telling them, they are also responsible for the success of others feeds into their greed for the MONEY of others.

It's pathetic. Rich leaders have been promising their followers the work of others since the French Revolution.

Do, the followers EVER get rich?  No!  They become even more impoverished.  But the LEADERS get rich!

That is the lesson of socialism/communism/marxism that the followers never seem to learn.

No wonder they don't teach history in school, anymore!


----------



## GuyPinestra

Moonglow said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only wealth distribution in the US is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor.
> 
> Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
Click to expand...


Hey Moonbat! I'm fucking poor, but I don't want or need the 'gubmint' to come take care of me. You think you speak for the poor, but all you speak for is the salving of your own conscience with platitudes about helping the poor with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Moonglow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true even if you are parapallegic,you should pull your own wieght in society.
Click to expand...


Nice deflection. You brought up the poor and now you changed to the disabled. And you still fail to adequately prove a point. 

Though you have proven, once again how stupid liberals are.


----------



## Stephanie

DiamondDave said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true even if you are parapallegic,you should pull your own wieght in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


exactly
liberals are nothing but users of people, even the disabled who want to make something of themselves


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar. You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism. What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system. The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any progressives are doing exactly that. What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fortunately not a theocracy, but don't worry, when you die you can go to hevean where you will be in utopian communstic sytem under God.
Click to expand...

 
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the point!  ONLY GOD could pull off such a system.

Communism depends on it's leaders being PERFECT!

But humans aren't perfect.  They are subject to corruption and history shows that all leaders of communism were corrupt.

That is why our Constitution endures despite liberals like Obama trying to tear it down.

Our Founding Fathers knew our leaders are not God and therefore are imperfect.  So, they set up a system of checks and balances to keep corrupt human beings from having too much power.  

The marxist sytem has no such checks and balances.  It alway puts too much power in the hands of too few people.

That will always be the difference.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Lonestar_logic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor.
> 
> Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refute my opinion but offer no examples of your own.
> 
> Typical liberal....
> 
> If it's not a fact the education is the key to success then what is? Government handouts?
Click to expand...


Education is the probably the single most important factor in determining someone's future economic success.  It also happens to be expensive at every level.  That makes it a mystery why conservatives want to spend less, 

not more, on education.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Moonglow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any progressives are doing exactly that. What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fortunately not a theocracy, but don't worry, when you die you can go to hevean where you will be in utopian communstic sytem under God.
Click to expand...

 
So now you know what Heaven is like?


----------



## Inthemiddle

Avatar4321 said:


> What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?



A more perfect Union.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Mac1958 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar. You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism. What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system. The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types. Therefore:
> 
> Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
> Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
> Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
> It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them. Keeps things nice and simple.
> 
> Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
While you libs scream "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

You are still trying to say "we only want a 'little communism!'"  

And you prove it, in your talk about "balance!"

That's still screaming WEALTH DISTRIBUTION.

No matter how you libs try to change the terms, it doesn't change the results!

You can call it balance or wealth distribution, THE RESULTS ARE STILL THE SAME!

You just don't like that the tea party isn't as GULLIBLE as you Obama bots.

We KNOW a communist when we see one, no matter how he tries to phrase the debate around it.  

It's the results we are centering on, NOT your lying rhetoric.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To assume that business operates in a vacuum and does not need the society from which it profits is ridiculous
> 
> Our society educates and trains the employees you profit off of
Click to expand...


People make their own deals to trade their time for money.  No one is forcing them to work for anyone. And if you've ever had to hire a HS grad you'd have serious doubts about just how "educated " they are.


> Our society provides transportation and communications infrastructure that makes it possible for you to function



It doesn't provide any of those.  We pay for them.  In fact I pay a higher rate for business phone lines than the average person.


> Our society protects your business interests abroad



Does not apply to a lot of businesses as not all do business abroad.


> Our society provides police and fire protection to your business



Police don't protect my business I do by hiring a private alarm monitoring company.  Police show up after a crime has been committed and most times stolen property is never recovered nor are the perpetrators caught.

Fire department s are not free either you know.  Business people pay for them too.  In my town we have a volunteer fire department which local businesses support quite generously I might add.



> Our society protects your patents and protects you from unfair competition



It costs a lot of money to patent an idea and society does not pay that cost nor will it actively seek out patent or copyright infringements the persons holding the copyright or patent must submit proof of an infringement.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Every business that hires employees who have gotten a basic education in a public school, and higher education in a state school, or a military academy, or via government aid, 

that business benefits from government spending that it did not pay for.  The economic value of the employees' education is a government funded benefit to employers.


----------



## The T

Inthemiddle said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more perfect Union.
Click to expand...

 
While denying the existence of the Individual, and the 9th/10th Amendments and soverignty of the Individual States.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Lonestar_logic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any progressives are doing exactly that. What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fortunately not a theocracy, but don't worry, when you die you can go to hevean where you will be in utopian communstic sytem under God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you know what Heaven is like?
Click to expand...


Whatever Heaven is, there are no rightwingers there.  If there were, they couldn't call it Heaven.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

NYcarbineer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refute my opinion but offer no examples of your own.
> 
> Typical liberal....
> 
> If it's not a fact the education is the key to success then what is? Government handouts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education is the probably the single most important factor in determining someone's future economic success.  It also happens to be expensive at every level.  That makes it a mystery why conservatives want to spend less,
> 
> not more, on education.
Click to expand...


How is free education expensive?

Unless you or your parents paid property taxes in Texas, your education from K-12 didn't cost you or your parents a single dime.

And I suppose you never heard of such things as "Government grants" that allow low income people a chance to get a college degree.


----------



## Stephanie

NYcarbineer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refute my opinion but offer no examples of your own.
> 
> Typical liberal....
> 
> If it's not a fact the education is the key to success then what is? Government handouts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education is the probably the single most important factor in determining someone's future economic success.  It also happens to be expensive at every level.  That makes it a mystery why conservatives want to spend less,
> 
> not more, on education.
Click to expand...


you people just run on lies..How MUCH do WE need to spend? when did it take money to learn to read and write?


----------



## teapartysamurai

Skull Pilot said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dimwitcraps are just as bad.
> 
> If one wants to cut the size, cost and intrusiveness of government then they are anarchists that want poor people to starve.
> 
> So don't get too high on that soap box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to a post. As I've droned on and on about, I'm not a fan of either end of the political spectrum. Right now, however, it appears to me that the GOP is clearly the more rigid party. The fact that they've somehow put Romney out there, however, also shows it's a party that's off the rails. Any party that can make Pelosi & Co. look reasonable and moderate is fucked up, big time.
> 
> I remain hopeful that it will get past this soon, as America needs the two parties to work together, stat.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is a third party that will forever end the possibility of super majorities.
Click to expand...

 
You are dead wrong, and believe me, that has been tried before!

Third parties do NOT acheieve what you hope.  See the end of the Weimar Republic for more that (it was ended by the "third party" the Nazis).

Every time we have had a "third party" candidate in presidential elections it has only accomplished getting the guy the third party least wants elected.

Whether that is Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party to Ralph Nader.  A third party candidte NEVER wins, and ONLY gets the candidate you least want elected.

But you can't convince people who believe in third parties.  They still stick to their dreams of a "better system" which is no better than those who dreams of a "better system" under communism/marxism/socialism."

Why do I say that?  Because both dreams DON'T WORK IN REALITY!

You need to study history just as much as the utopians do.  Both are dreams and both fail when put into practice.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

NYcarbineer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> fortunately not a theocracy, but don't worry, when you die you can go to hevean where you will be in utopian communstic sytem under God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you know what Heaven is like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever Heaven is, there are no rightwingers there.  If there were, they couldn't call it Heaven.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The T said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more perfect Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While denying the existence of the Individual, and the 9th/10th Amendments and soverignty of the Individual States.
Click to expand...


The states ceded most of their sovereignty voluntarily when they signed on.


----------



## Inthemiddle

teapartysamurai said:


> Do you get this?  FIRST he denies Obama is advocating socialism THEN HE ADMITS IT!
> 
> This is typical liberalism.
> 
> Look "IN the Middle of lies" All you are saying is we have "a little socialism" going on.
> 
> But socialism is SOCIALISM, whether you call it a "mixed economy" or not.
> 
> Obama is demanding that "MIX" get a little stronger, and you libs are trying to shut up anyone who says that really means.
> 
> IT'S SOCIALISM.  That's NOT a lie.  The LIE is coming from you libs denying the obvious, while you still try to admit it (and justify it).



And this is why you are an idiot.  A mixed economy is not socialism.  But you're incapable of comprehending that fact.  There's an entire universe between Galt and Marx that those of us with a respectable level of intelligence are reasonably capable of navigating.  So stay on the sidelines, you'll just get hurt if you try to take the field.


----------



## Skull Pilot

zeke said:


> So did your hard work make my business thrive?
> 
> Did you risk any of your money to start my business?
> 
> Did you put in 80 hours a week for the past 5 years building my business?
> 
> Are you paying my employees and my bills so my business can stay open?
> 
> If you're not then who exactly is keeping my business open if it's not me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyonr else read the bullshit above and wonder wtf this dude is going on about.
> The last questions is really the one that tells all. He/she can't even figure out that it is CUSTOMERS that keep a business open.
Click to expand...


Customers don't just walk in and they don't keep coming back if they are not getting better service than they are elsewhere.

You're not here providing that service are you?




> Repubs are so stupid now that they think they just open a business, have no customers and then they succeed. Pitiful.



I'm not a repugnantcan



> And then he wants patted on the back for putting up some money. And working 80 hours.
> Big fuking deal. It was your choice wasn't it? Then quit bitching about it and go to work cause you sure as hell ain't a "successful" businessman wasting all the time you do on a message board.



Putting up some money?  We risked everything to open this business and went in debt to the tune of a quarter million dollars 90% of which we have paid back in the past 5 years.

We would have been sleeping in our car if we failed.  All those people who think business owners don't do it on their own wouldn't be putting us up in as spare room now would they?



> Or is this where you troll for "customers"?



You people don't even know what business I;m in or where I'm located so I'm not getting any business from you now am I?


----------



## teapartysamurai

PredFan said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar. You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism. What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system. The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types. Therefore:
> 
> Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
> Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
> Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
> It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them. Keeps things nice and simple.
> 
> Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows a complete lack of understanding of the Tea Party, and you aren't as non-partisan as you pretend to be.
Click to expand...

 
That's the hilarity of the left.  They never see themselves as "partisan."  

Why they are the "mainstream" of the country. It's anyone that disagrees with them, that are "fringe."

They never see that as believing the world revolves around them and their views.  Nooooooooooooo, it's just being "non-partisan."


----------



## Mac1958

teapartysamurai said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar. You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism. What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system. The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types. Therefore:
> 
> Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
> Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
> Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
> It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them. Keeps things nice and simple.
> 
> Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you libs scream "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
> 
> You are still trying to say "we only want a 'little communism!'"
> 
> And you prove it, in your talk about "balance!"
> 
> That's still screaming WEALTH DISTRIBUTION.
> 
> No matter how you libs try to change the terms, it doesn't change the results!
> 
> You can call it balance or wealth distribution, THE RESULTS ARE STILL THE SAME!
> 
> You just don't like that the tea party isn't as GULLIBLE as you Obama bots.
> 
> We KNOW a communist when we see one, no matter how he tries to phrase the debate around it.
> 
> It's the results we are centering on, NOT your lying rhetoric.
Click to expand...




A vivid, spot-on example of my point.

.


----------



## rightwinger

NYcarbineer said:


> Every business that hires employees who have gotten a basic education in a public school, and higher education in a state school, or a military academy, or via government aid,
> 
> that business benefits from government spending that it did not pay for.  The economic value of the employees' education is a government funded benefit to employers.



Public education costs an average of $11,000 per pupil a year. Imagine if business had to teach their employees to read, do math or operate a computer?

Each employee they hire has an education that costs the the taxpayers over $100,000. Employers turn around and profit off of skills they didn't pay for


----------



## teapartysamurai

Mac1958 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types. Therefore:
> 
> Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
> Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
> Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
> It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them. Keeps things nice and simple.
> 
> Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shows a complete lack of understanding of the Tea Party, and you aren't as non-partisan as you pretend to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not "non-partisan". I'm ANTI-partisan.
> 
> Then you're in abject denial.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
Bwahahahaaa!  All "anti-partisan" means is "I'm against anyone that has a different view than me!"  

You think you fool anybody??????? 

The sad part is, like all liberals you are so self obsessed with your own views, I'm sure you DO think you fool everyone--including yourself!


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every business that hires employees who have gotten a basic education in a public school, and higher education in a state school, or a military academy, or via government aid,
> 
> that business benefits from government spending that it did not pay for.  The economic value of the employees' education is a government funded benefit to employers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public education costs an average of $11,000 per pupil a year. Imagine if business had to teach their employees to read, do math or operate a computer?
> 
> Each employee they hire has an education that costs the the taxpayers over $100,000. Employers turn around and profit off of skills they didn't pay for
Click to expand...


HS grads have no skills. They can barely read, they don't know how to follow directions, they sure as shit can't spell.  I spent an hour trying to teach a kid how to make change without a calculator the other day.

Yeah these kids are really bright.

Every business has a training program.  They have to because most businesses have specific skill and knowledge requirements.


----------



## Mac1958

teapartysamurai said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This shows a complete lack of understanding of the Tea Party, and you aren't as non-partisan as you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not "non-partisan". I'm ANTI-partisan.
> 
> Then you're in abject denial.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bwahahahaaa!  All "anti-partisan" means is "I'm against anyone that has a different view than me!"
> 
> You think you fool anybody???????
> 
> The sad part is, like all liberals you are so self obsessed with your own views, I'm sure you DO think you fool everyone--including yourself!
Click to expand...




When in doubt, deflect, avoid the point.

And use lots of "smilies".


.


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every business that hires employees who have gotten a basic education in a public school, and higher education in a state school, or a military academy, or via government aid,
> 
> that business benefits from government spending that it did not pay for.  The economic value of the employees' education is a government funded benefit to employers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public education costs an average of $11,000 per pupil a year. Imagine if business had to teach their employees to read, do math or operate a computer?
> 
> Each employee they hire has an education that costs the the taxpayers over $100,000. Employers turn around and profit off of skills they didn't pay for
Click to expand...


omg


----------



## tjvh

From the title of this thread I originally thought it was about *Obama's Julia.*


----------



## teapartysamurai

zeke said:


> So did your hard work make my business thrive?
> 
> Did you risk any of your money to start my business?
> 
> Did you put in 80 hours a week for the past 5 years building my business?
> 
> Are you paying my employees and my bills so my business can stay open?
> 
> If you're not then who exactly is keeping my business open if it's not me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyonr else read the bullshit above and wonder wtf this dude is going on about.
> The last questions is really the one that tells all. He/she can't even figure out that it is CUSTOMERS that keep a business open.
> 
> Repubs are so stupid now that they think they just open a business, have no customers and then they succeed. Pitiful.
> 
> And then he wants patted on the back for putting up some money. And working 80 hours.
> Big fuking deal. It was your choice wasn't it? Then quit bitching about it and go to work cause you sure as hell ain't a "successful" businessman wasting all the time you do on a message board.
> 
> Or is this where you troll for "customers"?
Click to expand...

 
It's customers???????????

Did customers put in the risk?

Find the location?

Put up the product?

Deal with labor costs, or union difficulties?

Your post shows JUST HOW IGNORANT you are about how to run a business.

If it's customers that are responsible explain how customers start that business!

All customers do is come IN and buy the product or service! 

Show me how customers can buy a product or service WITHOUT the hard work of the BUSINESS OWNER?

I mean this isn't even a chicken or the egg debate.

YOU are arguing the egg being cooked and on the plate came first! That's the part the customers does! HE BUYS THE EGG!

But he can't do that without the business owner raising the chicken, feeding the chicken, collecting the eggs, packaging the eggs, and shipping them to your local store.

The local store can't do that without stocking the eggs, pricing the eggs, etc!

And YOU are trying to suggest the customer is came first!


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To assume that business operates in a vacuum and does not need the society from which it profits is ridiculous
> 
> Our society educates and trains the employees you profit off of
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People make their own deals to trade their time for money.  No one is forcing them to work for anyone. And if you've ever had to hire a HS grad you'd have serious doubts about just how "educated " they are.
> 
> 
> It doesn't provide any of those.  We pay for them.  In fact I pay a higher rate for business phone lines than the average person.
> 
> 
> Does not apply to a lot of businesses as not all do business abroad.
> 
> 
> 
> Our society provides police and fire protection to your business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police don't protect my business I do by hiring a private alarm monitoring company.  Police show up after a crime has been committed and most times stolen property is never recovered nor are the perpetrators caught.
> 
> Fire department s are not free either you know.  Business people pay for them too.  In my town we have a volunteer fire department which local businesses support quite generously I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our society protects your patents and protects you from unfair competition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It costs a lot of money to patent an idea and society does not pay that cost nor will it actively seek out patent or copyright infringements the persons holding the copyright or patent must submit proof of an infringement.
Click to expand...


You hire trained employess that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees

That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive

International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not

Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you


----------



## Skull Pilot

Stephanie said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every business that hires employees who have gotten a basic education in a public school, and higher education in a state school, or a military academy, or via government aid,
> 
> that business benefits from government spending that it did not pay for.  The economic value of the employees' education is a government funded benefit to employers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public education costs an average of $11,000 per pupil a year. Imagine if business had to teach their employees to read, do math or operate a computer?
> 
> Each employee they hire has an education that costs the the taxpayers over $100,000. Employers turn around and profit off of skills they didn't pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> omg
Click to expand...


What the dimwits don't under stand is that public education is mostly funded on the local level by property taxes and businesses pay much higher property taxes than do private citizens.

We not only pay property taxes on our land and physical structures but we have to pay property taxes on every piece of equipment we have including our office supplies.  

So until you people have to count every chair, plate and piece of silverware every year and pay taxes on them don't tell me businesses don't foot a higher share of the bill for society than does the average American idiot.


----------



## teapartysamurai

zeke said:


> good grief,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey. Another ignorant fool checks in. Get a fuking job you dead beat.
Click to expand...

 
What what do YOU Do for a living?????????


----------



## Inthemiddle

Stephanie said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> true even if you are parapallegic,you should pull your own wieght in society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> exactly
> liberals are nothing but users of people, even the disabled who want to make something of themselves
Click to expand...


Exactly nothing.  There are two main problems with this argument.

1.  Hawking is not a paraplegic.  He has a motor neuron disease called ALS.  His condition first began expressing itself when he was 21 years old.  After diagnosis, and his condition progressed and eventually stablized for a time, he had a great deal of direct and personal help that allowed him to complete his doctorate and begin his career.  As his condition has progressed, Hawking has continued to need an increasing amount of personal assistance for every day living affairs.

2.  All that aside, even if we completely ignore it, your point would still be fallacy of accident.  Hawking is one of the most remarkably intelligent people to ever live.  He has extremely unique gifts.  His life is nowhere near typical of anyone, or of disabled persons.


----------



## Inthemiddle

The T said:


> While denying the existence of the Individual, and the 9th/10th Amendments and soverignty of the Individual States.



No.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To assume that business operates in a vacuum and does not need the society from which it profits is ridiculous
> 
> Our society educates and trains the employees you profit off of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People make their own deals to trade their time for money.  No one is forcing them to work for anyone. And if you've ever had to hire a HS grad you'd have serious doubts about just how "educated " they are.
> 
> 
> It doesn't provide any of those.  We pay for them.  In fact I pay a higher rate for business phone lines than the average person.
> 
> 
> Does not apply to a lot of businesses as not all do business abroad.
> 
> 
> Police don't protect my business I do by hiring a private alarm monitoring company.  Police show up after a crime has been committed and most times stolen property is never recovered nor are the perpetrators caught.
> 
> Fire department s are not free either you know.  Business people pay for them too.  In my town we have a volunteer fire department which local businesses support quite generously I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our society protects your patents and protects you from unfair competition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It costs a lot of money to patent an idea and society does not pay that cost nor will it actively seek out patent or copyright infringements the persons holding the copyright or patent must submit proof of an infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hire trained employees that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
Click to expand...

 Society did not train my employees.  Most went on to get some college that they not society paid for.  And when they get to me They still have to go though months of on the job traing that I pay them for.

To hear you talk it seems you think anyone fresh out of high school can just be plugged into any position in a business.  Sorry but that is a fantasy that only people who never had employees hold.



> That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive



Marginal?  Phone internet electricity etc cost me 20K a year.

Hardly marginal

International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not



> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you



COps don't protect you they show up after a crime has been committed.  And I've already told you several times that we generously support our local volunteer fire department beyond our taxes.


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every business that hires employees who have gotten a basic education in a public school, and higher education in a state school, or a military academy, or via government aid,
> 
> that business benefits from government spending that it did not pay for.  The economic value of the employees' education is a government funded benefit to employers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public education costs an average of $11,000 per pupil a year. Imagine if business had to teach their employees to read, do math or operate a computer?
> 
> Each employee they hire has an education that costs the the taxpayers over $100,000. Employers turn around and profit off of skills they didn't pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HS grads have no skills. They can barely read, they don't know how to follow directions, they sure as shit can't spell.  I spent an hour trying to teach a kid how to make change without a calculator the other day.
> 
> Yeah these kids are really bright.
> 
> Every business has a training program.  They have to because most businesses have specific skill and knowledge requirements.
Click to expand...


If you don't like it.....pay for it yourself

They are your employees, you are making a profit off them, you should pay to educate them

Why should the taxpayer pay to educate people you make money from?  You pay


----------



## buckeye45_73

boilermaker55 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
Click to expand...

 
Have you ever run a small business? It doesnt just grow on it's own. The owner is the guys that works way harder than anyone and all businesses start out small. Sorry many but you must think there is a magic bean that just grows a business to large size, the people that start them, have to work incredibily hard and way more than any employee.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> go take a suck pill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHA!
> 
> What did I tell you?
> 
> There's no reason or logic to the "platitudes" of the left.
> 
> It's about resentment and anger toward those who work hard.
> 
> The left doesn't want to work hard. They want others to work hard FOR THEM!
> 
> But when confronted with this, the left can't deny it. They just spout angry vitriol and go back demanding the hard work of others.
> 
> Funny, I thought slavery was outlawed in this Country.
> 
> But the left demand others work hard for them--and that still is slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yada-Yada, you are stupid, come with me to work and I'll show yo the meaning of sweat and toil.
Click to expand...

 
So, you work hard!  BIG DEAL!  Welcome to the club!

Lots of people work hard in this country.  What does that have to do with it?

Are others entitled to YOUR pay??????

After all!  According to Obama you didn't earn that money yourself!  Others did it for you!


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public education costs an average of $11,000 per pupil a year. Imagine if business had to teach their employees to read, do math or operate a computer?
> 
> Each employee they hire has an education that costs the the taxpayers over $100,000. Employers turn around and profit off of skills they didn't pay for
> 
> 
> 
> 
> omg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the dimwits don't under stand is that public education is mostly funded on the local level by property taxes and businesses pay much higher property taxes than do private citizens.
> 
> We not only pay property taxes on our land and physical structures but we have to pay property taxes on every piece of equipment we have including our office supplies.
> 
> So until you people have to count every chair, plate and piece of silverware every year and pay taxes on them don't tell me businesses don't foot a higher share of the bill for society than does the average American idiot.
Click to expand...


You are avoiding the point of the thread which is that businesses do not do it on their own. They rely and profit off of the society in which they do business


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> omg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the dimwits don't under stand is that public education is mostly funded on the local level by property taxes and businesses pay much higher property taxes than do private citizens.
> 
> We not only pay property taxes on our land and physical structures but we have to pay property taxes on every piece of equipment we have including our office supplies.
> 
> So until you people have to count every chair, plate and piece of silverware every year and pay taxes on them don't tell me businesses don't foot a higher share of the bill for society than does the average American idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are avoiding the point of the thread which is that businesses do not do it on their own. They rely and profit off of the society in which they do business
Click to expand...


Businesses do not profit off of society they have to provide a service well in order to profit.  I just can't say "Hey I'm in business, let the profits roll in from society starting now"

Businesses pay more in taxes than the general public.  Seems to me society benefits when there are successful businesses in the community.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well don't become one. There are none in your govt at the moment either. People accusing Obama of being a socialist don't know the meaning of the word...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH really?????????????
> 
> We can't say Obama is a socialist?????
> 
> Why not? Because you libs can't really refute that?
> 
> HOW is it NOT socialism to claim small business owners really got there because of others and therefore these "others" are entitled to their hard work?
> 
> That is COMPLETELY socialism. It is a justification for WEALTH DISTRIBUTION!
> 
> And you are telling me there are no people in our government that believe that?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAA, what part of the "Great Society" or the "War on Poverty" did YOU miss?
> 
> Wealth distribution is VERY MUCH a component of socialism.
> 
> You just don't want people to say that, because the truth will get Obama voted out of office.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only wealth distribution in the US is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Click to expand...

 
You ever notice that the morons who say this stuff ARE ALL RICH????????

Ted Kennedy said it.  Lyndon Johnson said it.  

John Edwards ranted about the "Two Americas" while he paid off a mistress with campaign funds.

Obama is rich!  

But you morons who follow them NEVER GET THAT!  

DO YOU EVER find the followers of people saying this from Robespierre to Obama ever getting ONE THIN DIME from all that rhetoric?  Or do the followers become more impoverished (and in a lot of cases DEAD) while the LEADERS BECOME MORE POWERFUL AND RICH!

So, keep on with the class envy rhetoric.  I want you to.  

The more you push your socialism, the more voters will see it, and realize we need to get the Socialist in Chief out of office!


----------



## GuyPinestra

NYcarbineer said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A more perfect Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While denying the existence of the Individual, and the 9th/10th Amendments and soverignty of the Individual States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states ceded most of their sovereignty voluntarily when they signed on.
Click to expand...


You're fucking delusional and batshit crazy, to boot!!


----------



## teapartysamurai

Lonestar_logic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH really?????????????
> 
> We can't say Obama is a socialist?????
> 
> Why not? Because you libs can't really refute that?
> 
> HOW is it NOT socialism to claim small business owners really got there because of others and therefore these "others" are entitled to their hard work?
> 
> That is COMPLETELY socialism. It is a justification for WEALTH DISTRIBUTION!
> 
> And you are telling me there are no people in our government that believe that?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAA, what part of the "Great Society" or the "War on Poverty" did YOU miss?
> 
> Wealth distribution is VERY MUCH a component of socialism.
> 
> You just don't want people to say that, because the truth will get Obama voted out of office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only wealth distribution in the US is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor.
> 
> Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.
Click to expand...

 
Which is why Liberals are against any kind of real education.  They want kids to stay in mediocre public schools where the kids never learn any real history.

Real history teaches you class warefare is a failure, and the only people who benefit from it, are the leaders.  The followers always end up more impoverished.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only wealth distribution in the US is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the poor is getting poorer it's due to the their own failings. Including the fact they they continually vote in democratic pukes who promises to take care of them as long as they stay poor.
> 
> Education is the key to success and is free to every child born in America. The poor it would seem fails to take advantage of this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
Click to expand...

 
Sure they are!

I'm not rich.  Not by any sense of the word!  

This country never guarranteed you will EVER be rich.

It just guarrantees you CAN be a success.  You have that opportunity!

Or at least WE DID until Obama sunk our economy.

And Obama is DELIBERATELY sinking our economy to create more followers like YOU.

Believing the lies you will be better off under the leaders of class envy, and never seeing anything from it but more poverty.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true even if you are parapallegic,you should pull your own wieght in society.
Click to expand...

 
I see a parapallegic woman who works at Starbucks!  

She can't even speak.  She has a pad of buttons and when we walk by she pushes (she can't even hold up her head, but she does have control of one hand) the button and specials for Starbucks coffee are announced.

But that is not even germain to the discussion.  

YOU ARE NOT HANDICAPPED.  The people we are talking about are not handicapped.

YOU simply want to HIDE BEHIND THE HANDICAPPED to conceal your own greed for other's hard work.


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> People make their own deals to trade their time for money.  No one is forcing them to work for anyone. And if you've ever had to hire a HS grad you'd have serious doubts about just how "educated " they are.
> 
> 
> It doesn't provide any of those.  We pay for them.  In fact I pay a higher rate for business phone lines than the average person.
> 
> 
> Does not apply to a lot of businesses as not all do business abroad.
> 
> 
> Police don't protect my business I do by hiring a private alarm monitoring company.  Police show up after a crime has been committed and most times stolen property is never recovered nor are the perpetrators caught.
> 
> Fire department s are not free either you know.  Business people pay for them too.  In my town we have a volunteer fire department which local businesses support quite generously I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> It costs a lot of money to patent an idea and society does not pay that cost nor will it actively seek out patent or copyright infringements the persons holding the copyright or patent must submit proof of an infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hire trained employees that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Society did not train my employees.  Most went on to get some college that they not society paid for.  And when they get to me They still have to go though months of on the job traing that I pay them for.
> 
> To hear you talk it seems you think anyone fresh out of high school can just be plugged into any position in a business.  Sorry but that is a fantasy that only people who never had employees hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marginal?  Phone internet electricity etc cost me 20K a year.
> 
> Hardly marginal
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> COps don't protect you they show up after a crime has been committed.  And I've already told you several times that we generously support our local volunteer fire department beyond our taxes.
Click to expand...


Society educated your employees for you, paid for their K-12 education, paid and subsidized Colleges, paid for tuition reimbursements. You take those students and train them to do your specific job but you take advantage of YEARS of education provided by society

You pay $20,000 for communications and power?  What would it cost you to build a phone link to each of your customers?  What would it cost you to build your own power generation facility?  You benefit from the power and communications network that society has developed


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am guessing your christian ideals have led you to help people when thy are down and in need of help?
Click to expand...

 
But you libs tell us Christian ideals IS giving to the government to redistribute to the "poor."

You need to make up your minds!


----------



## DiamondDave

NYcarbineer said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A more perfect Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While denying the existence of the Individual, and the 9th/10th Amendments and soverignty of the Individual States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states ceded most of their sovereignty voluntarily when they signed on.
Click to expand...


That is probably the BIGGEST crock of shit I have heard on this board... proving, without a doubt, that you know absolutely nothing on how this government is constitutionally set up


----------



## GuyPinestra

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public education costs an average of $11,000 per pupil a year. Imagine if business had to teach their employees to read, do math or operate a computer?
> 
> Each employee they hire has an education that costs the the taxpayers over $100,000. Employers turn around and profit off of skills they didn't pay for
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HS grads have no skills. They can barely read, they don't know how to follow directions, they sure as shit can't spell.  I spent an hour trying to teach a kid how to make change without a calculator the other day.
> 
> Yeah these kids are really bright.
> 
> Every business has a training program.  They have to because most businesses have specific skill and knowledge requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't like it.....pay for it yourself
> 
> They are your employees, you are making a profit off them, you should pay to educate them
> 
> Why should the taxpayer pay to educate people you make money from?  You pay
Click to expand...


I agree!! Let's abolish the Dept of Education and close down every school in the nation. With about 60 million kids in them, times $11K per year we could save the American taxpayer about $660 BILLION a year.

That will cover about 40% of THIS YEAR'S deficit.


----------



## Dante

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> People make their own deals to trade their time for money.  No one is forcing them to work for anyone. And if you've ever had to hire a HS grad you'd have serious doubts about just how "educated " they are.
> 
> 
> It doesn't provide any of those.  We pay for them.  In fact I pay a higher rate for business phone lines than the average person.
> 
> 
> Does not apply to a lot of businesses as not all do business abroad.
> 
> 
> Police don't protect my business I do by hiring a private alarm monitoring company.  Police show up after a crime has been committed and most times stolen property is never recovered nor are the perpetrators caught.
> 
> Fire department s are not free either you know.  Business people pay for them too.  In my town we have a volunteer fire department which local businesses support quite generously I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> It costs a lot of money to patent an idea and society does not pay that cost nor will it actively seek out patent or copyright infringements the persons holding the copyright or patent must submit proof of an infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hire trained employees that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Society did not train my employees.  Most went on to get some college that they not society paid for.  And when they get to me They still have to go though months of on the job traing that I pay them for.
> 
> To hear you talk it seems you think anyone fresh out of high school can just be plugged into any position in a business.  Sorry but that is a fantasy that only people who never had employees hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marginal?  Phone internet electricity etc cost me 20K a year.
> 
> Hardly marginal
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> COps don't protect you they show up after a crime has been committed.  And I've already told you several times that we generously support our local volunteer fire department beyond our taxes.
Click to expand...


you're so full of shit it's hilarious. 

I'd bet a talk with any group in the area you live in would expose you as a petty, mean-spirited blowhard with a huge chip on his weak shoulders.


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> Every business that hires employees who have gotten a basic education in a public school, and higher education in a state school, or a military academy, or via government aid,
> 
> that business benefits from government spending that it did not pay for. The economic value of the employees' education is a government funded benefit to employers.


 
Dude, I hate to bring up the obvious, but you Democrats USED TO USE SLAVES IN THE SOUTH, and DEMOCRATS MADE IT ILLEGAL TO EDUCATE THEM AT ALL!

Another reasons liberals don't want real education going on in schools, just liberal indoctrination.

But if education is so necessary to be an employee then why did Democrats make it illegal to educate slaves in the South?

And what a surprise, DEMOCRATS ARE STILL FIGHTING TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BEING EDUCATED TODAY.

From Obama ending school vouchers in Washington DC to liberals making our schools a disgrace in the world (look where we rank in math compared to the world).

And if education is so necessary, why do businesses have to train employees.

They invest in cash registers where you don't have to add, because NO ONE CAN ADD ANYMORE!

Remember the old days when you had to add up how much to give in change in your head?

No one can do that anymore!

So don't make me laugh!  Education is the last thing liberals want, and it certainly isn't the first thing they should bring up, in an argument for class envy.


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> fortunately not a theocracy, but don't worry, when you die you can go to hevean where you will be in utopian communstic sytem under God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you know what Heaven is like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever Heaven is, there are no rightwingers there. If there were, they couldn't call it Heaven.
Click to expand...

 
Get this!  Now lefties think they dictate to God who may get in heaven.

And then I'm wrong calling them narcissists?


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dante said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hire trained employees that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> 
> 
> Society did not train my employees.  Most went on to get some college that they not society paid for.  And when they get to me They still have to go though months of on the job traing that I pay them for.
> 
> To hear you talk it seems you think anyone fresh out of high school can just be plugged into any position in a business.  Sorry but that is a fantasy that only people who never had employees hold.
> 
> 
> 
> Marginal?  Phone internet electricity etc cost me 20K a year.
> 
> Hardly marginal
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> COps don't protect you they show up after a crime has been committed.  And I've already told you several times that we generously support our local volunteer fire department beyond our taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're so full of shit it's hilarious.
> 
> I'd bet a talk with any group in the area you live in would expose you as a petty, mean-spirited blowhard with a huge chip on his weak shoulders.
Click to expand...


Personal attacks, the last ammo for a losing argument...


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A more perfect Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While denying the existence of the Individual, and the 9th/10th Amendments and soverignty of the Individual States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states ceded most of their sovereignty voluntarily when they signed on.
Click to expand...

 
Helloooooooooooooooo!  Did you EVER read the 10th Amendment? 

Show me where that has been repealed?


----------



## The T

teapartysamurai said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you know what Heaven is like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Heaven is, there are no rightwingers there. If there were, they couldn't call it Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get this! Now lefties think they dictate to God who may get in heaven.
> 
> And then I'm wrong calling them narcissists?
Click to expand...

 
Not at all. Quite frankly? They're arrogant.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get this? FIRST he denies Obama is advocating socialism THEN HE ADMITS IT!
> 
> This is typical liberalism.
> 
> Look "IN the Middle of lies" All you are saying is we have "a little socialism" going on.
> 
> But socialism is SOCIALISM, whether you call it a "mixed economy" or not.
> 
> Obama is demanding that "MIX" get a little stronger, and you libs are trying to shut up anyone who says that really means.
> 
> IT'S SOCIALISM. That's NOT a lie. The LIE is coming from you libs denying the obvious, while you still try to admit it (and justify it).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why you are an idiot. A mixed economy is not socialism. But you're incapable of comprehending that fact. There's an entire universe between Galt and Marx that those of us with a respectable level of intelligence are reasonably capable of navigating. So stay on the sidelines, you'll just get hurt if you try to take the field.
Click to expand...

 
MIXED WITH WHAT?????????????

WHAT IS OUR CAPITALISM MIXED WITH??????????????

Yeah, that's right.  YOU ARE ADMITTING IT'S MIXED WITH SOCIALISM, and you want MORE to make it more "equal."

"More equal" in your rhetoric means YOU DON'T THINK THERE IS ENOUGH SOCIALISM MIXED IN!

We need MORE to make it more "equal."

And you think your rhetoric can BULLSHIT AROUND THAT?

Hilarious!


----------



## Katzndogz

obama should keep telling successful people that they were handed their success by someone else.   Run with it, democrats like it.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Mac1958 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is currently stuck on absolutism, since most of the energy in the party is being generated by the Tea Party types. Therefore:
> 
> Anyone who doesn't completely agree with them is a "commie"
> Anyone who thinks the country, would be better off less unbalanced is a "socialist"
> Anyone who thinks improvements can be made here & there "hates Amurrrrica"
> It's all binary, either/or, black & white, us vs. them. Keeps things nice and simple.
> 
> Look at it this way: Pretend you're trying to communicate with Archie Bunker.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you libs scream "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
> 
> You are still trying to say "we only want a 'little communism!'"
> 
> And you prove it, in your talk about "balance!"
> 
> That's still screaming WEALTH DISTRIBUTION.
> 
> No matter how you libs try to change the terms, it doesn't change the results!
> 
> You can call it balance or wealth distribution, THE RESULTS ARE STILL THE SAME!
> 
> You just don't like that the tea party isn't as GULLIBLE as you Obama bots.
> 
> We KNOW a communist when we see one, no matter how he tries to phrase the debate around it.
> 
> It's the results we are centering on, NOT your lying rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A vivid, spot-on example of my point.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
This is what liberals do when they can't refute.  They claim they did anyway, and run away.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Mac1958 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not "non-partisan". I'm ANTI-partisan.
> 
> Then you're in abject denial.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahaaa! All "anti-partisan" means is "I'm against anyone that has a different view than me!"
> 
> You think you fool anybody???????
> 
> The sad part is, like all liberals you are so self obsessed with your own views, I'm sure you DO think you fool everyone--including yourself!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in doubt, deflect, avoid the point.
> 
> And use lots of "smilies".
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
Example 2!  He can't refute.  He just whines, and runs away!


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To assume that business operates in a vacuum and does not need the society from which it profits is ridiculous
> 
> Our society educates and trains the employees you profit off of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People make their own deals to trade their time for money. No one is forcing them to work for anyone. And if you've ever had to hire a HS grad you'd have serious doubts about just how "educated " they are.
> 
> 
> It doesn't provide any of those. We pay for them. In fact I pay a higher rate for business phone lines than the average person.
> 
> 
> Does not apply to a lot of businesses as not all do business abroad.
> 
> 
> Police don't protect my business I do by hiring a private alarm monitoring company. Police show up after a crime has been committed and most times stolen property is never recovered nor are the perpetrators caught.
> 
> Fire department s are not free either you know. Business people pay for them too. In my town we have a volunteer fire department which local businesses support quite generously I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our society protects your patents and protects you from unfair competition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It costs a lot of money to patent an idea and society does not pay that cost nor will it actively seek out patent or copyright infringements the persons holding the copyright or patent must submit proof of an infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hire trained employess that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
Click to expand...

 
Notice libs act like YOU, the small busines owners pays no TAXES that pay for fire or police.

It's just everybody else that supposedly pays for those taxes.

I would love to see a comparison of how much the small business owner pays AND COLLECTS IN SALES TAXES, compared to how much those customers pay in taxes.

Yet the customers are owed the profits of the business?


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> liberals are nothing but users of people, even the disabled who want to make something of themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly nothing. There are two main problems with this argument.
> 
> 1. Hawking is not a paraplegic. He has a motor neuron disease called ALS. His condition first began expressing itself when he was 21 years old. After diagnosis, and his condition progressed and eventually stablized for a time, he had a great deal of direct and personal help that allowed him to complete his doctorate and begin his career. As his condition has progressed, Hawking has continued to need an increasing amount of personal assistance for every day living affairs.
> 
> 2. All that aside, even if we completely ignore it, your point would still be fallacy of accident. Hawking is one of the most remarkably intelligent people to ever live. He has extremely unique gifts. His life is nowhere near typical of anyone, or of disabled persons.
Click to expand...

 
What's that got to to with it.

This is still able bodied LAZY PEOPLE trying to hide behide the handicapped, demanding the hard work of others.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Dante said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hire trained employees that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> 
> 
> Society did not train my employees. Most went on to get some college that they not society paid for. And when they get to me They still have to go though months of on the job traing that I pay them for.
> 
> To hear you talk it seems you think anyone fresh out of high school can just be plugged into any position in a business. Sorry but that is a fantasy that only people who never had employees hold.
> 
> 
> 
> Marginal? Phone internet electricity etc cost me 20K a year.
> 
> Hardly marginal
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> COps don't protect you they show up after a crime has been committed. And I've already told you several times that we generously support our local volunteer fire department beyond our taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're so full of shit it's hilarious.
> 
> I'd bet a talk with any group in the area you live in would expose you as a petty, mean-spirited blowhard with a huge chip on his weak shoulders.
Click to expand...

 
Which is liberal for, he can't refute what you are saying so he's going to call you "mean-spirited."

"Mean-Spirited" in lib speak, means the lib is losing the argument.


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the dimwits don't under stand is that public education is mostly funded on the local level by property taxes and businesses pay much higher property taxes than do private citizens.
> 
> We not only pay property taxes on our land and physical structures but we have to pay property taxes on every piece of equipment we have including our office supplies.
> 
> So until you people have to count every chair, plate and piece of silverware every year and pay taxes on them don't tell me businesses don't foot a higher share of the bill for society than does the average American idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are avoiding the point of the thread which is that businesses do not do it on their own. They rely and profit off of the society in which they do business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses do not profit off of society they have to provide a service well in order to profit.  I just can't say "Hey I'm in business, let the profits roll in from society starting now"
> 
> Businesses pay more in taxes than the general public.  Seems to me society benefits when there are successful businesses in the community.
Click to expand...


The issue is that business does not generate from scratch. You plug your business into an existing society and benefit from its people, roads, communications infrastructure, police and fire protections...

You, in turn make a profit off of that relationship and are expected to pay to contribute to the society from which you benefit


----------



## rightwinger

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> HS grads have no skills. They can barely read, they don't know how to follow directions, they sure as shit can't spell.  I spent an hour trying to teach a kid how to make change without a calculator the other day.
> 
> Yeah these kids are really bright.
> 
> Every business has a training program.  They have to because most businesses have specific skill and knowledge requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like it.....pay for it yourself
> 
> They are your employees, you are making a profit off them, you should pay to educate them
> 
> Why should the taxpayer pay to educate people you make money from?  You pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree!! Let's abolish the Dept of Education and close down every school in the nation. With about 60 million kids in them, times $11K per year we could save the American taxpayer about $660 BILLION a year.
> 
> That will cover about 40% of THIS YEAR'S deficit.
Click to expand...


Go for it

Let American business pay to educate their employees starting with learning how to read. Lets see how that affects their bottom line


----------



## NYcarbineer

DiamondDave said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> While denying the existence of the Individual, and the 9th/10th Amendments and soverignty of the Individual States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states ceded most of their sovereignty voluntarily when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is probably the BIGGEST crock of shit I have heard on this board... proving, without a doubt, that you know absolutely nothing on how this government is constitutionally set up
Click to expand...


That the Constitution is the great protector of state sovereignty is the great myth.  What state sovereignty amounts to is that the states are allowed to do whatever the Constitution doesn't say they can't do.

And the Constitution says that the states can't do anything that is contrary to federal law, or constitutional law,

so most meaningful sovereignty is gone right there.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Leftist thinking:


----------



## Lonestar_logic

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are avoiding the point of the thread which is that businesses do not do it on their own. They rely and profit off of the society in which they do business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do not profit off of society they have to provide a service well in order to profit.  I just can't say "Hey I'm in business, let the profits roll in from society starting now"
> 
> Businesses pay more in taxes than the general public.  Seems to me society benefits when there are successful businesses in the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is that business does not generate from scratch. You plug your business into an existing society and benefit from its people, roads, communications infrastructure, police and fire protections...
> 
> You, in turn make a profit off of that relationship and are expected to pay to contribute to the society from which you benefit
Click to expand...


Businesses are generated from capitol...ie ..money.

Without capitol no material or merchandise could be purchased, no labor could be hired.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are avoiding the point of the thread which is that businesses do not do it on their own. They rely and profit off of the society in which they do business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do not profit off of society they have to provide a service well in order to profit.  I just can't say "Hey I'm in business, let the profits roll in from society starting now"
> 
> Businesses pay more in taxes than the general public.  Seems to me society benefits when there are successful businesses in the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is that business does not generate from scratch. You plug your business into an existing society and benefit from its people, roads, communications infrastructure, police and fire protections...
> 
> You, in turn make a profit off of that relationship and are expected to pay to contribute to the society from which you benefit
Click to expand...

How many times do you have to be told that businesses pay substantially more in taxes than the average American?


----------



## NYcarbineer

teapartysamurai said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> While denying the existence of the Individual, and the 9th/10th Amendments and soverignty of the Individual States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states ceded most of their sovereignty voluntarily when they signed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Helloooooooooooooooo!  Did you EVER read the 10th Amendment?
> 
> Show me where that has been repealed?
> 
> l:
Click to expand...


All the 10th amendment does is let states do what the federal government doesn't prohibit.  It's like a mom telling her kid, you can stay out as long as you like as long as you're home by 10.


----------



## DiamondDave

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states ceded most of their sovereignty voluntarily when they signed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is probably the BIGGEST crock of shit I have heard on this board... proving, without a doubt, that you know absolutely nothing on how this government is constitutionally set up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the Constitution is the great protector of state sovereignty is the great myth.  What state sovereignty amounts to is that the states are allowed to do whatever the Constitution doesn't say they can't do.
> 
> And the Constitution says that the states can't do anything that is contrary to federal law, or constitutional law,
> 
> so most meaningful sovereignty is gone right there.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should learn to read and understand the Constitution a bit better.... and learn that the Federal Government does not empower the states, that it is indeed that states that grant power to the federal government...


----------



## chanel

Government would not exist without those successful people. He has it ass-backwards as usual.

My husband owes his success to our loyal customers and employees and the fact that he's on call 24/7 for the past 25 years. Did Obama mention them?

This statement needs to be headlined every single day until Nov. Every American worker needs to know exactly how this president feels about them.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

More horseshit from O.  I've built three companies without help from govt but they're quick to take your money.


----------



## auditor0007

OODA_Loop said:


> You had to drive on the road you previously and continuously paid for by being taxed to get to work in order to succeed therefore more government is the answer and the reason for your success?



We wouldn't need more government if businesses were thriving and employers were paying a living wage.  Wages have stagnated while productivity has increased dramatically over the last ten to twenty years.  The only ones reaping any reward are those at the top of the pyramid.  The US has become a big ponzi scheme where only those at the top collect.


----------



## Katzndogz

I can hardly believe that this is what people think the Constitution says.   Where did they learn this?  The community center?

If a business is successful today, it is in SPITE of the government, not because of it.   This latest bit of nonsense by obama does need to be headlined every day, by the hour so that business people know exactly what he thinks of them.


----------



## Londoner

Actually, the "Self-Made" myth was used by American families who climbed up the ladder using the full benefits of public investments but who - once they reached the top - no longer wanted to pay into the system that benefited them.

Ronald Reagan is a perfect example. He grew up in a poor family that was on the way to being crushed by the Great Depression. Reagan's father was saved by an FDR work program - a BIG Government work program literally saved Ronald Reagan. FDR's theory was that the American people had greatness inside them. And that all you needed to do was give them a leg-up during hdd times, than then they would survive and thrive. FDR called it an investment in human capital. Do you think this nation's public or government investment in the Reagan family paid off? But it wasn't just the Reagans. Countless returning veterans from WWII were put to work by Republican presidents like Eisenhower building this nation's interstate's and energy grids and water plants. Big Government put jobless people to work building modern industrial America - and all of today's profit makers are dependent on ll the advantages of a modern industrial state. Indeed, there was a massive public investment in turning America into the most technologically advanced nation earth. This had a huge multiplier effect enjoyed by business. Today, however, we don't invest in infrastructure; nope - we just sell it to China because of the free market logic of selling to the highest bidder. [You fucking morons. The market isn't patriotic. It will sell everything you own until you lose your country to outsiders]

Private profits in the Southwest would not exist but for the Hoover Dam. The technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA. All the people who profit wildly because of these public investments use the self-made myth to avoid paying anything back. Therefore,, we have to cut education and let new infrastructureprojects go unfinished so that we can keep letting the wealthy walk away with everything. The country is dying because we have been taken over by an Ayn Rand narrative which 100% ignores how dependent business and the wealthy are on the Public. 

When America was at it's economic apex in the 50s and 60s, there was a proud and successful partnership between business and government. Indeed, business craves this partnership. This is why they build massive lobbying bases in Washington, so they can suckle at the public teet in the back of the room; and then they slither out of that dark room pockets stuffed with public money, and they use the "self-made" myth so they don't have to pay taxes on all the benefits they're sucking from the system. 

The anti-tax revolution has always been about maximizing what you take from government and the public, but paying as little back as possible. This includes moving all your profits offshore, like Romney. The point is to suck this country dry. To use all it's free resources, and then not pay anything back to future. This has been going on for 30 years, It was the point of the Reagan Revolution: to increase what the private sector takes from the pubic (in terms of subsidies, bail-outs, and regulatory favors) while radically decreasing what they pay back. 

And it was kind of funny to watch it happen. As the wealthy began to gain control over more and more wealth, they also gained control of the Republican Party, who now 100% works for this small collection of ultra wealthy corporate interests. They began shipping jobs to freedom-hating labor markets (mostly in communist China) in order to realize a higher return on investment. Companies like Bain were essential to this transfer of jobs to China on behalf of a small collection of American investors. All the while they'd say "give us tax cuts, and we'll give you more jobs." So we gave them more and more tax cuts and they'd ship more and more jobs to China. It was hoax, and only naive people who listened to talk radio and FOX News bought it. 

This is not a complicated story. The wealthy took over this country. They bought Washington and mass media. They locked down our laws and then they used media to promote the "self-made" myth to keep from having to pay back all the resources and subsidies they sucked from the system. (You people have no idea how much they rely on publicly funded infrastructure and public subsidies and public FDIC laws and public regulations which provect their monopolies.) The only way they get away with this shit is because Republican voters don't know how to question their information sources. We are still living under the essential logic of the Reagan Revolution. Tax cuts and deregulation. The result has been to concentrate all the wealth and resources into the hands of avery smaller group. And then these fucking billionaires who own the political system and mass media claim to be John Gault so that we give them even more money and resources. 

We call them job creators. This is such a fucking joke. They've been job shippers since Reagan.


----------



## mudwhistle

Sallow said:


> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.


All this asshole does is ether mock people or patronize them. 

Any business owner would tell Obama to go fuck himself. 

He never ran a business in his life. What gives him the right to talk smack about someone putting in 18 hour days just to keep his head above water?


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states ceded most of their sovereignty voluntarily when they signed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is probably the BIGGEST crock of shit I have heard on this board... proving, without a doubt, that you know absolutely nothing on how this government is constitutionally set up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the Constitution is the great protector of state sovereignty is the great myth. What state sovereignty amounts to is that the states are allowed to do whatever the Constitution doesn't say they can't do.
> 
> And the Constitution says that the states can't do anything that is contrary to federal law, or constitutional law,
> 
> so most meaningful sovereignty is gone right there.
Click to expand...

 

Doesn't say you can't do???????????

Does this idiot understand the essense of the double negative or even the concept of logic???????

Obviously not!

The left are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to justify what Obama said, and it's coming out as laughable as the above!


----------



## Skull Pilot

Here's a question for all those who think "society" trained my employees.

Since "society" is responsible for training my people so I can "make money off them" does society have any responsibility when an employee fucks up and costs me money?

I only ask because I caught an employee mistake last month that cost me over 700 dollars 

So all of you can pay up.


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states ceded most of their sovereignty voluntarily when they signed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helloooooooooooooooo! Did you EVER read the 10th Amendment?
> 
> Show me where that has been repealed?
> 
> l:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the 10th amendment does is let states do what the federal government doesn't prohibit. It's like a mom telling her kid, you can stay out as long as you like as long as you're home by 10.
Click to expand...

 
Then explain that POWER component of the 10th Amendment?



> *Amendment X*
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


 
Tenth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

All this is says is powers not given to the Federal government NOR PROHIBITED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, goes to the states.

You cannot back up your assertion.


----------



## Inthemiddle

teapartysamurai said:


> What's that got to to with it.
> 
> This is still able bodied LAZY PEOPLE trying to hide behide the handicapped, demanding the hard work of others.



You always move other people's goalposts?  Don't let them hide behind your backbreaking work.


----------



## AquaAthena

Katzndogz said:


> I can hardly believe that this is what people think the Constitution says.   Where did they learn this?  The community center?
> 
> If a business is successful today, it is in SPITE of the government, not because of it.   This latest bit of nonsense by obama does need to be headlined every day, by the hour so that business people know exactly what he thinks of them.



Agreed! For it is the Independents who will be doing the thinking. 

O. is just desperate to feed his base ammunition and hope it spreads to other "victims" of capitalism.....you know, the middle-class that business owners created, by providing them jobs and wages....


----------



## Inthemiddle

NYcarbineer said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states ceded most of their sovereignty voluntarily when they signed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helloooooooooooooooo!  Did you EVER read the 10th Amendment?
> 
> Show me where that has been repealed?
> 
> l:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the 10th amendment does is let states do what the federal government doesn't prohibit.  It's like a mom telling her kid, you can stay out as long as you like as long as you're home by 10.
Click to expand...


Actually, it doesn't even do that much.  It lets the states retain their original powers that they possessed prior to the ratification of the constitution.  That's why states don't have the power to establish their own term limits for their own members of Congress, for example.  Don't let yourself fall into their Tenther BS.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Katzndogz said:


> I can hardly believe that this is what people think the Constitution says.   Where did they learn this?  The community center?
> 
> If a business is successful today, it is in SPITE of the government, not because of it.   This latest bit of nonsense by obama does need to be headlined every day, by the hour so that business people know exactly what he thinks of them.



Right.  Govt is there to block you before you even launch a company.


----------



## teapartysamurai

auditor0007 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had to drive on the road you previously and continuously paid for by being taxed to get to work in order to succeed therefore more government is the answer and the reason for your success?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't need more government if businesses were thriving and employers were paying a living wage. Wages have stagnated while productivity has increased dramatically over the last ten to twenty years. The only ones reaping any reward are those at the top of the pyramid. The US has become a big ponzi scheme where only those at the top collect.
Click to expand...

 
"Living wage."

You ever notice those pushing that crap have no idea how to run a business, but still think they know how to DICTATE TO A BUSINESS OW TO PAY IT'S EMPLOYEES?

The "living wage" hurts those people, it's supposed to help, the most.

Why, you say?

Because if I must pay someone a "living wage" who am I going to pay it to?  Someone with 10 years experience in the business, or someone with no skills or experience I have to train?

I'm not going to take a chance to someone without skills or experience if I have to pay them more then they are worth.

Thus, the poor are hurt the worse by "living wages."


----------



## The T

LordBrownTrout said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can hardly believe that this is what people think the Constitution says. Where did they learn this? The community center?
> 
> If a business is successful today, it is in SPITE of the government, not because of it. This latest bit of nonsense by obama does need to be headlined every day, by the hour so that business people know exactly what he thinks of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Govt is there to block you before you even launch a company.
Click to expand...

 
Government has put up roadblock after roadblock to make it extremely difficult for people to go into business...and stay _in _business. So whenthey fail? What does government do? _Blame business._


----------



## The T

AquaAthena said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can hardly believe that this is what people think the Constitution says. Where did they learn this? The community center?
> 
> If a business is successful today, it is in SPITE of the government, not because of it. This latest bit of nonsense by obama does need to be headlined every day, by the hour so that business people know exactly what he thinks of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed! For it is the Independents who will be doing the thinking.
> 
> O. is just desperate to feed his base ammunition and hope it spreads to other "victims" of capitalism.....you know, the middle-class that business owners created, by providing them jobs and wages....
Click to expand...

 
Yep. Erect so many roadblocks that businesses DO fail...then Government says it's the fault OF businesses.


----------



## regent

The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when the government began helping industry, and govenment has helped business ever since. An example of the different philosophies was exhibited during the Great Depression when conservatives and Hoover believed it was business that should be rescued and so money was made available to industry. Industry, of course, sat on the money waiting for people to begin buying. and with no money the people didn't buy.  FDR believed it was people that needed help. Those beliefs have never changed since Hamilton, and are still with us.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Londoner said:


> Actually, the "Self-Made" myth was used by American families who climbed up the ladder using the full benefits of public investments but who - once they reached the top - no longer wanted to pay into the system that benefited them.
> 
> Ronald Reagan is a perfect example. He grew up in a poor family that was on the way to being crushed by the Great Depression. Reagan's father was saved by an FDR work program - a BIG Government work program literally saved Ronald Reagan. FDR's theory was that the American people had greatness inside them. And that all you needed to do was give them a leg-up during hdd times, than then they would survive and thrive. FDR called it an investment in human capital. Do you think this nation's public or government investment in the Reagan family paid off? But it wasn't just the Reagans. Countless returning veterans from WWII were put to work by Republican presidents like Eisenhower building this nation's interstate's and energy grids and water plants. Big Government put jobless people to work building modern industrial America - and all of today's profit makers are dependent on ll the advantages of a modern industrial state. Indeed, there was a massive public investment in turning America into the most technologically advanced nation earth. This had a huge multiplier effect enjoyed by business. Today, however, we don't invest in infrastructure; nope - we just sell it to China because of the free market logic of selling to the highest bidder. [You fucking morons. The market isn't patriotic. It will sell everything you own until you lose your country to outsiders]
> 
> Private profits in the Southwest would not exist but for the Hoover Dam. The technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA. All the people who profit wildly because of these public investments use the self-made myth to avoid paying anything back. Therefore,, we have to cut education and let new infrastructureprojects go unfinished so that we can keep letting the wealthy walk away with everything. The country is dying because we have been taken over by an Ayn Rand narrative which 100% ignores how dependent business and the wealthy are on the Public.
> 
> When America was at it's economic apex in the 50s and 60s, there was a proud and successful partnership between business and government. Indeed, business craves this partnership. This is why they build massive lobbying bases in Washington, so they can suckle at the public teet in the back of the room; and then they slither out of that dark room pockets stuffed with public money, and they use the "self-made" myth so they don't have to pay taxes on all the benefits they're sucking from the system.
> 
> The anti-tax revolution has always been about maximizing what you take from government and the public, but paying as little back as possible. This includes moving all your profits offshore, like Romney. The point is to suck this country dry. To use all it's free resources, and then not pay anything back to future. This has been going on for 30 years, It was the point of the Reagan Revolution: to increase what the private sector takes from the pubic (in terms of subsidies, bail-outs, and regulatory favors) while radically decreasing what they pay back.
> 
> And it was kind of funny to watch it happen. As the wealthy began to gain control over more and more wealth, they also gained control of the Republican Party, who now 100% works for this small collection of ultra wealthy corporate interests. They began shipping jobs to freedom-hating labor markets (mostly in communist China) in order to realize a higher return on investment. Companies like Bain were essential to this transfer of jobs to China on behalf of a small collection of American investors. All the while they'd say "give us tax cuts, and we'll give you more jobs." So we gave them more and more tax cuts and they'd ship more and more jobs to China. It was hoax, and only naive people who listened to talk radio and FOX News bought it.
> 
> This is not a compacted story. The wealthy took over this country. They bought Washington and mass media. They locked down our laws and then they promoted a self-made myth to keep from having to pay back all the resources and subsidies they sucked from the system. (You people have no idea how much they rely on publicly funded infrastructure and public subsidies and public FDIC laws and public regulations which provect their monopolies.) The only way they get away with this shit is because Republican voters don't know how to question their information sources.


 
Dude, the only thing business has to be grateful for government is when there government is restricted from meddling IN their business.

That is the role of the Constitution.  Keeping government from becoming too powerful and destroying our land of opportunity.

Ronald Reagan said it best:  



> In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.


 
Ronald Reagan addresses the nation at his First Inaugural Address.

Government Is The Problem Sound Clip , Quote, MP3, and Ringtone


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's that got to to with it.
> 
> This is still able bodied LAZY PEOPLE trying to hide behide the handicapped, demanding the hard work of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You always move other people's goalposts? Don't let them hide behind your backbreaking work.
Click to expand...

 
All you are whining about is you can't refute what I said.

YOu are trying to hide behind the handicapped because you know your greed for other people's money is ONLY TOO OBVIOUS, so you must hide.


----------



## AquaAthena

The T said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can hardly believe that this is what people think the Constitution says. Where did they learn this? The community center?
> 
> If a business is successful today, it is in SPITE of the government, not because of it. This latest bit of nonsense by obama does need to be headlined every day, by the hour so that business people know exactly what he thinks of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed! For it is the Independents who will be doing the thinking.
> 
> O. is just desperate to feed his base ammunition and hope it spreads to other "victims" of capitalism.....you know, the middle-class that business owners created, by providing them jobs and wages....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Erect so many roadblocks that businesses DO fail...then Government says it's the fault OF businesses.
Click to expand...


The American middle class was built on the individual pursuit of the  American dream.  The federal government exists solely to ensure that  your pursuit of the American dream is not infringed upon by another  individual or the state.  It is not the job of the federal government to  provide this American dream to you.


----------



## The T

teapartysamurai said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's that got to to with it.
> 
> This is still able bodied LAZY PEOPLE trying to hide behide the handicapped, demanding the hard work of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You always move other people's goalposts? Don't let them hide behind your backbreaking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you are whining about is you can't refute what I said.
> 
> YOu are trying to hide behind the handicapped because you know your greed for other people's money is ONLY TOO OBVIOUS, so you must hide.
Click to expand...

 
It's what Statists do. pretend to champion the downtrodden...and then enslave them.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helloooooooooooooooo! Did you EVER read the 10th Amendment?
> 
> Show me where that has been repealed?
> 
> l:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the 10th amendment does is let states do what the federal government doesn't prohibit. It's like a mom telling her kid, you can stay out as long as you like as long as you're home by 10.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it doesn't even do that much. It lets the states retain their original powers that they possessed prior to the ratification of the constitution. That's why states don't have the power to establish their own term limits for their own members of Congress, for example. Don't let yourself fall into their Tenther BS.
Click to expand...

 
Because a certain USSC rules something does not make it part of the Constitution.

Or you saying Dredd Scott was Constitutional?

Or are you saying Citizens UNITED is Constitutional?

(can't wait to see libs double talk their way out of that!)


----------



## The T

AquaAthena said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed! For it is the Independents who will be doing the thinking.
> 
> O. is just desperate to feed his base ammunition and hope it spreads to other "victims" of capitalism.....you know, the middle-class that business owners created, by providing them jobs and wages....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Erect so many roadblocks that businesses DO fail...then Government says it's the fault OF businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American middle class was built on the individual pursuit of the American dream. The federal government exists solely to ensure that your pursuit of the American dream is not infringed upon by another individual or the state. It is not the job of the federal government to provide this American dream to you.
Click to expand...

 
Precisely the point.


----------



## teapartysamurai

regent said:


> The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when the government began helping industry, and govenment has helped business ever since. An example of the different philosophies was exhibited during the Great Depression when conservatives and Hoover believed it was business that should be rescued and so money was made available to industry. Industry, of course, sat on the money waiting for people to begin buying. and with no money the people didn't buy. FDR believed it was people that needed help. Those beliefs have never changed since Hamilton, and are still with us.


 
Government has always helped business, but you have to jump approximately 123 years since the signing of the Constitution to find an example???????

Bwaahaaaaa!  

Can you libs even spell rationalization?


----------



## JoeNormal

Skull Pilot said:


> Society did not train my employees.  Most went on to get some college that they not society paid for.  And when they get to me They still have to go though months of on the job traing that I pay them for.
> 
> To hear you talk it seems you think anyone fresh out of high school can just be plugged into any position in a business.  Sorry but that is a fantasy that only people who never had employees hold.



I don't think that's what he's saying.  HS grads might not have all the skills necessary for a technical job but they should have the basics.  Imagine having to get a complete illiterate up to speed on anything but the most menial job.


----------



## Inthemiddle

The T said:


> So whenthey fail? What does government do?



Hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts.  Because it hates businesses so much.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> So whenthey fail? What does government do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts. Because it hates businesses so much.
Click to expand...

 
Are you saying the small businesses that Obama targeted in his speech, get government bailouts????????????

SINCE WHEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You libs are so full of it!

Obama isn't arguing that he should bailout small businesses!

HE'S SAYING SMALL BUSINESS SHOULD BAIL HIM OUT!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when the government began helping industry, and govenment has helped business ever since. An example of the different philosophies was exhibited during the Great Depression when conservatives and Hoover believed it was business that should be rescued and so money was made available to industry. Industry, of course, sat on the money waiting for people to begin buying. and with no money the people didn't buy.  FDR believed it was people that needed help. Those beliefs have never changed since Hamilton, and are still with us.



Unemployment averaged 20% for FDR's first 2 terms and only abated after Hitler conquered France

How did FDR help people?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



Oh he totally screwed himself with that comment...

He basically insulted every self-made successful individual when he said that.  

It really goes to show how fucked up Obama actually is and it sheds light on the notion that he certainly believes that government should play a central role in every individuals life and that government should play a central role in every business...

He may as well should have came out and said: "you don't make you successful - government makes you successful."

Obama is such an arrogant piece of shit....


----------



## teapartysamurai

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when the government began helping industry, and govenment has helped business ever since. An example of the different philosophies was exhibited during the Great Depression when conservatives and Hoover believed it was business that should be rescued and so money was made available to industry. Industry, of course, sat on the money waiting for people to begin buying. and with no money the people didn't buy. FDR believed it was people that needed help. Those beliefs have never changed since Hamilton, and are still with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment averaged 20% for FDR's first 2 terms and only abated after Hitler conquered France
> 
> How did FDR help people?
Click to expand...

 
He didn't!  The prosperity everyone eqautes with FDR didn't happen until the Eisenhower admin (and ooops!  He was a Republican)


----------



## The T

Inthemiddle said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> So whenthey fail? What does government do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts. Because it hates businesses so much.
Click to expand...

 

NOT the function of government. Where is it in the Constitution that outlays bailouts for failing businesses? The Federalist Papers I'm sure had something to say about it, right? The Anti-Federalists?

What YOU want is an abridgement of LIBERTY government is supposed to protect.

*FAIL*


----------



## JoeNormal

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society did not train my employees.  Most went on to get some college that they not society paid for.  And when they get to me They still have to go though months of on the job traing that I pay them for.
> 
> To hear you talk it seems you think anyone fresh out of high school can just be plugged into any position in a business.  Sorry but that is a fantasy that only people who never had employees hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what he's saying.  HS grads might not have all the skills necessary for a technical job but they should have the basics.  Imagine having to get a complete illiterate up to speed on anything but the most menial job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey that quote is mislabeled.
> 
> I would never post anything so inane. That honor belongs to rightwinger
Click to expand...


Sorry, I only wanted to address one issue and there was a tangle of quotation gobbledygoo.  Guess I must've untangled it wrong.


----------



## regent

While laws may not be part of the Constitution, they are constitutional until the Court rules othewise. We may be obeying laws today that have never been before the Court, as most laws, and are unconstitutional.


----------



## Inthemiddle

teapartysamurai said:


> All you are whining about is you can't refute what I said.



I'm not whining about anything.  And I was never trying to refute what you said.  If you hadn't noticed, I my comment wasn't even directed at you.  It was directed at two entirely different people.  All you're doing now is tearing down straw men.



> YOu are trying to hide behind the handicapped



I'm going to politely advise you to move away from trying to make claims about my feelings and view of the disabled, particularly allegations that I would somehow try to take advantage of the disabled.  My younger brother has a disability not entirely unlike Mr. Hawking's condition.



> because you know your greed for other people's money is ONLY TOO OBVIOUS, so you must hide.



You've got one thing right here, I do have a greed for other people's money.  That's why I work hard at my job to maximize the profitability of my company, and enjoy great success at aggressively achieving the greatest possible revenues I can for my company.  It's also why I zealously sell my case in every discussion I have with my supervisors to convince them to pay me as much as I can so convince them of doing.  It's also why I also maintain a secondary "side" business of my own, where I again aggressively pursue every opportunity I can generate revenues, gain as many new clients as I can (and as many as my schedule permits), for maximum profit.

The only people who don't have greed for other people's money are lazy people.


----------



## NYcarbineer

teapartysamurai said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helloooooooooooooooo! Did you EVER read the 10th Amendment?
> 
> Show me where that has been repealed?
> 
> l:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the 10th amendment does is let states do what the federal government doesn't prohibit. It's like a mom telling her kid, you can stay out as long as you like as long as you're home by 10.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain that POWER component of the 10th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Amendment X*
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tenth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> All this is says is powers not given to the Federal government NOR PROHIBITED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, goes to the states.
> 
> You cannot back up your assertion.
Click to expand...


*nor prohibited by it to the states*

The 'it' in that statement is the Constitution.  The phrase means the states can do as they please unless what they please is prohibited by the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause says the states can make no laws that conflict with the Constitution or Federal law.

The Supremacy Clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."


----------



## Inthemiddle

teapartysamurai said:


> Or you saying Dredd Scott was Constitutional?



Yes, it was.  Eventually, the constitution was amended.



> Or are you saying Citizens UNITED is Constitutional?


 
Yes, is.  Perhaps one day the constitution will be amended if the will of the people is so strong as to do so.



> (can't wait to see libs double talk their way out of that!)



Don't hold your breath.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Skull Pilot said:


> Here's a question for all those who think "society" trained my employees.
> 
> Since "society" is responsible for training my people so I can "make money off them" does society have any responsibility when an employee fucks up and costs me money?
> 
> I only ask because I caught an employee mistake last month that cost me over 700 dollars
> 
> So all of you can pay up.



How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?


----------



## JoeNormal

Mr.Nick said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he totally screwed himself with that comment...
> 
> He basically insulted every self-made successful individual when he said that.
> 
> It really goes to show how fucked up Obama actually is and it sheds light on the notion that he certainly believes that government should play a central role in every individuals life and that government should play a central role in every business...
> 
> *He may as well should have came out and said: "you don't make you successful - government makes you successful."
> *
> Obama is such an arrogant piece of shit....
Click to expand...


That's probably the way most conservatives would interpret it because they tend to think in black-and-white.  But then, conservatives won't be voting for Obama anyway.


----------



## Murf76

Londoner said:


> Actually, the "Self-Made" myth was used by American families who climbed up the ladder using the full benefits of public investments but who - once they reached the top - no longer wanted to pay into the system that benefited them.
> 
> Ronald Reagan is a perfect example. He grew up in a poor family that was on the way to being crushed by the Great Depression. Reagan's father was saved by an FDR work program - a BIG Government work program literally saved Ronald Reagan. FDR's theory was that the American people had greatness inside them. And that all you needed to do was give them a leg-up during hdd times, than then they would survive and thrive. FDR called it an investment in human capital. Do you think this nation's public or government investment in the Reagan family paid off? But it wasn't just the Reagans. Countless returning veterans from WWII were put to work by Republican presidents like Eisenhower building this nation's interstate's and energy grids and water plants. Big Government put jobless people to work building modern industrial America - and all of today's profit makers are dependent on ll the advantages of a modern industrial state. Indeed, there was a massive public investment in turning America into the most technologically advanced nation earth. This had a huge multiplier effect enjoyed by business. Today, however, we don't invest in infrastructure; nope - we just sell it to China because of the free market logic of selling to the highest bidder. [You fucking morons. The market isn't patriotic. It will sell everything you own until you lose your country to outsiders]
> 
> Private profits in the Southwest would not exist but for the Hoover Dam. The technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA. All the people who profit wildly because of these public investments use the self-made myth to avoid paying anything back. Therefore,, we have to cut education and let new infrastructureprojects go unfinished so that we can keep letting the wealthy walk away with everything. The country is dying because we have been taken over by an Ayn Rand narrative which 100% ignores how dependent business and the wealthy are on the Public.
> 
> When America was at it's economic apex in the 50s and 60s, there was a proud and successful partnership between business and government. Indeed, business craves this partnership. This is why they build massive lobbying bases in Washington, so they can suckle at the public teet in the back of the room; and then they slither out of that dark room pockets stuffed with public money, and they use the "self-made" myth so they don't have to pay taxes on all the benefits they're sucking from the system.
> 
> The anti-tax revolution has always been about maximizing what you take from government and the public, but paying as little back as possible. This includes moving all your profits offshore, like Romney. The point is to suck this country dry. To use all it's free resources, and then not pay anything back to future. This has been going on for 30 years, It was the point of the Reagan Revolution: to increase what the private sector takes from the pubic (in terms of subsidies, bail-outs, and regulatory favors) while radically decreasing what they pay back.
> 
> And it was kind of funny to watch it happen. As the wealthy began to gain control over more and more wealth, they also gained control of the Republican Party, who now 100% works for this small collection of ultra wealthy corporate interests. They began shipping jobs to freedom-hating labor markets (mostly in communist China) in order to realize a higher return on investment. Companies like Bain were essential to this transfer of jobs to China on behalf of a small collection of American investors. All the while they'd say "give us tax cuts, and we'll give you more jobs." So we gave them more and more tax cuts and they'd ship more and more jobs to China. It was hoax, and only naive people who listened to talk radio and FOX News bought it.
> 
> This is not a complicated story. The wealthy took over this country. They bought Washington and mass media. They locked down our laws and then they used media to promote the "self-made" myth to keep from having to pay back all the resources and subsidies they sucked from the system. (You people have no idea how much they rely on publicly funded infrastructure and public subsidies and public FDIC laws and public regulations which provect their monopolies.) The only way they get away with this shit is because Republican voters don't know how to question their information sources. We are still living under the essential logic of the Reagan Revolution. Tax cuts and deregulation. The result has been to concentrate all the wealth and resources into the hands of avery smaller group. And then these fucking billionaires who own the political system and mass media claim to be John Gault so that we give them even more money and resources.
> 
> We call them job creators. This is such a fucking joke. They've been job shippers since Reagan.



What's really amazing about the _useful idiots_ Democrats keep like sheep... is that they CAN'T SEE how Democrat policies keep them poor.  You think big corporations are concerned about taxation or regulatory law? 
Nope.  They've got cadres of lawyers to lead them through the regulatory jungle and the ability to pass onerous taxation off onto consumers by raising prices.   The little guy that your local Democrat snake-oil salesman _claims_ to support is the guy who gets squeezed out.  

You guys have got this whole thing ass-backwards, never comprehending that all the policies you support HELP the corporate climate you purport to despise.  They're USING federal power to eliminate smaller competitors and you sit there with your thumbs up your butts whining about how poor you're getting.


----------



## Skull Pilot

NYcarbineer said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question for all those who think "society" trained my employees.
> 
> Since "society" is responsible for training my people so I can "make money off them" does society have any responsibility when an employee fucks up and costs me money?
> 
> I only ask because I caught an employee mistake last month that cost me over 700 dollars
> 
> So all of you can pay up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my question.

Is "society " responsible for the loss caused by my employee that "society" supposedly "trained"?


----------



## Full-Auto

Inthemiddle said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> I think the foundational issue is...
> 
> All, hell with it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar.  You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism.  What they are calling for is what they believe would be a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.  The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti  holding a ton of feathers.
Click to expand...


Please explain that healthy balance.  My figures show you are full of shit.

Thiose figures can be found at the US DEPT OF TREASURY.

Ahalf trillion in interest payments.  So that balance is where?


All you have to argue back are what ifs.....P.O.


----------



## Mr.Nick

teapartysamurai said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when the government began helping industry, and govenment has helped business ever since. An example of the different philosophies was exhibited during the Great Depression when conservatives and Hoover believed it was business that should be rescued and so money was made available to industry. Industry, of course, sat on the money waiting for people to begin buying. and with no money the people didn't buy. FDR believed it was people that needed help. Those beliefs have never changed since Hamilton, and are still with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment averaged 20% for FDR's first 2 terms and only abated after Hitler conquered France
> 
> How did FDR help people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't!  The prosperity everyone eqautes with FDR didn't happen until the Eisenhower admin (and ooops!  He was a Republican)
Click to expand...


The New Deal was a fucking failure.....

It's funny how democrats fuck everything up and make a mess and republicans clean it up...

Wilson, FDR, Carter, Obama.....

Democrats are economically retarded.... 

What works in theory doesn't necessarily work in practice...


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question for all those who think "society" trained my employees.
> 
> Since "society" is responsible for training my people so I can "make money off them" does society have any responsibility when an employee fucks up and costs me money?
> 
> I only ask because I caught an employee mistake last month that cost me over 700 dollars
> 
> So all of you can pay up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
Click to expand...


It's people who pay taxes who pay for public education... and infrastructure, and emergency services, and national security, and everything else.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you are whining about is you can't refute what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not whining about anything. And I was never trying to refute what you said. If you hadn't noticed, I my comment wasn't even directed at you. It was directed at two entirely different people. All you're doing now is tearing down straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are trying to hide behind the handicapped
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to politely advise you to move away from trying to make claims about my feelings and view of the disabled, particularly allegations that I would somehow try to take advantage of the disabled. My younger brother has a disability not entirely unlike Mr. Hawking's condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because you know your greed for other people's money is ONLY TOO OBVIOUS, so you must hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got one thing right here, I do have a greed for other people's money. That's why I work hard at my job to maximize the profitability of my company, and enjoy great success at aggressively achieving the greatest possible revenues I can for my company. It's also why I zealously sell my case in every discussion I have with my supervisors to convince them to pay me as much as I can so convince them of doing. It's also why I also maintain a secondary "side" business of my own, where I again aggressively pursue every opportunity I can generate revenues, gain as many new clients as I can (and as many as my schedule permits), for maximum profit.
> 
> The only people who don't have greed for other people's money are lazy people.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not one the one arguing for a "mixed" economy.

And BTW, you still haven't been honest enough to admit MIXED WITH WHAT???????

Obviously mixed with socialism.

But now you have gone from hiding behind the handicapped to hiding behind small business.

You cannot have it both ways.

You cannot claim YOU do all these things with YOUR business while arguing everyone else dosn't make it without government.

That's trying to have it both ways.

Or like the conversation I had with someone once.

He said, "Well, I'm a fiscally conservative, but socially liberal."

"Oh," I replied.  "A hypocrite!"

"What do you mean by that?!"  He demanded.

"You want everyone else taxed, JUST NOT YOU!"

Who will you hide behind next?


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the 10th amendment does is let states do what the federal government doesn't prohibit. It's like a mom telling her kid, you can stay out as long as you like as long as you're home by 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain that POWER component of the 10th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Amendment X*
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tenth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> All this is says is powers not given to the Federal government NOR PROHIBITED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, goes to the states.
> 
> You cannot back up your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *nor prohibited by it to the states*
> 
> The 'it' in that statement is the Constitution. The phrase means the states can do as they please unless what they please is prohibited by the Constitution.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause says the states can make no laws that conflict with the Constitution or Federal law.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause:
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Click to expand...

 
Well then I guess you are against medical marijuana because it's prohibited by the Federal Government.

Can't wait to hear what you have to say to that!


----------



## Douger

True. American Airlines helped.


----------



## GHook93

It should be more specific he was talking to businesses owner. This is the scariest thing that has come out of Comrade Obama's mouth! He comes from the lazy liberal mentality that no one who makes it earned it. This is collectivist speech my friends and it should scare us all. 




Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .


----------



## NYcarbineer

Skull Pilot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question for all those who think "society" trained my employees.
> 
> Since "society" is responsible for training my people so I can "make money off them" does society have any responsibility when an employee fucks up and costs me money?
> 
> I only ask because I caught an employee mistake last month that cost me over 700 dollars
> 
> So all of you can pay up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Is "society " responsible for the loss caused by my employee that "society" supposedly "trained"?
Click to expand...


No.  Don't be stupid.  Please.  Stop being stupid.


----------



## Inthemiddle

Full-Auto said:


> Please explain that healthy balance.  My figures show you are full of shit.
> 
> Thiose figures can be found at the US DEPT OF TREASURY.
> 
> Ahalf trillion in interest payments.  So that balance is where?
> 
> 
> All you have to argue back are what ifs.....P.O.



Whatever that healthy balance would be is obviously open to debate.  My comment was not endorsing any given perspective on that question.  I'm merely stating that labeling people things like "commie" or "fascist" simply because they don't subscribe to one's own view of what would constitute such a balance, is ridiculous.  Democrats, as a group, aren't pushing for a socialist state anymore than Republicans, as a group, are pushing for theocracy.  Throwing these kinds of labels around accomplishes nothing other than create a convenient way to dismiss anyone with whom one disagrees, and is usually indicative of a weak mind.


----------



## Mr.Nick

teapartysamurai said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you are whining about is you can't refute what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not whining about anything. And I was never trying to refute what you said. If you hadn't noticed, I my comment wasn't even directed at you. It was directed at two entirely different people. All you're doing now is tearing down straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to politely advise you to move away from trying to make claims about my feelings and view of the disabled, particularly allegations that I would somehow try to take advantage of the disabled. My younger brother has a disability not entirely unlike Mr. Hawking's condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because you know your greed for other people's money is ONLY TOO OBVIOUS, so you must hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got one thing right here, I do have a greed for other people's money. That's why I work hard at my job to maximize the profitability of my company, and enjoy great success at aggressively achieving the greatest possible revenues I can for my company. It's also why I zealously sell my case in every discussion I have with my supervisors to convince them to pay me as much as I can so convince them of doing. It's also why I also maintain a secondary "side" business of my own, where I again aggressively pursue every opportunity I can generate revenues, gain as many new clients as I can (and as many as my schedule permits), for maximum profit.
> 
> The only people who don't have greed for other people's money are lazy people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not one the one arguing for a "mixed" economy.
> 
> And BTW, you still haven't been honest enough to admit MIXED WITH WHAT???????
> 
> Obviously mixed with socialism.
> 
> But now you have gone from hiding behind the handicapped to hiding behind small business.
> 
> You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> You cannot claim YOU do all these things with YOUR business while arguing everyone else dosn't make it without government.
> 
> That's trying to have it both ways.
> 
> Or like the conversation I had with someone once.
> 
> He said, "Well, I'm a fiscally conservative, but socially liberal."
> 
> "Oh," I replied.  "A hypocrite!"
> 
> "What do you mean by that?!"  He demanded.
> 
> "You want everyone else taxed, JUST NOT YOU!"
> 
> Who will you hide behind next?
Click to expand...


Keynesian economics don't work - it's almost like driving around in a car with the parking break on..


----------



## NYcarbineer

teapartysamurai said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain that POWER component of the 10th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> Tenth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> All this is says is powers not given to the Federal government NOR PROHIBITED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, goes to the states.
> 
> You cannot back up your assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *nor prohibited by it to the states*
> 
> The 'it' in that statement is the Constitution. The phrase means the states can do as they please unless what they please is prohibited by the Constitution.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause says the states can make no laws that conflict with the Constitution or Federal law.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause:
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then I guess you are against medical marijuana because it's prohibited by the Federal Government.
> 
> Can't wait to hear what you have to say to that!
> 
> :
Click to expand...




You've just admitted the supremacy of the federal government.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or you saying Dredd Scott was Constitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. Eventually, the constitution was amended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you saying Citizens UNITED is Constitutional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, is. Perhaps one day the constitution will be amended if the will of the people is so strong as to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (can't wait to see libs double talk their way out of that!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

 

Get this!  Slavery was Constitutional!

I suppose then "Separate but Equal" aka Jim Crowe, was also Constitutional.

BTW, show me where in the Constitutin it says the USSC is the last word on what IS Constitutional?


----------



## kwc57

boilermaker55 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
Click to expand...


The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.

Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!


----------



## Stephanie

NYcarbineer said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question for all those who think "society" trained my employees.
> 
> Since "society" is responsible for training my people so I can "make money off them" does society have any responsibility when an employee fucks up and costs me money?
> 
> I only ask because I caught an employee mistake last month that cost me over 700 dollars
> 
> So all of you can pay up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
Click to expand...


A lot of people made it in LIFE with no "schooling"..they used hard work and common sense..
something many of you liberals seem to think doesn't exist in people just like your dear leader does


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Is "society " responsible for the loss caused by my employee that "society" supposedly "trained"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Don't be stupid. Please. Stop being stupid.
Click to expand...

 
I think we see who's being stupid!


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain that healthy balance. My figures show you are full of shit.
> 
> Thiose figures can be found at the US DEPT OF TREASURY.
> 
> Ahalf trillion in interest payments. So that balance is where?
> 
> 
> All you have to argue back are what ifs.....P.O.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever that healthy balance would be is obviously open to debate. My comment was not endorsing any given perspective on that question. I'm merely stating that labeling people things like "commie" or "fascist" simply because they don't subscribe to one's own view of what would constitute such a balance, is ridiculous. Democrats, as a group, aren't pushing for a socialist state anymore than Republicans, as a group, are pushing for theocracy. Throwing these kinds of labels around accomplishes nothing other than create a convenient way to dismiss anyone with whom one disagrees, and is usually indicative of a weak mind.
Click to expand...

 
No, you are simply trying to bullshit your way out of your original statement.

You said this was a "mixed economy."

MIXED WITH WHAT??????????

You won't answer that, because you KNOW what the answer is, and you admit YOU WANT MORE OF IT!


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *nor prohibited by it to the states*
> 
> The 'it' in that statement is the Constitution. The phrase means the states can do as they please unless what they please is prohibited by the Constitution.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause says the states can make no laws that conflict with the Constitution or Federal law.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause:
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then I guess you are against medical marijuana because it's prohibited by the Federal Government.
> 
> Can't wait to hear what you have to say to that!
> 
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've just admitted the supremacy of the federal government.
Click to expand...

 
ARE YOU saying medical marijuana is illegal despite the laws in the State of California?


----------



## Katzndogz

Inthemiddle said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> So whenthey fail? What does government do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts.  Because it hates businesses so much.
Click to expand...


Maybe that money should have been used here instead of sent overseas.


----------



## The T

Stephanie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question for all those who think "society" trained my employees.
> 
> Since "society" is responsible for training my people so I can "make money off them" does society have any responsibility when an employee fucks up and costs me money?
> 
> I only ask because I caught an employee mistake last month that cost me over 700 dollars
> 
> So all of you can pay up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people made it in LIFE with no "schooling"..they used hard work and common sense..
> something many of you liberals seem to think doesn't exist in people just like your dear leader does
Click to expand...

 
When you hitch your wagon and fortunes on a party that tells you that YOU can't make it without them or big government? CHOOSE to be enslaved BY government? Default your liberty TO them for security? You see the result.

Denial they screwed up.


----------



## Murf76

kwc57 said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!
Click to expand...


You can't sell tamales on the street anymore.  You need licensing and inspectors and insurance.  So now, you've got to go to the bank and borrow some money in order to cover your "start-up" costs.  But the bank won't give you any money because you don't have collateral.  So, you sell your tamales illegally and end up in jail with a stack of fines and court costs to pay.  THAT's the New America... the one that statist Democrats prefer.

But they're just helping "the little guy", doncha know?


----------



## JoeNormal

kwc57 said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!
Click to expand...


And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...


----------



## Mr.Nick

kwc57 said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!
Click to expand...


I don't believe progressives have enough brain power to understand the simplicities of supply and demand which is the root of capitalism (or economics in general)...

No, their economic model is "people should share." The simple fact that progressives are pretty much nothing more than beggars shows how inept they are....


----------



## Stephanie

JoeNormal said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
Click to expand...


ok, AND?
WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit


----------



## Skull Pilot

NYcarbineer said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Is "society " responsible for the loss caused by my employee that "society" supposedly "trained"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Don't be stupid.  Please.  Stop being stupid.
Click to expand...


It's no more stupid than the statement made by "The Smartest President Ever" 

If you believe Bam Bam to be speaking the truth then the question is valid.


----------



## JoeNormal

Stephanie said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
Click to expand...


Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.  

I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.


----------



## Full-Auto

JoeNormal said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
Click to expand...


Jesus, a fifth grader trying to explain economics.

Thanks for the laugh................


----------



## Stephanie

JoeNormal said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
Click to expand...


omg...


----------



## JoeNormal

Full-Auto said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus, a fifth grader trying to explain economics.
> 
> Thanks for the laugh................
Click to expand...


Did I make it simple enough that even YOU could understand?


----------



## regent

Mr.Nick said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment averaged 20% for FDR's first 2 terms and only abated after Hitler conquered France
> 
> How did FDR help people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't!  The prosperity everyone eqautes with FDR didn't happen until the Eisenhower admin (and ooops!  He was a Republican)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New Deal was a fucking failure.....
> 
> It's funny how democrats fuck everything up and make a mess and republicans clean it up...
> 
> Wilson, FDR, Carter, Obama.....
> 
> Democrats are economically retarded....
> 
> What works in theory doesn't necessarily work in practice...
Click to expand...


Well for a failure, FDR seems to have done pretty well, the people voted for him four times, a record that will stand for some years, maybe forever, America's historians have always rated FDR in the top three greatest American presidents and recently rated him the greatest. So it seems the people thought he was great and the historians the greatest.
So how did the Republicans do with the Great Depression? Republicans had a country that that was booming along in the greatest period of prosperity and bingo under Republican leadership it entered the greatest depression the nation has ever had. 
To add to the problem, Republicans keep bringing up evidence that FDR didn't spend enough money on the New Deal, it took war time spending. Hope we remember that.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

JoeNormal said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
Click to expand...


Wrong. It was our tax dollars that provided that infrastructure AND a private company that built that highway.


----------



## The T

JoeNormal said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met. Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers. Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
Click to expand...

 
Dumbass. Liberty teaches that YOU have equal oppritunity to succeed...or to fail. it was up to government to ensure that in either case it protected that liberty. You had family and other entities there to help in case of failure. (Government wasn't supposed to interfere there either).

Government has taken on the role of mommy, and charity.

YOU know zero of how and WHY this Republic was designed by the founders the way it was...

...But then you either weren't taught real history, or you slept through it. 

 IDIOT.


----------



## Wiseacre

JoeNormal said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
Click to expand...



Only a total idiot thinks that the gov't makes a success out of anybody.   

Motivated entrepeneurs are motivated by money:  profits.   And you left out something:  capital and bustass hard work.


----------



## The T

LordBrownTrout said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It was our tax dollars that provided that infrastructure AND a private company that built that highway.
Click to expand...

 
And do the taxpayers that gave the funds to build those roads through taxes tell the poor and downtrodden that they can't use them?


----------



## Stephanie

JoeNormal said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, a fifth grader trying to explain economics.
> 
> Thanks for the laugh................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I make it simple enough that even YOU could understand?
Click to expand...


the only thing "simple" is your thinking
scary too


----------



## Full-Auto

JoeNormal said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, a fifth grader trying to explain economics.
> 
> Thanks for the laugh................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I make it simple enough that even YOU could understand?
Click to expand...


If you think that is all involved, and you do.  I laugh at your stupidity.


----------



## JoeNormal

Ok, all you big time entrepreneurs.  You want a challenge?  See if you can start a successful business in Somalia.


----------



## The T

Stephanie said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, a fifth grader trying to explain economics.
> 
> Thanks for the laugh................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I make it simple enough that even YOU could understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only thing "simple" is your thinking
> scary too
Click to expand...

 
And those idiots vote...right into the treasury with thier enablers...Obama and company.


----------



## mudwhistle

Murf76 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't sell tamales on the street anymore.  You need licensing and inspectors and insurance.  So now, you've got to go to the bank and borrow some money in order to cover your "start-up" costs.  But the bank won't give you any money because you don't have collateral.  So, you sell your tamales illegally and end up in jail with a stack of fines and court costs to pay.  THAT's the New America... the one that statist Democrats prefer.
> 
> But they're just helping "the little guy", doncha know?
Click to expand...


Good example of how the government helps us......move our assets out of the country.

Pretty soon you'll need a license to "Squeeze The Lemon". Doing your business.


----------



## Mr.Nick

JoeNormal said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
Click to expand...


Oh really dumbass - you obviously never owned a business in your life...

You progressive retards just sit here and attempt to tell other people how it works, because you believe in your own fucked up minds you know how economy works, or how businesses work - yet you don't know jack shit Jack....

Government doesn't do anything but MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULTY TO KEEP A BUSINESS OPERATING DICKHEAD....

My family had to close our family store because of the shitty economy and government demands....

Just shut your fingers up already.....


----------



## JoeNormal

Mr.Nick said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really dumbass - you obviously never owned a business in your life...
> 
> You progressive retards just sit here and attempt to tell other people how it works, because you believe in your own fucked up minds you know how economy works, or how businesses work - yet you don't know jack shit Jack....
> 
> Government doesn't do anything but MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULTY TO KEEP A BUSINESS OPERATING DICKHEAD....
> 
> My family had to close our family store because of the shitty economy and government demands....
> 
> Just shut your fingers up already.....
Click to expand...


I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy.  Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem.  What was this family store of which you speak?


----------



## Stephanie

JoeNormal said:


> Ok, all you big time entrepreneurs.  You want a challenge?  See if you can start a successful business in Somalia.



you first, bye


----------



## GuyPinestra

JoeNormal said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
Click to expand...


Jose PAID his 'fair share' for those things ALREADY.

And now you want MORE?

How much is enough?


----------



## The T

JoeNormal said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really dumbass - you obviously never owned a business in your life...
> 
> You progressive retards just sit here and attempt to tell other people how it works, because you believe in your own fucked up minds you know how economy works, or how businesses work - yet you don't know jack shit Jack....
> 
> Government doesn't do anything but MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULTY TO KEEP A BUSINESS OPERATING DICKHEAD....
> 
> My family had to close our family store because of the shitty economy and government demands....
> 
> Just shut your fingers up already.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy. Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem. What was this family store of which you speak?
Click to expand...

 
Could be that YOU didn't work hard enough? From your postings? I'd say that was so...SO YOU have thrown in the towel and given up to mommy Government to save you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.


The idea that "it takes a village" to do anything is -not- new.

The Obama is making the case that because you were helped in your efforts to better yourself, the government must make sure that you help others.  This is hardly new, in that the left has argued that the government must make good on the wealthy's moral imperative to help the less fortunate for a VERY long time.

Never mind that government is dependant on business; the reverse is not true.


----------



## Mr.Nick

JoeNormal said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really dumbass - you obviously never owned a business in your life...
> 
> You progressive retards just sit here and attempt to tell other people how it works, because you believe in your own fucked up minds you know how economy works, or how businesses work - yet you don't know jack shit Jack....
> 
> Government doesn't do anything but MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULTY TO KEEP A BUSINESS OPERATING DICKHEAD....
> 
> My family had to close our family store because of the shitty economy and government demands....
> 
> Just shut your fingers up already.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy.  Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem.  What was this family store of which you speak?
Click to expand...


There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....

If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....

We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items...  For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that... 

Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..

I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........


----------



## JoeNormal

The T said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really dumbass - you obviously never owned a business in your life...
> 
> You progressive retards just sit here and attempt to tell other people how it works, because you believe in your own fucked up minds you know how economy works, or how businesses work - yet you don't know jack shit Jack....
> 
> Government doesn't do anything but MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULTY TO KEEP A BUSINESS OPERATING DICKHEAD....
> 
> My family had to close our family store because of the shitty economy and government demands....
> 
> Just shut your fingers up already.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy. Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem. What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be that YOU didn't work hard enough? From your postings? I'd say that was so...SO YOU have thrown in the towel and given up to mommy Government to save you.
Click to expand...


No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract.  Working hard enough wasn't the issue.  It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors.  I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started  - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.


----------



## Charles_Main

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .




Anyone that still denies Obama is a Big Government Socialist is a fool. He can not even give credit where credit is due in the Business world. He is basically telling them they didn't do shit, they didn't earn what they built. 

Left wing through and through.


----------



## JoeNormal

Mr.Nick said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really dumbass - you obviously never owned a business in your life...
> 
> You progressive retards just sit here and attempt to tell other people how it works, because you believe in your own fucked up minds you know how economy works, or how businesses work - yet you don't know jack shit Jack....
> 
> Government doesn't do anything but MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULTY TO KEEP A BUSINESS OPERATING DICKHEAD....
> 
> My family had to close our family store because of the shitty economy and government demands....
> 
> Just shut your fingers up already.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy.  Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem.  What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items...  For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
Click to expand...


What was the issue with the government?  Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really dumbass - you obviously never owned a business in your life...
> 
> You progressive retards just sit here and attempt to tell other people how it works, because you believe in your own fucked up minds you know how economy works, or how businesses work - yet you don't know jack shit Jack....
> 
> Government doesn't do anything but MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULTY TO KEEP A BUSINESS OPERATING DICKHEAD....
> 
> My family had to close our family store because of the shitty economy and government demands....
> 
> Just shut your fingers up already.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy. Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem. What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items... For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
Click to expand...

 
Really? You ought to contact *THESE GUYS* to get rid of some of it... who knows?


----------



## chanel

Is this how desperate they've gotten? "Republicans hate roads" or some shit?

Holy cow. Fatal, fatal error. They should've stuck with the "War on Women and Puppies".


----------



## chanel

Is this how desperate they've gotten? "Republicans hate roads" or some shit?

Holy cow. Fatal, fatal error. They should've stuck with the "War on Women and Puppies".


----------



## The T

chanel said:


> Is this how desperate they've gotten? "Republicans hate roads" or some shit?
> 
> Holy cow. Fatal, fatal error. They should've stuck with the "War on Women and Puppies".


----------



## Full-Auto

JoeNormal said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy.  Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem.  What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items...  For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government?  Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
Click to expand...


Patently false.


----------



## The T

JoeNormal said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy. Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem. What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could be that YOU didn't work hard enough? From your postings? I'd say that was so...SO YOU have thrown in the towel and given up to mommy Government to save you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract. Working hard enough wasn't the issue. It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors. I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.
Click to expand...

 
So then you pick up and do something else. Makes sense? no?


----------



## Charles_Main

JoeNormal said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy.  Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem.  What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items...  For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government?  Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
Click to expand...


That's horse shit. Regulations cost Business money whether they profit or not.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

JoeNormal said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy.  Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem.  What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items...  For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government?  Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
Click to expand...


So if my company doesn't make a profit, I don't have to pay any taxes?


What world are you living in?


----------



## M14 Shooter

One might more accurately note:

If you've got a special forces operation to take out a 9/11 mastermind--you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


----------



## Murf76

chanel said:


> Is this how desperate they've gotten? "Republicans hate roads" or some shit?
> 
> Holy cow. Fatal, fatal error. They should've stuck with the "War on Women and Puppies".



It's particularly ironic since only about 5% of the Porkulus giveaway was spent on infrastructure.


----------



## JoeNormal

The T said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be that YOU didn't work hard enough? From your postings? I'd say that was so...SO YOU have thrown in the towel and given up to mommy Government to save you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract. Working hard enough wasn't the issue. It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors. I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you pick up and do something else. Makes sense? no?
Click to expand...


That's what I'm doing now.


----------



## Mr.Nick

JoeNormal said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy.  Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem.  What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items...  For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government?  Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
Click to expand...


It was more the state/local government that I had problems with being the bookkeeper/accountant..... When it comes to tax time they fuck you in the ass.

Hell, Illinois sent me a goddamn 1,500 dollar tax bill on a car I bought in Wisconsin for 1,500 in which they refused to transfer the title. They never issued me plates, not to mention the car broke down and the Nazi's here in Illinois towed it 2 hours after I went to go retrieve it and sized it.... Oh and the best part is they cant even spell my fucking name right on the tax bill - they spell it "Ncik."

But that is how progressives run shit around here...  "Fuck you - no you cant have plates for your car - but you can pay the fucking taxes that amount to the total blue book value of your car." I would love to know how this progressive state of Illinois actually believes they can a) just make up some random number and b) believes they have the right to tax me for a product I bought in another state???  Oh and they refused to issue me plates for my car..... So how the fuck can the state possible attempt to tax me when they refused to accept the title in the first place??


----------



## The T

JoeNormal said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract. Working hard enough wasn't the issue. It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors. I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you pick up and do something else. Makes sense? no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I'm doing now.
Click to expand...

 
Then WHY are you rallying to the defense of the Government that deliberatly gets in YOUR WAY to make it harder?


----------



## JoeNormal

Lonestar_logic said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items...  For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government?  Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if my company doesn't make a profit, I don't have to pay any taxes?
> 
> 
> What world are you living in?
Click to expand...


Probably have to pay some minor shit like property taxes, water, sewer maybe some additional police and fire protection depending on your locale and industry.  Maybe hazardous waste?  I didn't have to deal with anything major.  Why don't you tell me what the big, bad government is doing to you?


----------



## kwc57

JoeNormal said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
Click to expand...


Was there a point to that?


----------



## Full-Auto

JoeNormal said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government?  Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if my company doesn't make a profit, I don't have to pay any taxes?
> 
> 
> What world are you living in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably have to pay some minor shit like property taxes, water, sewer maybe some additional police and fire protection depending on your locale and industry.  Maybe hazardous waste?  I didn't have to deal with anything major.  Why don't you tell me what the big, bad government is doing to you?
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of the subject is overwhelming................


----------



## M14 Shooter

JoeNormal said:


> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...


Infrastructure follows busniess.  Always.


----------



## Mr.Nick

The T said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy. Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem. What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items... For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You ought to contact *THESE GUYS* to get rid of some of it... who knows?
Click to expand...


I love that show but I have nothing they would like.....

All the stuff I have is retail items - the type of stuff you would find in stores...

Stuff like this...


----------



## JoeNormal

The T said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you pick up and do something else. Makes sense? no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I'm doing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then WHY are you rallying to the defense of the Government that deliberatly gets in YOUR WAY to make it harder?
Click to expand...


Like I say, with my experience in starting up a business, I wasn't going to have to worry about paying a hell of a lot to the government right off the bat and if I'd have made it wildly successful, I'd have been grateful for that and wouldn't have minded paying.  I do pretty alright now and pay more than some people make and feel that's the price of admission.  I don't like some of the government boondoggles and I think that corporate welfare is probably the most agregious sin of our government but I know some government employees and they as a competent as anyone I know.  I don't think that government waste (except maybe within the military) is as big of an issue as most conservatives seem to believe.


----------



## JoeNormal

Full-Auto said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if my company doesn't make a profit, I don't have to pay any taxes?
> 
> 
> What world are you living in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably have to pay some minor shit like property taxes, water, sewer maybe some additional police and fire protection depending on your locale and industry.  Maybe hazardous waste?  I didn't have to deal with anything major.  Why don't you tell me what the big, bad government is doing to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of the subject is overwhelming................
Click to expand...


Enlighten me.


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do not profit off of society they have to provide a service well in order to profit.  I just can't say "Hey I'm in business, let the profits roll in from society starting now"
> 
> Businesses pay more in taxes than the general public.  Seems to me society benefits when there are successful businesses in the community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that business does not generate from scratch. You plug your business into an existing society and benefit from its people, roads, communications infrastructure, police and fire protections...
> 
> You, in turn make a profit off of that relationship and are expected to pay to contribute to the society from which you benefit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do you have to be told that businesses pay substantially more in taxes than the average American?
Click to expand...


Isn't that the purpose of the thread?


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> People make their own deals to trade their time for money. No one is forcing them to work for anyone. And if you've ever had to hire a HS grad you'd have serious doubts about just how "educated " they are.
> 
> 
> It doesn't provide any of those. We pay for them. In fact I pay a higher rate for business phone lines than the average person.
> 
> 
> Does not apply to a lot of businesses as not all do business abroad.
> 
> 
> Police don't protect my business I do by hiring a private alarm monitoring company. Police show up after a crime has been committed and most times stolen property is never recovered nor are the perpetrators caught.
> 
> Fire department s are not free either you know. Business people pay for them too. In my town we have a volunteer fire department which local businesses support quite generously I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> It costs a lot of money to patent an idea and society does not pay that cost nor will it actively seek out patent or copyright infringements the persons holding the copyright or patent must submit proof of an infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hire trained employess that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice libs act like YOU, the small busines owners pays no TAXES that pay for fire or police.
> 
> It's just everybody else that supposedly pays for those taxes.
> 
> I would love to see a comparison of how much the small business owner pays AND COLLECTS IN SALES TAXES, compared to how much those customers pay in taxes.
> 
> Yet the customers are owed the profits of the business?
Click to expand...


No shit..

The topic is that businesses did not get where they are alone. Nobody gets ahead in business without the benefits of society, so it is reasonable to expect business to contribute


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items... For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You ought to contact *THESE GUYS* to get rid of some of it... who knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that show but I have nothing they would like.....
> 
> All the stuff I have is retail items - the type of stuff you would find in stores...
> 
> Stuff like this...
Click to expand...

 

Cool. You never know until you contact them...


----------



## The T

M14 Shooter said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met. Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers. Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure follows busniess. Always.
Click to expand...

 
Yep. There no real roads or highways as we know them until AFTER the car was invented. And but for landgrants? The Railroads (owned by private entities), were IT.


----------



## Inthemiddle

teapartysamurai said:


> I'm not one the one arguing for a "mixed" economy.



In case you didn't know, we HAVE a mixed economy.  That's what it is.  



> And BTW, you still haven't been honest enough to admit MIXED WITH WHAT???????


 
Haven't been honest enough to admit what?  I'm sorry, did you have a question to ask me?



> Obviously mixed with socialism.


 
No.  A mixed economy is not about mixing capitalism with socialism.  The quintessential quality of socialism is production for use.  Considering the fact that just over 80% of the US economy is services driven, it's absurdity to even suggest that the US is "mixed" with socialism to any significant or meaningful degree.

A mixed economy, like ours, leaves the open market to establish things like production rates, the costs of purchasing goods, ect, while the government the ability to regulate the market, and exert influence to mitigate the undesirable consequences that are inherent in a capitalist market (such as recessions).



> But now you have gone from hiding behind the handicapped to hiding behind small business.
> 
> You cannot have it both ways.



Last time.



> You cannot claim YOU do all these things with YOUR business while arguing everyone else dosn't make it without government.


 
Straw man.


----------



## Inthemiddle

teapartysamurai said:


> BTW, show me where in the Constitutin it says the USSC is the last word on what IS Constitutional?



Article III.  Now stop being an idiot.


----------



## Murf76

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hire trained employess that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice libs act like YOU, the small busines owners pays no TAXES that pay for fire or police.
> 
> It's just everybody else that supposedly pays for those taxes.
> 
> I would love to see a comparison of how much the small business owner pays AND COLLECTS IN SALES TAXES, compared to how much those customers pay in taxes.
> 
> Yet the customers are owed the profits of the business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit..
> 
> The topic is that businesses did not get where they are alone. Nobody gets ahead in business without the benefits of society, so it is reasonable to expect business to contribute
Click to expand...


They DO contribute.  They MORE than "contribute".  They provide it.  
Again... the top 20% of earners pay 94% of the taxes.   That's 80% getting the infrastructure essentially for free.


----------



## Inthemiddle

Katzndogz said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> So whenthey fail? What does government do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts.  Because it hates businesses so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe that money should have been used here instead of sent overseas.
Click to expand...


So, you're advocating laws that would prevent US companies from doing business in other countries?


----------



## Full-Auto

JoeNormal said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably have to pay some minor shit like property taxes, water, sewer maybe some additional police and fire protection depending on your locale and industry.  Maybe hazardous waste?  I didn't have to deal with anything major.  Why don't you tell me what the big, bad government is doing to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of the subject is overwhelming................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enlighten me.
Click to expand...


My biggest taxed quarter was a quarter I didnt profit.  But according to you that doesnt happen.

Just because you opened a lemonade stand doent mean other businesses have the same requirements.

Look into the taxes a contractor must pay before recording any profits.


----------



## asaratis

Obama and all those that agree with his asinine statement that business owners didn't build their businesses are completely out of touch with reality and any semblance of knowledge regarding what private sector business is about.  It is ALL about hard work, dedication and selling of goods and services in a competitive free market.

I would imagine that a lot of them are out of touch simply because they have NEVER HELD A JOB WHERE THEIR PERFORMANCE DETERMINED WHETHER THEY WOULD KEEP THE JOB OR BE FIRED!  Or perhaps they have had such jobs and were fired for incompetence...now they have a grudge against business Owner's.

Obama is completely (to the brim) full of shit.

Liberals are full of shit.

I would love to hear Obama's explanation of just who that "somebody else" was that built up my business.  Come on, you gutless man!  Tell me who built up my business!

I'll be waiting!


----------



## Katzndogz

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hire trained employess that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice libs act like YOU, the small busines owners pays no TAXES that pay for fire or police.
> 
> It's just everybody else that supposedly pays for those taxes.
> 
> I would love to see a comparison of how much the small business owner pays AND COLLECTS IN SALES TAXES, compared to how much those customers pay in taxes.
> 
> Yet the customers are owed the profits of the business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit..
> 
> The topic is that businesses did not get where they are alone. Nobody gets ahead in business without the benefits of society, so it is reasonable to expect business to contribute
Click to expand...


Businesses do contribute, they just won't contribute it all. 

Los Angeles learned this lesson by over taxing car dealerships.  All those luxury cars being sold to very rich people and car dealerships paying only the same taxes everyone else pays.   Don't car dealerships benefit from roads?   Now that the dealerships have left, they pay no taxes at all.  Los Angeles is trying to lure them back by promising they won't have to pay any taxes, just come back, hire someone, take up empty space.


----------



## Murf76

Katzndogz said:


> Businesses do contribute, they just won't contribute it all.
> 
> Los Angeles learned this lesson by over taxing car dealerships.  All those luxury cars being sold to very rich people and car dealerships paying only the same taxes everyone else pays.   Don't car dealerships benefit from roads?   Now that the dealerships have left, they pay no taxes at all.  Los Angeles is trying to lure them back by promising they won't have to pay any taxes, just come back, hire someone, take up empty space.



This is why statists push for centralization.  They don't like the idea of producers escaping to other cities and states.  It galls them to think that business owners can pick up and move, taking revenues with them and leaving empty buildings behind.


----------



## M14 Shooter

The T said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met. Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers. Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure follows busniess. Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. There no real roads or highways as we know them until AFTER the car was invented. And but for landgrants? The Railroads (owned by private entities), were IT.
Click to expand...

There were no cities until people assembled in a common area to engage in commerce.
All else follows from that.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Stephanie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question for all those who think "society" trained my employees.
> 
> Since "society" is responsible for training my people so I can "make money off them" does society have any responsibility when an employee fucks up and costs me money?
> 
> I only ask because I caught an employee mistake last month that cost me over 700 dollars
> 
> So all of you can pay up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people made it in LIFE with no "schooling"..they used hard work and common sense..
> something many of you liberals seem to think doesn't exist in people just like your dear leader does
Click to expand...


And where are the good jobs nowadays for people without a high school diploma?


----------



## The T

M14 Shooter said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure follows busniess. Always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. There no real roads or highways as we know them until AFTER the car was invented. And but for landgrants? The Railroads (owned by private entities), were IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were no cities until people assembled in a common area to engage in commerce.
> All else follows from that.
Click to expand...

 
What I was trying to impart using the Auto/Railroad analogy.

Good point. Thanks.


----------



## Zoom-boing

More leftist-think:



> That those who have received much must be obligated to paynot to give, not to cut a check and shut up, in Governor Christies words, but to payin the same proportion. Thats called stepping up and not whining about it. Thats called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesnt cost their beloved rich folks any money.



Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&


"That those who have received much must be obligated to pay in the same proportion".  Somehow I don't think King is talking about a flat tax, do you?

"Received".  That, in a nutshell, is the basis of leftist thinking.  One "receives" welfare, one "receives" benefits, one "receives" wealth; "earning" never enters their tiny minds.


----------



## mudwhistle

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice libs act like YOU, the small busines owners pays no TAXES that pay for fire or police.
> 
> It's just everybody else that supposedly pays for those taxes.
> 
> I would love to see a comparison of how much the small business owner pays AND COLLECTS IN SALES TAXES, compared to how much those customers pay in taxes.
> 
> Yet the customers are owed the profits of the business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit..
> 
> The topic is that businesses did not get where they are alone. Nobody gets ahead in business without the benefits of society, so it is reasonable to expect business to contribute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses do contribute, they just won't contribute it all.
> 
> Los Angeles learned this lesson by over taxing car dealerships.  All those luxury cars being sold to very rich people and car dealerships paying only the same taxes everyone else pays.   Don't car dealerships benefit from roads?   Now that the dealerships have left, they pay no taxes at all.  Los Angeles is trying to lure them back by promising they won't have to pay any taxes, just come back, hire someone, take up empty space.
Click to expand...


If it weren't for cars you wouldn't need paved roads. 

Everyone who bought a car paid for the paving of those roads.


----------



## NYcarbineer

teapartysamurai said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then I guess you are against medical marijuana because it's prohibited by the Federal Government.
> 
> Can't wait to hear what you have to say to that!
> 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've just admitted the supremacy of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU saying medical marijuana is illegal despite the laws in the State of California?
Click to expand...


California medical marijuana operation targeted by feds - Los Angeles Times

You should spend less time yapping about things you don't know about.

Now you tell me, based on your argument, can any state that wants to legalize partial birth abortion,

ignoring the federal law against it,

because of the 10th amendment?


----------



## JoeNormal

Full-Auto said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of the subject is overwhelming................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My biggest taxed quarter was a quarter I didnt profit.  But according to you that doesnt happen.
> 
> Just because you opened a lemonade stand doent mean other businesses have the same requirements.
> 
> Look into the taxes a contractor must pay before recording any profits.
Click to expand...


Most of what I Googled pertained to specific states.  I guess if I cared enough, I'd continue looking.  But I don't...  I'm prepared to listen if you have some light to shed.

My business was in video post production at a time when only multimillion dollar studios were doing it.  I was a little ahead of my time which explains why it was a slog.  I can't claim to be a tax expert but I do know that the government was the least of my worries.


----------



## NYcarbineer

This thread is a perfect example of why conservatives aren't generally considered to be as crazy as they really are...

...there have never been enough of them to actually DO what they actually believe.  Their craziness gets concealed by the fact that America has generally had the common sense not to put them in power.


----------



## M14 Shooter

NYcarbineer said:


> This thread is a perfect example of why conservatives aren't generally considered to be as crazy as they really are...
> 
> ...there have never been enough of them to actually DO what they actually believe.  Their craziness gets concealed by the fact that America has generally had the common sense not to put them in power.



More partisan biogtry from a proud useful idiot.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Skull Pilot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Is "society " responsible for the loss caused by my employee that "society" supposedly "trained"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Don't be stupid.  Please.  Stop being stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no more stupid than the statement made by "The Smartest President Ever"
> 
> If you believe Bam Bam to be speaking the truth then the question is valid.
Click to expand...


I answered your question now answer mine.  How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Stephanie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question for all those who think "society" trained my employees.
> 
> Since "society" is responsible for training my people so I can "make money off them" does society have any responsibility when an employee fucks up and costs me money?
> 
> I only ask because I caught an employee mistake last month that cost me over 700 dollars
> 
> So all of you can pay up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people made it in LIFE with no "schooling"..they used hard work and common sense..
> something many of you liberals seem to think doesn't exist in people just like your dear leader does
Click to expand...


So why are you working 2 jobs to keep your head above water?   Are you lacking schooling, or lacking common sense?


----------



## rightwinger

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice libs act like YOU, the small busines owners pays no TAXES that pay for fire or police.
> 
> It's just everybody else that supposedly pays for those taxes.
> 
> I would love to see a comparison of how much the small business owner pays AND COLLECTS IN SALES TAXES, compared to how much those customers pay in taxes.
> 
> Yet the customers are owed the profits of the business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit..
> 
> The topic is that businesses did not get where they are alone. Nobody gets ahead in business without the benefits of society, so it is reasonable to expect business to contribute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses do contribute, they just won't contribute it all.
> 
> Los Angeles learned this lesson by over taxing car dealerships.  All those luxury cars being sold to very rich people and car dealerships paying only the same taxes everyone else pays.   Don't car dealerships benefit from roads?   Now that the dealerships have left, they pay no taxes at all.  Los Angeles is trying to lure them back by promising they won't have to pay any taxes, just come back, hire someone, take up empty space.
Click to expand...


Nobody is asking them to contribute it all. However, there are conservatives who do not want them to contribute at all


----------



## geauxtohell

It's funny to watch conservative draft dodgers like Limbaugh heap praise on the military, and then flip out when someone suggests that, because of people that keep this nation safe, businessmen are free to make a profit.


----------



## rightwinger

kwc57 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was there a point to that?
Click to expand...


The point is that whether he realizes it or not, his business depends on the society


----------



## The T

You people Do realize that Obama is effectively calling private businesses thieves?


----------



## asaratis

NYcarbineer said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people made it in LIFE with no "schooling"..they used hard work and common sense..
> something many of you liberals seem to think doesn't exist in people just like your dear leader does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you working 2 jobs to keep your head above water?   Are you lacking schooling, or lacking common sense?
Click to expand...

What a stupid conclusion.  In today's Obama-driven economy, hundreds of thousands of people are underemployed in low paying jobs, causing some to need multiple jobs to make previously established ends meet.  It has little to do with schooling or common sense.

It is you that needs schooling and common sense.



rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit..
> 
> The topic is that businesses did not get where they are alone. Nobody gets ahead in business without the benefits of society, so it is reasonable to expect business to contribute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do contribute, they just won't contribute it all.
> 
> Los Angeles learned this lesson by over taxing car dealerships.  All those luxury cars being sold to very rich people and car dealerships paying only the same taxes everyone else pays.   Don't car dealerships benefit from roads?   Now that the dealerships have left, they pay no taxes at all.  Los Angeles is trying to lure them back by promising they won't have to pay any taxes, just come back, hire someone, take up empty space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is asking them to contribute it all. However, there are conservatives who do not want them to contribute at all
Click to expand...

I haven't heard anybody of consequence say that businesses should not be taxed at all.  It is when you tax businesses so much that they do not pay dividends to the owners that you kill the jobs AND the tax flow from that business by killing the business.

Liberals want to squeeze business profits to death so their constituents can continue to lay on their asses collecting government checks.

Liberalism is a mental disorder!


----------



## Inthemiddle

asaratis said:


> What a stupid conclusion.  In today's Obama-driven economy, hundreds of thousands of people are underemployed in low paying jobs, causing some to need multiple jobs to make previously established ends meet.  It has little to do with schooling or common sense.



Wow, that completely went over your head.


----------



## Zxereus

The business owner is still the principle party who takes the risks, funds the start up, and always works the most hours and deals with the stress of failing or succeeding.

You however would never know that listening to today's Democrat party.


----------



## Murf76

rightwinger said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a point to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that whether he realizes it or not, his business depends on the society
Click to expand...


The truth is, that Jose couldn't have that sort of business at all in this country.  While kwc's analogy is valuable in reminding us how capitalism is _supposed_ to work... it hasn't worked that way in years.  If a guy just starts selling homemade tamales on the street, he gets a citation.  If he persists, he goes to jail.

We've allowed a preemptive approach to business in America where we attempt to forecast problems and prevent them.  On the surface, that might sound like a good thing.  But in practice, what it does is stop Jose from selling homemade tamales, leaving him and his family without income on the off-chance that he _might_ make someone sick.  In a free enterprise situation, the law would say that Jose can't make people sick with his tamales and he'd face prosecution if he broke that law.  And it wouldn't be all that easy for him to drum up business until he'd built some trust in the community, because after all... how many consumers would buy a tamale from some yahoo he didn't know peddling them in the street?  Nope, he'd have to work hard, produce good quality tamales, and eventually he _might_ find success.

That opportunity is NOT being taken away from him by the free market.  It's being taken from him by the nanny state.


----------



## Katzndogz

M14 Shooter said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure follows busniess.  Always.
Click to expand...


Without government interference.

A farmer grew too many berries so his wife started baking pies and selling them at the edge of their farm.  People liked her pies.  No one got sick.  Pretty soon so many people were coming to the farm to buy her pies that they made a dirt road.  No one robbed the farmer because one, we didn't have a culture of crime and two, the farmer would have blown them to pieces if they had.

The wife kept baking pies and pretty soon they built a new kitchen and hired people to help her bake pies.   The road got used more and more, so the farmer put gravel on it to turn the dusty dirt road into a gravel road.   His wife decided to not only make pies, but branched out to her special fried chicken.   The enterprise of the farmer was that not only would they sell pies and fried chicken, but the chickens themselves became part of a petting zoo with pigs and goats, ordinary farm stuff so that the city kids would have something to do in addition to eating and taking away pies.

Why didn't the farmer and his wife simply poison their customers with tainted food?   How did people know about the place?   How could they possibly have gotten there without a government created road?    

Today the road is Orangethorpe Avenue and the farm is Knotts Berry Farm built without the government helping or hindering.

Contrast that with a man who comes here and wants to open up an Indian restaurant.  He pays for space, pays for remodeling, gets all the permits, qualifies with the health department and finds out that the dimensions of a tandoori oven don't meet the specifications required in the building code.  It is not square.  So he loses everything, the whole investment is gone.

What we were, and what we are.


----------



## Skull Pilot

NYcarbineer said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Don't be stupid.  Please.  Stop being stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's no more stupid than the statement made by "The Smartest President Ever"
> 
> If you believe Bam Bam to be speaking the truth then the question is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question now answer mine.  How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
Click to expand...


You did not answer it.

"Stop being stupid" is not an answer. It's an insult.

So I'll take a payment from "society" for money I lost because of one of their "trained" workers.


----------



## The T

asaratis said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people made it in LIFE with no "schooling"..they used hard work and common sense..
> something many of you liberals seem to think doesn't exist in people just like your dear leader does
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you working 2 jobs to keep your head above water? Are you lacking schooling, or lacking common sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid conclusion. In today's Obama-driven economy, hundreds of thousands of people are underemployed in low paying jobs, causing some to need multiple jobs to make previously established ends meet. It has little to do with schooling or common sense.
> 
> It is you that needs schooling and common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do contribute, they just won't contribute it all.
> 
> Los Angeles learned this lesson by over taxing car dealerships. All those luxury cars being sold to very rich people and car dealerships paying only the same taxes everyone else pays. Don't car dealerships benefit from roads? Now that the dealerships have left, they pay no taxes at all. Los Angeles is trying to lure them back by promising they won't have to pay any taxes, just come back, hire someone, take up empty space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is asking them to contribute it all. However, there are conservatives who do not want them to contribute at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't heard anybody of consequence say that businesses should not be taxed at all. It is when you tax businesses so much that they do not pay dividends to the owners that you kill the jobs AND the tax flow from that business by killing the business.
> 
> Liberals want to squeeze business profits to death so their constituents can continue to lay on their asses collecting government checks.
> 
> Liberalism is a mental disorder!
Click to expand...

 
Moochers have to outweigh producers so Government for the sake of power can try to avoid the austerity measures that are going to come no matter what they do.

Just look at the EU? They are close to falling. WE are on that same road.


----------



## JoeNormal

M14 Shooter said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure follows busniess.  Always.
Click to expand...


So why is the infrastructure back east falling apart?  Did they stop doing business?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zxereus said:


> The business owner is still the principle party who takes the risks, funds the start up, and always works the most hours and deals with the stress of failing or succeeding.
> 
> You however would never know that listening to today's Democrat party.



The wage earner takes a greater risk.


----------



## NYcarbineer

geauxtohell said:


> It's funny to watch conservative draft dodgers like Limbaugh heap praise on the military, and then flip out when someone suggests that, because of people that keep this nation safe, businessmen are free to make a profit.



No sector of private business is more dependent on the government than the defense sector.


----------



## regent

NYcarbineer said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question for all those who think "society" trained my employees.
> 
> Since "society" is responsible for training my people so I can "make money off them" does society have any responsibility when an employee fucks up and costs me money?
> 
> I only ask because I caught an employee mistake last month that cost me over 700 dollars
> 
> So all of you can pay up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
Click to expand...


One has to use some intelligence in selecting employees no matter their education.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



The vast majority of the wealthy in this country stole what they have, by virtue of fixing the rules to benefit them while making it doubly hard for everyone else.

Sure there is a lot of new wealth due to mature sciency types i.e. silicon valley, but overall the real wealth of this country was obtained by owning the politicians, fixing the rules, etc.

If they had to compete for real?  If they had to start at zero and NOT have everything in their corner?   

stupid idiot bagger racists...wouldnt stand a chance


----------



## rightwinger

The T said:


> You people Do realize that Obama is effectively calling private businesses thieves?


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The business owner is still the principle party who takes the risks, funds the start up, and always works the most hours and deals with the stress of failing or succeeding.
> 
> You however would never know that listening to today's Democrat party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wage earner takes a greater risk.
Click to expand...


No he doesn't.  He's got nothing invested but time.  The owner invests both time and capital, typically backed by his personal assets.


----------



## mudwhistle

ConzHateUSA said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of the wealthy in this country stole what they have, by virtue of fixing the rules to benefit them while making it doubly hard for everyone else.
> 
> Sure there is a lot of new wealth due to mature sciency types i.e. silicon valley, but overall the real wealth of this country was obtained by owning the politicians, fixing the rules, etc.
> 
> If they had to compete for real?  If they had to start at zero and NOT have everything in their corner?
> 
> stupid idiot bagger racists...wouldnt stand a chance
Click to expand...


Vast majority?


Link


I agree, corrupt politicians make it easier for the rich. Like the Kennedys getting rich off bootlegging during prohibition, and Carbon-credit companies bilking folks out of millions, or Obama paying back his donors with billions in grants and loans' like in Solyndras case. G E making billions on their new medical records system when the AHA goes fully into effect. AARP being cahoots with Obama so they can get first dibs on all of the new customers that will be forced to buy insurance. 

Yeah, I see what you mean.


----------



## Murf76

ConzHateUSA said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of the wealthy in this country stole what they have, by virtue of fixing the rules to benefit them while making it doubly hard for everyone else.
> 
> Sure there is a lot of new wealth due to mature sciency types i.e. silicon valley, but overall the real wealth of this country was obtained by owning the politicians, fixing the rules, etc.
> 
> If they had to compete for real?  If they had to start at zero and NOT have everything in their corner?
> 
> stupid idiot bagger racists...wouldnt stand a chance
Click to expand...


"The wealthy" aren't elected to write the law.  Politicians write the law.  And you geniuses want MORE government instead of less.  Understand that no tycoon, no big corporation can abuse you without HELP from the very elected officials we send to Washington to protect us.  The government you folks worship is DIRECTLY implicit in everything you despise about our economic system.  THEY are the ones holding the poor and middle class down.

The housing meltdown, for example, didn't happen because there were no regulations.  It happened because the inept  regulatory law in place ALLOWED it to happen.  Jose the perspective tamale salesman can't sell his tamales because GOVERNMENT prevents it, not because some tamale tycoon stopped him.  The tamale tycoon can wish in one hand and spit in another.  He's powerless.  That is, unless he can manipulate the political class to do his dirty work.

More government = More opportunities for corruption, for politicians to pick the winners and losers, just as we saw in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies.  Jose the tamale salesman and his family are on food stamps and welfare because the GOVERNMENT got in his way, preventing him from taking care of himself.  Putting even more people on welfare doesn't fix that.  Getting government out of his way does.


----------



## MuadDib

Since Obama is a fan of Abraham Lincoln, he might take a lesson from his mentor.

Lincoln bought into Henry Clay's American System of taxes and subsidies. When Lincoln entered the Illinois legislature in the 1830's he spearheaded a movement to appropriate $12 million to build railroads, roads, and canals. When the $12 million was spent, none of the projects were completed, Illinois was saddled with tremendous debt, and the state had to raise taxes. In fact, none of the projects promoted by the Whigs in any of the states were completed.

In 1848, Illinois amended their constitution to prevent the state from spending public money on private projects.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Avatar4321 said:


> So he thinks telling people that he is responsible for their greatest achievements is really going to be a good selling point?



When it soaks in to anyone who's ever busted his ass to get somewhere and achieve something that Obama is belittling THEM, not just the uber-rich, it's going to go over like a lead balloon.  And no matter who he's directing the remarks to, he IS belittling everyone who's ever worked their way up in life even a little, because once you start telling one group, "The government is responsible for your success, because we build roads and yada yada", that applies to _everyone_.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is absolutely full of shit as usual. I can start a business, get it up and running without a dime from the government. All I need is an idea and some elbow grease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do it all the time but Bam Bam doesn't understand that and he can't admit that some people are succeeding in spite of the government.
> 
> If our business didn't work out my wife and I would have been sleeping in our car.
> 
> All the people who want to take credit for the success of others don't understand the concept of risking everything you own to make a dream come true.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but if the government hadn't built roads, you and your wife probably wouldn't have owned a car to sleep in.  So there!


----------



## Cecilie1200

zeke said:


> So did your hard work make my business thrive?
> 
> Did you risk any of your money to start my business?
> 
> Did you put in 80 hours a week for the past 5 years building my business?
> 
> Are you paying my employees and my bills so my business can stay open?
> 
> If you're not then who exactly is keeping my business open if it's not me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyonr else read the bullshit above and wonder wtf this dude is going on about.
> The last questions is really the one that tells all. He/she can't even figure out that it is CUSTOMERS that keep a business open.
> 
> Repubs are so stupid now that they think they just open a business, have no customers and then they succeed. Pitiful.
> 
> And then he wants patted on the back for putting up some money. And working 80 hours.
> Big fuking deal. It was your choice wasn't it? Then quit bitching about it and go to work cause you sure as hell ain't a "successful" businessman wasting all the time you do on a message board.
> 
> Or is this where you troll for "customers"?
Click to expand...


"He wants patted on the back JUST for putting up money and working 80 hours."  YOU want patted on the back for wandering around the store for ten minutes and then spending five dollars, so who's REALLY pitiful here?

Way to utterly miss the point and show everyone what an obtuse dumbfuck you are.  Spoken like a troll who's been fired A LOT.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

We need to outsource our Progressives.

But who the fuck would take them?


----------



## Big Black Dog

"You didn't get there on your own"

That's what my wife says every time we have sex...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Big Black Dog said:


> "You didn't get there on your own"
> 
> That's what my wife says every time we have sex...



Only when the government fucks you it doesn't care if you get there or not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true even if you are parapallegic,you should pull your own wieght in society.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that paraplegics are useless and have nothing to offer society?  Go tell it to Steven Hawking.

And while we're on the subject, what you're showing isn't "empathy".  It's pity.  You can tell the difference by how yours is negative and crippling to the people you direct it at.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh yeah, that is a good reason to be poor, but it's not factual. People are poor for many reasons, but empathy is not one of your strong suits is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off your high horse, what he said is TRUE..they are free to become NOT POOR in this country. EVERYONE IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am guessing your christian ideals have led you to help people when thy are down and in need of help?
Click to expand...


I am guessing your lack of Christian ideals has led you to leave it up to the government to "help" people?


----------



## Katzndogz

JoeNormal said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure follows busniess.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is the infrastructure back east falling apart?  Did they stop doing business?
Click to expand...


So much money is going out on the comfort of the poor, there's nothing left for anything else.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

This is the speech where Obama and the Dems finally came out of their Marxist closet.

Dems 2012: Embrace your inner Mao


----------



## The T

CrusaderFrank said:


> We need to outsource our Progressives.
> 
> But who the fuck would take them?


 
Can't be the EU...they're Overloaded. Iran? Egypt? Syria?


----------



## naturegirl

This thread is a perfect example as to why not everyone should own a business.  You bust your butt, you work long days, sometimes with little or no sleep, you risk everything you've earned, you deal with the Federal Government and it's taxes, you deal with the State Government and it's taxes, you deal with the County Government and it's taxes, you deal with the City Government and it's taxes paying them all, never blinking an eye.  

You hire employees, pay them, match their Federal taxes for SS and Medicare, pay the state Unemployment tax, get mandated Worker's Compensation and General Liablity Insurance and yet you're the bad guy, you're the one that's just not paying enough.   Don't forget about the rent and utilities necessary to house the business.  Some make money, some get by, some shut their doors.

When I hire people, I'm compensating them for their time.  It's a contract agreed on by two people.  You don't have to work for me if you don't like the contract terms.  Then they get to go home with their paychecks, yet they are the risk takers, they are the entitled person??  

You know, what about me and my family...........Obama doesn't give a crap about us, heck Americans that don't agree with him are his enemies.  I think he has managed to make enough small business owners angry enough to get them to the voting booth in November.


----------



## The Professor

Truthmatters said:


> National Road - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Road
> 
> Construction of the Cumberland Road (which later became part of the National Road) was authorized on March 29, 1806, by President Thomas Jefferson. The Cumberland Road would replace the Braddock Road for travel between the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, following roughly the same alignment until just east of Uniontown, Pennsylvania. From there, where the Braddock Road turned north to Pittsburgh, the Cumberland Road would continue west to Wheeling, West Virginia (then part of Virginia), also on the Ohio River.
> 
> The contract for the construction of the first section was awarded to Henry McKinley on May 8, 1811,[3] and construction began later that year, with the road reaching Wheeling on August 1, 1818



So the government built a fucking highway, and that somehow gives them the right to plunder the wealth of this country in order to line their own pockets and and make their  already rich supporters even richer??  What am I missing here.  

Even the most notorious villains in history did a few good things.  I heard that Adolph Hitler would occasionally pet a dog.  Jeffry Dahmer once was known to drop a coin or two into the Salvation Army kettle.  So fucking what?

Is Obama meeting his responsibilities to the American taxpayers?  A simple yes or no is all that is needed.    If he is getting enough tax dollars, why are we having so damn many financial problems?  If he is not getting enough revenue to take care of America's problems then why in the hell is he sending so much of taxpayer dollars overseas?  Obama is loony tunes.  The most overrated individual in all of human history.

Obama's legacy, other than the destruction of the Country will be this:  He has turned more people into millionaires and more millionaires into billionaires than any other President on history.  And the turd masquerades as the savior of the poor and downtrodden.  Puke!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The T said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to outsource our Progressives.
> 
> But who the fuck would take them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be the EU...they're Overloaded. Iran? Egypt? Syria?
Click to expand...


North Korea in a package labeled "Food Stuff"


----------



## M14 Shooter

The Professor said:


> So the government built a fucking highway, and that somehow gives them the right to plunder the wealth of this country in order to line their own pockets and and make their  already rich supporters even richer??  What am I missing here.


WHY did the government build the road?
Because of the commerce taking place in and through the area.
Commerce came first, then government.


----------



## The T

CrusaderFrank said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to outsource our Progressives.
> 
> But who the fuck would take them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be the EU...they're Overloaded. Iran? Egypt? Syria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> North Korea in a package labeled "Food Stuff"
Click to expand...



Would they accept, and stay quiet as a pretense?


----------



## sparky

Now i really want to throw Obama in a volnaco.......~S~


----------



## chikenwing

boilermaker55 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
Click to expand...


BULL SHIT!!

There is no other way to label this stink pile. My companies success or not is mine and mine alone.


----------



## MuadDib

The Professor said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> National Road - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Road
> 
> Construction of the Cumberland Road (which later became part of the National Road) was authorized on March 29, 1806, by President Thomas Jefferson. The Cumberland Road would replace the Braddock Road for travel between the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, following roughly the same alignment until just east of Uniontown, Pennsylvania. From there, where the Braddock Road turned north to Pittsburgh, the Cumberland Road would continue west to Wheeling, West Virginia (then part of Virginia), also on the Ohio River.
> 
> The contract for the construction of the first section was awarded to Henry McKinley on May 8, 1811,[3] and construction began later that year, with the road reaching Wheeling on August 1, 1818
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the government built a fucking highway, and that somehow gives them the right to plunder the wealth of this country in order to line their own pockets and and make their  already rich supporters even richer??  What am I missing here.
> 
> Even the most notorious villains in history did a few good things.  I heard that Adolph Hitler would occasionally pet a dog.  Jeffry Dahmer once was known to drop a coin or two into the Salvation Army kettle.  So fucking what?
> 
> Is Obama meeting his responsibilities to the American taxpayers?  A simple yes or no is all that is needed.    If he is getting enough tax dollars, why are we having so damn many financial problems?  If he is not getting enough revenue to take care of America's problems then why in the hell is he sending so much of taxpayer dollars overseas?  Obama is loony tunes.  The most overrated individual in all of human history.
> 
> Obama's legacy, other than the destruction of the Country will be this:  He has turned more people into millionaires and more millionaires into billionaires than any other President on history.  And the turd masquerades as the savior of the poor and downtrodden.  Puke!
Click to expand...



Hitler promoted development and production of the Volkswagon.

Obama promoted development and production of the Chevy Volt.

There's an analogy there.


----------



## chikenwing

M14 Shooter said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the government built a fucking highway, and that somehow gives them the right to plunder the wealth of this country in order to line their own pockets and and make their  already rich supporters even richer??  What am I missing here.
> 
> 
> 
> WHY did the government build the road?
> Because of the commerce taking place in and through the area.
> Commerce came first, then government.
Click to expand...


And paid for by working people.


----------



## naturegirl

chikenwing said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the government built a fucking highway, and that somehow gives them the right to plunder the wealth of this country in order to line their own pockets and and make their  already rich supporters even richer??  What am I missing here.
> 
> 
> 
> WHY did the government build the road?
> Because of the commerce taking place in and through the area.
> Commerce came first, then government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And paid for by working people.
Click to expand...


Yea the road should have got there with all the free government money, taxpayers didn't have a darn thing to do with it and business owners didn't need that dang road to their place.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Inthemiddle said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more perfect Union.
Click to expand...


I see nothing "more perfect" about a Union whose terms you have to force on people against their will, kicking and screaming.  But then, MY goal in a Union isn't to wind up running other people's lives for them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

chikenwing said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the government built a fucking highway, and that somehow gives them the right to plunder the wealth of this country in order to line their own pockets and and make their  already rich supporters even richer??  What am I missing here.
> 
> 
> 
> WHY did the government build the road?
> Because of the commerce taking place in and through the area.
> Commerce came first, then government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And paid for by working people.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the point, which you likely do not understand.

The commerce was there - government did not create it, cause it or compell it -- government REACTED to it -- the people who engaged in that commerce "got there" on their own; once they were there, government caught up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stephanie said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every business that hires employees who have gotten a basic education in a public school, and higher education in a state school, or a military academy, or via government aid,
> 
> that business benefits from government spending that it did not pay for.  The economic value of the employees' education is a government funded benefit to employers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public education costs an average of $11,000 per pupil a year. Imagine if business had to teach their employees to read, do math or operate a computer?
> 
> Each employee they hire has an education that costs the the taxpayers over $100,000. Employers turn around and profit off of skills they didn't pay for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> omg
Click to expand...


Lemme just correct RW's mistakes here.

We SPEND an average of $11,000 per pupil per year on public education.  That's a bit different from saying, "It costs $11,000 a year to properly educate a pupil", or God help and save us, "We're actually getting $11,000 a year worth of education".

Furthermore, businesses more and more often are finding it hard to locate high school graduates who can read, do math, or operate a computer to the levels they need.  Does anyone really think that, since colleges are having to send more and more applicants to remedial English and math classes, that businesses are having any better luck with the crop of dunces our public schools are turning out?

I don't think the left wants to be touting the "great benefit" they're giving businesses in "educated applicants".  Furthermore, "Profit off of skills they didn't pay for?"  Really, fucktard?  Businesses don't pay taxes to support public schools?  You think so, RW, you shitforbrains?


----------



## naturegirl

Cecilie1200 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think they are trying to progress to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more perfect Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see nothing "more perfect" about a Union whose terms you have to force on people against their will, kicking and screaming.  But then, MY goal in a Union isn't to wind up running other people's lives for them.
Click to expand...


More perfect Union includes of the people, by the people and for the people.  Not the President, not Congress.............nothing to do with the government itself.  Government is the American people, we are not a monarchy, dictatorship or communist.  

Government has way overreached.  It's time to reign them in, at the voting booth.


----------



## Katzndogz

chikenwing said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the government built a fucking highway, and that somehow gives them the right to plunder the wealth of this country in order to line their own pockets and and make their  already rich supporters even richer??  What am I missing here.
> 
> 
> 
> WHY did the government build the road?
> Because of the commerce taking place in and through the area.
> Commerce came first, then government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And paid for by working people.
Click to expand...


How did they do that?   It's not like we had an income tax.


----------



## Misty

Obama is insulting hard working Americans who made a success of their life. What a stupid moron.


----------



## Inthemiddle

Skull Pilot said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You didn't get there on your own"
> 
> That's what my wife says every time we have sex...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the government fucks you it doesn't care if you get there or not.
Click to expand...


Actually, I'm not the government, and when I have sex with a woman, I really don't care if she gets there or not.  I got mine, time to move along.


----------



## Inthemiddle

naturegirl said:


> This thread is a perfect example as to why not everyone should own a business.



Yeah, because that's an economic system that's sure to succeed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Inthemiddle said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> liberals are nothing but users of people, even the disabled who want to make something of themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly nothing.  There are two main problems with this argument.
> 
> 1.  Hawking is not a paraplegic.  He has a motor neuron disease called ALS.  His condition first began expressing itself when he was 21 years old.  After diagnosis, and his condition progressed and eventually stablized for a time, he had a great deal of direct and personal help that allowed him to complete his doctorate and begin his career.  As his condition has progressed, Hawking has continued to need an increasing amount of personal assistance for every day living affairs.
> 
> 2.  All that aside, even if we completely ignore it, your point would still be fallacy of accident.  Hawking is one of the most remarkably intelligent people to ever live.  He has extremely unique gifts.  His life is nowhere near typical of anyone, or of disabled persons.
Click to expand...


1)  You're right.  Hawking isn't a paraplegic.  He's a quadriplegic, since paraplegics have only lost the function of the lower half of the body.  Doesn't really much matter to the definition HOW he lost that function.  That's just hair-splitting.

2)  So your belief is that Hawking is an exception, and that all other severely handicapped people are useless and have nothing to offer society?  Is that really what you're arguing for?


----------



## Inthemiddle

MuadDib said:


> Hitler promoted development and production of the Volkswagon.
> 
> Obama promoted development and production of the Chevy Volt.
> 
> There's an analogy there.



That one day the Volt will be a beloved as the Beetle once was?  Or that Godwin's law is still alive and well?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Misty said:


> Obama is insulting hard working Americans who made a success of their life. What a stupid moron.



To quote a movie   "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go thru life, son"


----------



## Inthemiddle

Cecilie1200 said:


> But then, MY goal in a Union isn't to wind up running other people's lives for them.



I'm glad that we both can at least be united on one thing; no more opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, or drug usage.  Okay, three things.


----------



## Vel

naturegirl said:


> This thread is a perfect example as to why not everyone should own a business.  You bust your butt, you work long days, sometimes with little or no sleep, you risk everything you've earned, you deal with the Federal Government and it's taxes, you deal with the State Government and it's taxes, you deal with the County Government and it's taxes, you deal with the City Government and it's taxes paying them all, never blinking an eye.
> 
> You hire employees, pay them, match their Federal taxes for SS and Medicare, pay the state Unemployment tax, get mandated Worker's Compensation and General Liablity Insurance and yet you're the bad guy, you're the one that's just not paying enough.   Don't forget about the rent and utilities necessary to house the business.  Some make money, some get by, some shut their doors.
> 
> When I hire people, I'm compensating them for their time.  It's a contract agreed on by two people.  You don't have to work for me if you don't like the contract terms.  Then they get to go home with their paychecks, yet they are the risk takers, they are the entitled person??
> 
> You know, what about me and my family...........Obama doesn't give a crap about us, heck Americans that don't agree with him are his enemies.  I think he has managed to make enough small business owners angry enough to get them to the voting booth in November.



Don't forget that we also get to be the government's unpaid tax collectors and get to spend thousands of dollars per year on record keeping and CPA's in order to do the job of unpaid tax collector.


----------



## Inthemiddle

Cecilie1200 said:


> 1)  You're right.  Hawking isn't a paraplegic.  He's a quadriplegic, since paraplegics have only lost the function of the lower half of the body.  Doesn't really much matter to the definition HOW he lost that function.  That's just hair-splitting.



Actually, I further misspoke, because I meant to say that he wasn't always a (near) quadriplegic.



> So your belief is that Hawking is an exception, and that all other severely handicapped people are useless and have nothing to offer society?  Is that really what you're arguing for?



*cough*  I'll point you to the last person who wanted to make insinuations about my feelings regarding disabled persons.  And I'll kindly ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth, regardless of the the subject.


----------



## chikenwing

Inthemiddle said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler promoted development and production of the Volkswagon.
> 
> Obama promoted development and production of the Chevy Volt.
> 
> There's an analogy there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That one day the Volt will be a beloved as the Beetle once was?  Or that Godwin's law is still alive and well?
Click to expand...


The Volt and a cordless drill are the same,tools that have a place,great inventions one has revolutionized the trades,the other will transportation,but both have some real world limitations no real significant power.


----------



## Cecilie1200

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> People make their own deals to trade their time for money. No one is forcing them to work for anyone. And if you've ever had to hire a HS grad you'd have serious doubts about just how "educated " they are.
> 
> 
> It doesn't provide any of those. We pay for them. In fact I pay a higher rate for business phone lines than the average person.
> 
> 
> Does not apply to a lot of businesses as not all do business abroad.
> 
> 
> Police don't protect my business I do by hiring a private alarm monitoring company. Police show up after a crime has been committed and most times stolen property is never recovered nor are the perpetrators caught.
> 
> Fire department s are not free either you know. Business people pay for them too. In my town we have a volunteer fire department which local businesses support quite generously I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> It costs a lot of money to patent an idea and society does not pay that cost nor will it actively seek out patent or copyright infringements the persons holding the copyright or patent must submit proof of an infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hire trained employess that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice libs act like YOU, the small busines owners pays no TAXES that pay for fire or police.
> 
> It's just everybody else that supposedly pays for those taxes.
> 
> I would love to see a comparison of how much the small business owner pays AND COLLECTS IN SALES TAXES, compared to how much those customers pay in taxes.
> 
> Yet the customers are owed the profits of the business?
Click to expand...


Oh, yes, I had forgotten about that.  In addition to the benefits society gets from businesses in the way of the property and myriad other taxes businesses pay, the jobs businesses provide, and the conveniently available goods and services, society ALSO gets the benefit of using businesses as unpaid tax collectors for sales tax.


----------



## Vel

Cecilie1200 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hire trained employess that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice libs act like YOU, the small busines owners pays no TAXES that pay for fire or police.
> 
> It's just everybody else that supposedly pays for those taxes.
> 
> I would love to see a comparison of how much the small business owner pays AND COLLECTS IN SALES TAXES, compared to how much those customers pay in taxes.
> 
> Yet the customers are owed the profits of the business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, yes, I had forgotten about that.  In addition to the benefits society gets from businesses in the way of the property and myriad other taxes businesses pay, the jobs businesses provide, and the conveniently available goods and services, society ALSO gets the benefit of using businesses as unpaid tax collectors for sales tax.
Click to expand...


Don'r forget that you get to collect FICA, Medicare and Federal Withholding as well as state taxes if you're in a state with an income tax.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JoeNormal said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he totally screwed himself with that comment...
> 
> He basically insulted every self-made successful individual when he said that.
> 
> It really goes to show how fucked up Obama actually is and it sheds light on the notion that he certainly believes that government should play a central role in every individuals life and that government should play a central role in every business...
> 
> *He may as well should have came out and said: "you don't make you successful - government makes you successful."
> *
> Obama is such an arrogant piece of shit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably the way most conservatives would interpret it because they tend to think in black-and-white.  But then, conservatives won't be voting for Obama anyway.
Click to expand...


Your big problem is that it's not just conservatives who are going to "interpret" it that way.  Anyone who isn't a dedicated Obama-worshipper is going to hear it that way, too (mostly because that's actually what it MEANS).


----------



## Katzndogz

No matter how much of your own capital you saved and invested in your little enterprise.  No matter how hard you worked, now much you sacrificed, obama says it was all for nothing.  The government did it and now you owe the government all of your success.  

This is absolutely the most disguting thing to ever crawl out from between obama's lying lips.


----------



## Staidhup

How interesting is that, so which came first the chicken or the egg debate about who built what and for what and who's benefit?
The first major roads were toll roads, privately owned and maintained, those engaged in commerce paid the largest percentage of toll fee's. Ferry crossings were privately owned and operated, again, merchants paid the largest toll fee's. Commerce centered along water ways and toll roads for the simple reason as to move product to and from market. Without commerce none of the infrastructure would have been possible to fund. As commerce developed the free market addressed transportation issues, not the government! Unfortunately liberals view development in commerce as the result of government spending when in fact is was funded by the private sector. The old supply and demand phenomenon of private Enterprise. It was not until later, during the industrial revolution, that government assumed control. The same as with electrical generation, distribution, and rail roads. What the President fails to understand is that when a government is pro business the two work in unison resulting in job creation and increases in the standard of living. When one demonizes business the symbiotic relationship collapses and forces business to move outside the grasp and control of government. If one were to read US economic history, they would soon learn that the uniqueness of the American dream was based on this symbiotic relationship that was only possible in a country established on the very premises of Adam Smith and John Locke that was not binded by monarchal and caste systems. Tocqueville spent years researching and writing about the American spirit and how government and free enterprise melded into the greatest power and opportunity the world had ever witnessed, but then again, he also warned that what made America great would some day, if left unchecked and guarded, would possibly be it's down fall.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kwc57 said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business.  Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it.  He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street.  People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more.  Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it.  He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business.  Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too.  Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands.  He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof.  He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles.  People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family.  He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey.  Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs.  Just to feed his family.  His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability.  But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been.  Is Jose  supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits?  Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't?  According to Obama he is.  Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people.  His bicycle salesmen made him what he is.  What horse shit!
Click to expand...


And meanwhile, the government that Obama alleges is "making him successful" is pestering the crap out of him to buy a business license, buy a food vendor's license, inundating him with forms for taxes and wanting him to charge sales tax, investigating him for zoning violations because his wife is making the tamales in the kitchen of their home, sending the Health Department around to cite him because his home kitchen isn't set up like a commercial kitchen, and forcing him to lease and move to a business property before he's really financially ready to just to avoid all the fines and legal hassles.

Damn, I just don't know how Jose's tamale business would EVER have made it without the government's "help".


----------



## kwc57

Inthemiddle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You didn't get there on your own"
> 
> That's what my wife says every time we have sex...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the government fucks you it doesn't care if you get there or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm not the government, and when I have sex with a woman, I really don't care if she gets there or not.  I got mine, time to move along.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure you meant IF you ever had sex with a woman.


----------



## kwc57

ConzHateUSA said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is insulting hard working Americans who made a success of their life. What a stupid moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To quote a movie   "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go thru life, son"
Click to expand...


So wise up a little assmunch.


----------



## The T

kwc57 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the government fucks you it doesn't care if you get there or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm not the government, and when I have sex with a woman, I really don't care if she gets there or not. I got mine, time to move along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure you meant IF you ever had sex with a woman.
Click to expand...

 
In the middle has sex with stuffed animals...I have proof.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Murf76 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a point to that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that whether he realizes it or not, his business depends on the society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is, that Jose couldn't have that sort of business at all in this country.  While kwc's analogy is valuable in reminding us how capitalism is _supposed_ to work... it hasn't worked that way in years.  If a guy just starts selling homemade tamales on the street, he gets a citation.  If he persists, he goes to jail.
> 
> We've allowed a preemptive approach to business in America where we attempt to forecast problems and prevent them.  On the surface, that might sound like a good thing.  But in practice, what it does is stop Jose from selling homemade tamales, leaving him and his family without income on the off-chance that he _might_ make someone sick.  In a free enterprise situation, the law would say that Jose can't make people sick with his tamales and he'd face prosecution if he broke that law.  And it wouldn't be all that easy for him to drum up business until he'd built some trust in the community, because after all... how many consumers would buy a tamale from some yahoo he didn't know peddling them in the street?  Nope, he'd have to work hard, produce good quality tamales, and eventually he _might_ find success.
> 
> That opportunity is NOT being taken away from him by the free market.  It's being taken from him by the nanny state.
Click to expand...


"You must spread some Rep..."   

Somehow I just don't think you'll get through to them, but at least you tried.

Something that these useful idiots wouldn't know anything about.


----------



## Moonglow

MuadDib said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> National Road - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Road
> 
> Construction of the Cumberland Road (which later became part of the National Road) was authorized on March 29, 1806, by President Thomas Jefferson. The Cumberland Road would replace the Braddock Road for travel between the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, following roughly the same alignment until just east of Uniontown, Pennsylvania. From there, where the Braddock Road turned north to Pittsburgh, the Cumberland Road would continue west to Wheeling, West Virginia (then part of Virginia), also on the Ohio River.
> 
> The contract for the construction of the first section was awarded to Henry McKinley on May 8, 1811,[3] and construction began later that year, with the road reaching Wheeling on August 1, 1818
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the government built a fucking highway, and that somehow gives them the right to plunder the wealth of this country in order to line their own pockets and and make their  already rich supporters even richer??  What am I missing here.
> 
> Even the most notorious villains in history did a few good things.  I heard that Adolph Hitler would occasionally pet a dog.  Jeffry Dahmer once was known to drop a coin or two into the Salvation Army kettle.  So fucking what?
> 
> Is Obama meeting his responsibilities to the American taxpayers?  A simple yes or no is all that is needed.    If he is getting enough tax dollars, why are we having so damn many financial problems?  If he is not getting enough revenue to take care of America's problems then why in the hell is he sending so much of taxpayer dollars overseas?  Obama is loony tunes.  The most overrated individual in all of human history.
> 
> Obama's legacy, other than the destruction of the Country will be this:  He has turned more people into millionaires and more millionaires into billionaires than any other President on history.  And the turd masquerades as the savior of the poor and downtrodden.  Puke!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler promoted development and production of the Volkswagon.
> 
> Obama promoted development and production of the Chevy Volt.
> 
> There's an analogy there.
Click to expand...


No Volkswagons were ever produced or delivered during Hitlers life.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

> If he is getting enough tax dollars, why are we having so damn many financial problems?  If he is not getting enough revenue to take care of America's problems then why in the hell is he sending so much of taxpayer dollars overseas?  Obama is loony tunes.  The most overrated individual in all of human history.



Obama is sending tax dollars overseas?

Wait, I am as pissed off as the next guy that we dont initiate some level of protectionism like we did the entire time we built the greatest middle class in history (which just happened to be at the same time of 90% top tax rates), but to blame Obama as if he is the one that is the problem in all this and not ALL american politicians, ESPECIALLY rightwingers who enact tax law that REWARDS sending jobs overseas...wow


----------



## GuyPinestra

JoeNormal said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure follows busniess.  Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is the infrastructure back east falling apart?  Did they stop doing business?
Click to expand...


Back East? You mean all those Blue states that spent all their money on feel-good programs and wealth redistribution schemes? 

 ...  They ran outta money??  ...


----------



## chanel

We need to bump this thread every day until the election.

Who's in?


----------



## GuyPinestra

Inthemiddle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, MY goal in a Union isn't to wind up running other people's lives for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we both can at least be united on one thing; no more opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, or drug usage.  Okay, three things.
Click to expand...


I'm with you on 2 of those...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Zoom-boing said:


> More leftist-think:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That those who have received much must be obligated to paynot to give, not to cut a check and shut up, in Governor Christies words, but to payin the same proportion. Thats called stepping up and not whining about it. Thats called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesnt cost their beloved rich folks any money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&
> 
> 
> "That those who have received much must be obligated to pay in the same proportion".  Somehow I don't think King is talking about a flat tax, do you?
> 
> "Received".  That, in a nutshell, is the basis of leftist thinking.  One "receives" welfare, one "receives" benefits, one "receives" wealth; "earning" never enters their tiny minds.
Click to expand...


The funny thing is, as someone who reads every page of the book including the copyright date, I can distinctly remember Stephen King bitching about how high his tax rate is at least twice in the forewords on his books.


----------



## Inthemiddle

GuyPinestra said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, MY goal in a Union isn't to wind up running other people's lives for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we both can at least be united on one thing; no more opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, or drug usage.  Okay, three things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you on 2 of those...
Click to expand...


Big government fascist!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Inthemiddle said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You didn't get there on your own"
> 
> That's what my wife says every time we have sex...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the government fucks you it doesn't care if you get there or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm not the government, and when I have sex with a woman, I really don't care if she gets there or not.  I got mine, time to move along.
Click to expand...


And as long as you leave the money on the dresser, I'm sure she's fine with that.  I doubt she was expecting you to be able to "get her there", anyway.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Inthemiddle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, MY goal in a Union isn't to wind up running other people's lives for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we both can at least be united on one thing; no more opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, or drug usage.  Okay, three things.
Click to expand...


Ahh, the famed leftist ability to conflate two concepts that have fuck-all to do with each other in such a way as to make it inescapable to everyone that said leftist is a moron.

Well done.


----------



## Inthemiddle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the government fucks you it doesn't care if you get there or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm not the government, and when I have sex with a woman, I really don't care if she gets there or not.  I got mine, time to move along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as long as you leave the money on the dresser, I'm sure she's fine with that.  I doubt she was expecting you to be able to "get her there", anyway.
Click to expand...


I don't pay.  But as far as her expectations, that's the beauty of it.  She was definitely expecting it.  That is, until we got back to my place and I took off my pants, and she realized that I wasn't joking when I said I had a tiny penis.  At that point, though, they usually feel obligated, because it's not like I lied to them.  So, it's game on.  Until I get bored.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Inthemiddle said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we both can at least be united on one thing; no more opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, or drug usage.  Okay, three things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you on 2 of those...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government fascist!
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Inthemiddle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're right.  Hawking isn't a paraplegic.  He's a quadriplegic, since paraplegics have only lost the function of the lower half of the body.  Doesn't really much matter to the definition HOW he lost that function.  That's just hair-splitting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I further misspoke, because I meant to say that he wasn't always a (near) quadriplegic.
Click to expand...


Ah, so instead of making an utterly pathetic and useless point that at least vaguely related to the topic, you were making a completely irrelevant point that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and was a waste of time and space.  Got it.



Inthemiddle said:


> So your belief is that Hawking is an exception, and that all other severely handicapped people are useless and have nothing to offer society?  Is that really what you're arguing for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *cough*  I'll point you to the last person who wanted to make insinuations about my feelings regarding disabled persons.  And I'll kindly ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth, regardless of the the subject.
Click to expand...


You're the one who said it, Sparkles.  Don't blame ME if, when repeated back to you, your remarks sound as putrid to you as they did to everyone else when you uttered them.  Whatcha gonna do, make more irrelevant, unrelated diversionary remarks at me REALLY LOUDLY?  Gosh, I'm trembling in my booties.

Any time you want to PROVE to me - and everyone else - that you were NOT, in fact, telling us that the severely handicapped are useless victims with nothing to offer society who should therefore be treated like helpless wards of the state, rather than impotently demanding that I respect some non-existent and unproven championing of the handicapped on your part, you feel free.  Until then, YOU said it.  YOU own it.  Enjoy your total, helpless inability to make me stop saying what you don't want to hear.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Cecilie1200 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, MY goal in a Union isn't to wind up running other people's lives for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we both can at least be united on one thing; no more opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, or drug usage.  Okay, three things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, the famed leftist ability to conflate two concepts that have fuck-all to do with each other in such a way as to make it inescapable to everyone that said leftist is a moron.
> 
> Well done.
Click to expand...


dont make me repeat the famous Animal House line for you too...


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we both can at least be united on one thing; no more opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, or drug usage. Okay, three things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, the famed leftist ability to conflate two concepts that have fuck-all to do with each other in such a way as to make it inescapable to everyone that said leftist is a moron.
> 
> Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dont make me repeat the famous Animal House line for you too...
Click to expand...

 
is that akin to I might stare at you incessantly?

S0n? YOU are pathetic.


----------



## The T

Synopsis? Obama has called businesses, and those whom work for them CRIMINALS. They're stealing from GOVERNMENT...and Government means to take everything BACk with UNDUE interest.

That's IT in a nutshell.


----------



## Rozman

My response would be if I had an idea and started up a business.. it would be something like this.

I got my business to succeed in spite of government getting in the way and throwing up roadblocks
and obstacles at every turn...


----------



## The T

Rozman said:


> My response would be if I had an idea and started up a business.. it would be something like this.
> 
> I got my business to succeed in spite of government getting in the way and throwing up roadblocks
> and obstacles at every turn...


 
How do YOU as a business owner like being called a THIEF by Obama?


----------



## Inthemiddle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're right.  Hawking isn't a paraplegic.  He's a quadriplegic, since paraplegics have only lost the function of the lower half of the body.  Doesn't really much matter to the definition HOW he lost that function.  That's just hair-splitting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I further misspoke, because I meant to say that he wasn't always a (near) quadriplegic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so instead of making an utterly pathetic and useless point that at least vaguely related to the topic, you were making a completely irrelevant point that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and was a waste of time and space.  Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your belief is that Hawking is an exception, and that all other severely handicapped people are useless and have nothing to offer society?  Is that really what you're arguing for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *cough*  I'll point you to the last person who wanted to make insinuations about my feelings regarding disabled persons.  And I'll kindly ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth, regardless of the the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who said it, Sparkles.  Don't blame ME if, when repeated back to you, your remarks sound as putrid to you as they did to everyone else when you uttered them.  Whatcha gonna do, make more irrelevant, unrelated diversionary remarks at me REALLY LOUDLY?  Gosh, I'm trembling in my booties.
> 
> Any time you want to PROVE to me - and everyone else - that you were NOT, in fact, telling us that the severely handicapped are useless victims with nothing to offer society who should therefore be treated like helpless wards of the state, rather than impotently demanding that I respect some non-existent and unproven championing of the handicapped on your part, you feel free.  Until then, YOU said it.  YOU own it.  Enjoy your total, helpless inability to make me stop saying what you don't want to hear.
Click to expand...


Listen you infected twat, I told you to back the fuck off.  You don't know who the fuck you're talking to, or anything about me.  Don't put words into my mouth.  You're right, you don't have to respect shit.  But come say it to my face and we'll see how much your perspective changes when I take a grinder to you eyes.  I don't have to prove shit to you or anyone here because I know who I am, and I know who my family is.   You want to see it for yourself?  What's your address?  I'll send you a plane ticket and have driver pick you up at the airport.


----------



## rightwinger

Rozman said:


> My response would be if I had an idea and started up a business.. it would be something like this.
> 
> I got my business to succeed in spite of government getting in the way and throwing up roadblocks
> and obstacles at every turn...



How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?


----------



## The T

Inthemiddle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I further misspoke, because I meant to say that he wasn't always a (near) quadriplegic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so instead of making an utterly pathetic and useless point that at least vaguely related to the topic, you were making a completely irrelevant point that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and was a waste of time and space. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *cough* I'll point you to the last person who wanted to make insinuations about my feelings regarding disabled persons. And I'll kindly ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth, regardless of the the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who said it, Sparkles. Don't blame ME if, when repeated back to you, your remarks sound as putrid to you as they did to everyone else when you uttered them. Whatcha gonna do, make more irrelevant, unrelated diversionary remarks at me REALLY LOUDLY? Gosh, I'm trembling in my booties.
> 
> Any time you want to PROVE to me - and everyone else - that you were NOT, in fact, telling us that the severely handicapped are useless victims with nothing to offer society who should therefore be treated like helpless wards of the state, rather than impotently demanding that I respect some non-existent and unproven championing of the handicapped on your part, you feel free. Until then, YOU said it. YOU own it. Enjoy your total, helpless inability to make me stop saying what you don't want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Listen you infected twat, I told you to back the fuck off. You don't know who the fuck you're talking to, or anything about me.*_ Don't put words into my mouth. You're right, you don't have to respect shit. But come say it to my face and we'll see how much your perspective changes when I take a grinder to you eyes. I don't have to prove shit to you or anyone here because I know who I am, and I know who my family is. You want to see it for yourself? What's your address? I'll send you a plane ticket and have driver pick you up at the airport.
Click to expand...

 
Should SHE care? YOU sure as HELL don't in YOUR posts.

Do the words FUCK OFF mean anything?


----------



## Sinjorri

Stephanie said:


> I'm sure all the BUSINESS people in the country LOVE hearing this shit from Obama
> 
> UnFrikenbelievable
> 
> please vote this Progressive idiot out



next week Obama will be asking them for money.


----------



## Trajan

Sallow said:


> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.



so the 'people' or that 'someone who helped them get there' were recompensed.......were they not? 

so everything belongs to the collective now, work your ass off, pay your bills, pay your help, re-pay your investors if you had any, paid taxes, not enough.

now you owe the collective or 'someone' some amorphous something that only obama can speak to....getdafugoutta here.... .


----------



## ConzHateUSA

ahh, look, stupid rightwingers figured out how to use a keyboard

impresssive

next you will be able to tie your shoes, keep trying, I know you can do it!


----------



## WillowTree

ConzHateUSA said:


> ahh, look, stupid rightwingers figured out how to use a keyboard
> 
> impresssive
> 
> next you will be able to tie your shoes, keep trying, I know you can do it!



I see four red splats.. how duz that happen?


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response would be if I had an idea and started up a business.. it would be something like this.
> 
> I got my business to succeed in spite of government getting in the way and throwing up roadblocks
> and obstacles at every turn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?
Click to expand...


on the roads his taxes paid for....next?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

rightwinger said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response would be if I had an idea and started up a business.. it would be something like this.
> 
> I got my business to succeed in spite of government getting in the way and throwing up roadblocks
> and obstacles at every turn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?
Click to expand...


Dont ask him that, his brain might explode

granted, it will be like a sparkler dud, but it will explode


----------



## WillowTree

ConzHateUSA said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response would be if I had an idea and started up a business.. it would be something like this.
> 
> I got my business to succeed in spite of government getting in the way and throwing up roadblocks
> and obstacles at every turn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont ask him that, his brain might explode
> 
> granted, it will be like a sparkler dud, but it will explode
Click to expand...


you pulled those roads right out of your ass didn't you?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0eVolLmf-4]2011 Louie Vermeil Classic Night Two: USAC/CRA & WCRS Sprint Cars - YouTube[/ame]


hey righty, shut up for a minute and watch this


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> 2011 Louie Vermeil Classic Night Two: USAC/CRA & WCRS Sprint Cars - YouTube
> 
> 
> hey righty, shut up for a minute and watch this


 
Hey Dumbass? WE don't CARE. YOU sewed your seed, and the seed rotted here on these boards.

DO us a favor? Just Cease? Go away? You add ZERO.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2011 Louie Vermeil Classic Night Two: USAC/CRA & WCRS Sprint Cars - YouTube
> 
> 
> hey righty, shut up for a minute and watch this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass? WE don't CARE. YOU sewed your seed, and the seed rotted here on these boards.
> 
> DO us a favor? Just Cease? Go away? You add ZERO.
Click to expand...


oh for gods sake, shut up...you are a moron, you are a bigot, shut up please, the rest of the world is sick of your vile bile...


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response would be if I had an idea and started up a business.. it would be something like this.
> 
> I got my business to succeed in spite of government getting in the way and throwing up roadblocks
> and obstacles at every turn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> on the roads his taxes paid for....next?
Click to expand...


Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.

Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society


----------



## ConzHateUSA

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on the roads his taxes paid for....next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
Click to expand...


Well, the roads they need exist already, no need to build more or maintain them, well, if they want their grandkids to survive there is, but idiots dont look ahead usually...


----------



## freedombecki

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response would be if I had an idea and started up a business.. it would be something like this.
> 
> I got my business to succeed in spite of government getting in the way and throwing up roadblocks
> and obstacles at every turn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> on the roads his taxes paid for....next?
Click to expand...

That was a true and snappy answer! You go, Mr. Trajan!


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on the roads his taxes paid for....next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
Click to expand...

Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.

Meager taxes indeed.


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2011 Louie Vermeil Classic Night Two: USAC/CRA & WCRS Sprint Cars - YouTube
> 
> 
> hey righty, shut up for a minute and watch this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass? WE don't CARE. YOU sewed your seed, and the seed rotted here on these boards.
> 
> DO us a favor? Just Cease? Go away? You add ZERO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh for gods sake, shut up...you are a moron, you are a bigot, shut up please, the rest of the world is sick of your vile bile...
Click to expand...

 
I am for individual LIBERTY and *I* am a bigot? Really Gracie?

DO TELL?


----------



## The T

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> on the roads his taxes paid for....next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
Click to expand...

It's the SewerGas...I'm telling ya...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

yup yup yup

I watch fox and I am stupid, yup yup yup


----------



## del

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass? WE don't CARE. YOU sewed your seed, and the seed rotted here on these boards.
> 
> DO us a favor? Just Cease? Go away? You add ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh for gods sake, shut up...you are a moron, you are a bigot, shut up please, the rest of the world is sick of your vile bile...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am for individual LIBERTY and *I* am a bigot? Really Gracie?
> 
> DO TELL?
Click to expand...


you're a drunk, tommy.


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2011 Louie Vermeil Classic Night Two: USAC/CRA & WCRS Sprint Cars - YouTube
> 
> 
> hey righty, shut up for a minute and watch this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass? WE don't CARE. YOU sewed your seed, and the seed rotted here on these boards.
> 
> DO us a favor? Just Cease? Go away? You add ZERO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh for gods sake, shut up...you are a moron, you are a bigot, shut up please, the rest of the world is sick of your vile bile...
Click to expand...

 
S0N? YOU Hate ME because I DO speak for liberty. Something YOU have NO record of. I have rightly called YOU and your idealism into question and I am the hateful one?

YOU sir are just an IDIOT. Stupifying _IDIOT._


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> yup yup yup
> 
> I watch fox and I am stupid, yup yup yup


 
Who wrote that? OH! That's right...YOU did...


MORON


----------



## del

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dumbass? WE don't CARE. YOU sewed your seed, and the seed rotted here on these boards.
> 
> DO us a favor? Just Cease? Go away? You add ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh for gods sake, shut up...you are a moron, you are a bigot, shut up please, the rest of the world is sick of your vile bile...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> S0N? YOU Hate ME because I DO speak for liberty. Something YOU have NO record of. I have rightly called YOU and your idealism into question and I am the hateful one?
> 
> YOU sir are just an IDIOT. Stupifying _IDIOT._
Click to expand...


have another drink, tommy, and tell us how the presidential run is going


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T

relax, you are now incoherent

I said earlier and I was telling the truth, we are gonna let you stay here, so relax...


----------



## The T

Oh and DULL? FUCK YOU too.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

del said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh for gods sake, shut up...you are a moron, you are a bigot, shut up please, the rest of the world is sick of your vile bile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S0N? YOU Hate ME because I DO speak for liberty. Something YOU have NO record of. I have rightly called YOU and your idealism into question and I am the hateful one?
> 
> YOU sir are just an IDIOT. Stupifying _IDIOT._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have another drink, tommy, and tell us how the presidential run is going
Click to expand...


I wonder if Obama is gonna take his guns away soon...

he should, of course, but he wont


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T
> 
> relax, you are now incoherent
> 
> I said earlier and I was telling the truth, we are gonna let you stay here, so relax...


 

You don't know truth. it has no agenda. YOU DO.


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> S0N? YOU Hate ME because I DO speak for liberty. Something YOU have NO record of. I have rightly called YOU and your idealism into question and I am the hateful one?
> 
> YOU sir are just an IDIOT. Stupifying _IDIOT._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have another drink, tommy, and tell us how the presidential run is going
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if Obama is gonna take his guns away soon...
Click to expand...

 
He'd be a FOOL to try.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> have another drink, tommy, and tell us how the presidential run is going
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Obama is gonna take his guns away soon...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He'd be a FOOL to try.
Click to expand...


but you think he is going to, right?


----------



## AquaAthena

CrusaderFrank said:


> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> Dems are the American't Party



Agreed. Where is Newt when we need him... He would have Obama toast by now.

Unless the GOP uses this new tactic in their ads, most of the population won't even hear about it. I wonder how much media attention it will receive?? Wha?!?!?! Did I hear....none!


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Obama is gonna take his guns away soon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He'd be a FOOL to try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but you think he is going to, right?
Click to expand...

 
I dunno...YOU brought it UP you fucking MORON. YOU seem to THINK he can.


----------



## Misty

What Obama doesn't realize is he just proved trickle down economics. 

We didn't get here on our own because we supplied jobs to others. In all sectors of America.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Jesus, I cant keep up with the dumb here, I really cant...

So sad....To think we built the greatest middle class and infrastructure on the planet, but these idiot rightwing terrorists want to forget all that...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.



Well no shit, that's kinda obvious. How many businesses do you know that don't at the very least rely on some form of transportation through a system built and maintained by federal, state, and local government, to transport goods and customers to and from their business? That's sort of the bare minimum. Try to open up a restaurant that people can't get to by car. 

 Then there's all the publicly funded research that businesses use - much of it nowadays in the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, the very thing you're typing on right now was developed using technology that relies on the theories of modern physics - including quantum physics - the vast majority of which was publicly funded.  Not to mention much of the stuff the internet relies on was developed at publicly funded Universities. Technological success in the U.S. is a result of the efforts of vast numbers of both privately AND publicly funded scientists.

Lord you people are ignorant. But hey - stay that way -  I know its the only way you can be.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'd be a FOOL to try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you think he is going to, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno...YOU brought it UP you fucking MORON. YOU seem to THINK he can.
Click to expand...


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gTsG3CETYfw/SbFKIvNOP3I/AAAAAAAAAWI/gEDC424Q4_Y/s1600/FatChickPuking.jpg

just in case this is considered offensive, i will do link only


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on the roads his taxes paid for....next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
Click to expand...


fact- everyone pays a dmv reg fee. and a gas tax that uses the roads. the folks who use buses trains etc. pay a fee to ride them. hello....your comment is vapor, its means squat.


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you think he is going to, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno...YOU brought it UP you fucking MORON. YOU seem to THINK he can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gTsG3CETYfw/SbFKIvNOP3I/AAAAAAAAAWI/gEDC424Q4_Y/s1600/FatChickPuking.jpg
> 
> just in case this is considered offensive, i will do link only
Click to expand...

 
IDIOT.

Anytime ANYWHERE.

Get it ACE?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Conz hate society, well the society we have created, why?

Cuz it includes Blacks and Latinos and Gays and Muslims and Asians and so on...

that is the problem at the base of every argument here


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> on the roads his taxes paid for....next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
Click to expand...


Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you

How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno...YOU brought it UP you fucking MORON. YOU seem to THINK he can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gTsG3CETYfw/SbFKIvNOP3I/AAAAAAAAAWI/gEDC424Q4_Y/s1600/FatChickPuking.jpg
> 
> just in case this is considered offensive, i will do link only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IDIOT.
> 
> Anytime ANYWHERE.
> 
> Get it ACE?
Click to expand...

what does anytime anywhere mean again?

is this your way of inviting me to a fight in person?


----------



## Dr Grump

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'd be a FOOL to try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you think he is going to, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno...YOU brought it UP you fucking MORON. YOU seem to THINK he can.
Click to expand...


it's like shooting fish in a barrel with you ain't it? Talk about fucking morons....


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> Conz hate society, well the society we have created, why?
> 
> Cuz it includes Blacks and Latinos and Gays and Muslims and Asians and so on...
> 
> that is the problem at the base of every argument here


 
The Founders CREATED the Uniquley AMERICAN Society and experience.

YOU are Ill-Educated or slept through CIVICS and American History.

MORON


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gTsG3CETYfw/SbFKIvNOP3I/AAAAAAAAAWI/gEDC424Q4_Y/s1600/FatChickPuking.jpg
> 
> just in case this is considered offensive, i will do link only
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IDIOT.
> 
> Anytime ANYWHERE.
> 
> Get it ACE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does anytime anywhere mean again?
> 
> is this your way of inviting me to a fight in person?
Click to expand...

 
Guess. Asshat.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conz hate society, well the society we have created, why?
> 
> Cuz it includes Blacks and Latinos and Gays and Muslims and Asians and so on...
> 
> that is the problem at the base of every argument here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders CREATED the Uniquley AMERICAN Society and experience.
> 
> YOU are Ill-Educated or slept through CIVICS and American History.
> 
> MORON
Click to expand...

The Founders created our federal government, they didn't create our society.


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> on the roads his taxes paid for....next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fact- everyone pays a dmv reg fee. and a gas tax that sues the roads. the folks who suse buses trains etc. pay a fee to ride them. hello....your comment is vapor, its means squat.
Click to expand...


Now you are getting the idea!

Everyone pays, everyone benefits. It is why "We the people" elect a government to provide for our General Welfare. People like Rozman benefit even if they don't realize it


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDIOT.
> 
> Anytime ANYWHERE.
> 
> Get it ACE?
> 
> 
> 
> what does anytime anywhere mean again?
> 
> is this your way of inviting me to a fight in person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess. Asshat.
Click to expand...


OK, my standing deal is we will meet, but we will meet at the Beverly Wilshire in Los Angeles, and before I will give you a moment of my very valuable and very expensive time, you must show me the key to your suite there...

I will be there in two weeks...


----------



## Wiseacre

Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.   Do we now want to give credit to the gov't when our kids graduate from school or our doctors and nurses treat and heal patients in a hospital?    So, do we also blame gov't everytime a business goes bust?   Why not, they only get credit for successes?


----------



## yidnar

Sallow said:


> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.


 please explain how it is the truth ...


----------



## Inthemiddle

I'm still waiting for someone to show where Obama said the government is responsible for everyone's success.


----------



## GuyPinestra

ConzHateUSA said:


> Jesus, I cant keep up with the dumb here, I really cant...
> 
> So sad....To think we built the greatest middle class and infrastructure on the planet, but these idiot rightwing terrorists want to forget all that...



You didn't build a damned thing, child, and your entitlement attitude is the very thing that's destroying both our middle class AND our infrastructure.

You're just too damned ignorant to realize it.


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> 
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
Click to expand...



whatever....


----------



## ConzHateUSA

GuyPinestra said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, I cant keep up with the dumb here, I really cant...
> 
> So sad....To think we built the greatest middle class and infrastructure on the planet, but these idiot rightwing terrorists want to forget all that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't build a damned thing, child, and your entitlement attitude is the very thing that's destroying both our middle class AND our infrastructure.
> 
> You're just too damned ignorant to realize it.
Click to expand...


GUy Guy Guy, you know already, I know you do, that you and your friends are laughed at by the rest of the planet.

You are wrong about

wait for it

*E  V  E  R  Y  T  H  I  N  G*

and we are not debating that here, we are here to only laugh at you...the entire planet laughs at you


----------



## jillian

GuyPinestra said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, I cant keep up with the dumb here, I really cant...
> 
> So sad....To think we built the greatest middle class and infrastructure on the planet, but these idiot rightwing terrorists want to forget all that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't build a damned thing, child, and your entitlement attitude is the very thing that's destroying both our middle class AND our infrastructure.
> 
> You're just too damned ignorant to realize it.
Click to expand...


What did you produce, sparky?


----------



## GuyPinestra

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> 
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
Click to expand...


You're stoopit, RW. Da Gubmint didn't build SHIT, they hired PRIVATE ENTERPRISE to build it, and paid them with OUR tax dollars.


----------



## Oddball

Inthemiddle said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to show where Obama said the government is responsible for everyone's success.


It's implied in the message.

Fact is that gubmint is the one that doesn't do it alone...If there was nobody gathering resources, producing value-added goods, acquiring and improving property, and voluntarily exchanging value for value in an open and free market, there'd be no tax dollars for them to sink their grimy, greedy little meat hooks into. 

The hubris  of smarmy little thugs like Warren and Boiking is only exceeded by their ingratitude.


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fact- everyone pays a dmv reg fee. and a gas tax that sues the roads. the folks who suse buses trains etc. pay a fee to ride them. hello....your comment is vapor, its means squat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting the idea!
> 
> Everyone pays, everyone benefits. It is why "We the people" elect a government to provide for our General Welfare. People like Rozman benefit even if they don't realize it
Click to expand...


how the hell does that translate to his comments, here I know your challenged, so one more time;

_
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. _


nice,  so no ones effort is their own, its the unicorns....and daddy gubermint will even it all out....


----------



## Rozman

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> 
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
Click to expand...





> *How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned? All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used*



I don't know about you but where I live we pay tolls on just about every bridge,tunnel,Thruway,Parkway...etc...and we have for years and they always raise the price on these tolls...

I know you Libs feel we are just not taxed enough but I think we are.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

i continue to watch in AWE as men barely able to by mac and cheese for dinner, defending the billionaires who exist because they are eating mac and cheese

goebbels would be proud


----------



## Trajan

jillian said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, I cant keep up with the dumb here, I really cant...
> 
> So sad....To think we built the greatest middle class and infrastructure on the planet, but these idiot rightwing terrorists want to forget all that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't build a damned thing, child, and your entitlement attitude is the very thing that's destroying both our middle class AND our infrastructure.
> 
> You're just too damned ignorant to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you produce, sparky?
Click to expand...


irony alert......


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Rozman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned? All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about you but where I live we pay tolls on just about every bridge,tunnel,Thruway,Parkway...etc...and we have for years and they always raise the price on these tolls...
> 
> I know you Libs feel we are just not taxed enough but I think we are.
Click to expand...


another idiot bigot, did the local nuthouse open their doors today?


----------



## GuyPinestra

jillian said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, I cant keep up with the dumb here, I really cant...
> 
> So sad....To think we built the greatest middle class and infrastructure on the planet, but these idiot rightwing terrorists want to forget all that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't build a damned thing, child, and your entitlement attitude is the very thing that's destroying both our middle class AND our infrastructure.
> 
> You're just too damned ignorant to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you produce, sparky?
Click to expand...


Well, let's see...  2 successful businesses and one trouble-free son, why do you ask?


----------



## Inthemiddle

Oddball said:


> It's implied in the message.



I don't see how.  I think Obama's "message" was summed up pretty well with this:  "The point is, when we succeed we do it because of our individual initiative, but also because we do it together."


----------



## rightwinger

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're stoopit, RW. Da Gubmint didn't build SHIT, they hired PRIVATE ENTERPRISE to build it, and paid them with OUR tax dollars.
Click to expand...


You are stoopit Guy......Da GUBMINT is prohibited by law from competing with private industry. Our tax dollars went to OUR Government to build what is necessary for the General Welfare of we the people

If you think your private business succeeds without the benefits provided by we the people, you are sadly mistaken


----------



## rightwinger

Rozman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned? All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about you but where I live we pay tolls on just about every bridge,tunnel,Thruway,Parkway...etc...and we have for years and they always raise the price on these tolls...
> 
> I know you Libs feel we are just not taxed enough but I think we are.
Click to expand...


I don't know where you live. I happen to live in NJ, the king of tolls. Yet 95% of the roads, bridges and tunnels do not require tolls. 

If they were built by private enterprise you would pay on EVERY one


----------



## The T

Rozman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned? All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned? All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about you but where I live we pay tolls on just about every bridge,tunnel,Thruway,Parkway...etc...and we have for years and they always raise the price on these tolls...
> 
> I know you Libs feel we are just not taxed enough but I think we are.
Click to expand...

 
You'd think thae TOLL would have PAID for itself with gas taxes?

Apparently NOT.


----------



## The T

rightwinger said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned? All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned? All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about you but where I live we pay tolls on just about every bridge,tunnel,Thruway,Parkway...etc...and we have for years and they always raise the price on these tolls...
> 
> I know you Libs feel we are just not taxed enough but I think we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live. I happen to live in NJ, the king of tolls. Yet 95% of the roads, bridges and tunnels do not require tolls.
> 
> If they were built by private enterprise you would pay on EVERY one
Click to expand...

 
But YET YOU pay them blindly without QUESTION.

YOU are a MORON.


----------



## Murf76

Inthemiddle said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's implied in the message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how.  I think Obama's "message" was summed up pretty well with this:  "The point is, when we succeed we do it because of our individual initiative, but also because we do it together."
Click to expand...


That statement implies public ownership.  I've seen alot of lefties try to explain Obama's comments on this subject today. I've seen quite a few lose their composure when their efforts toward that end have failed too.  But there's no mistaking the collectivist nature of what he said.  

Now, with the bottom 50% not paying federal income taxes at all and the top 20% of earners paying 94% of taxes, there's no way "we do it together".  80% by that math didn't do squat.


----------



## Pho_King

I imagine most small business owners have paid more than their fair share for the infrastructure we all enjoyed.  In most circumstances, they have contributed far more than the employees they hire.     This whole "we are all responsible for your success" is problematic on many levels.  First, it denigrates the work of the business owner.  Second, it assumes that the freeloading welfare queen somehow contributed to the success of your local business owner.  In short, it devalues the winners, and elevates the losers.  Would you expect anything else from a lefty?


----------



## Dr Grump

The T said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you but where I live we pay tolls on just about every bridge,tunnel,Thruway,Parkway...etc...and we have for years and they always raise the price on these tolls...
> 
> I know you Libs feel we are just not taxed enough but I think we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live. I happen to live in NJ, the king of tolls. Yet 95% of the roads, bridges and tunnels do not require tolls.
> 
> If they were built by private enterprise you would pay on EVERY one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But YET YOU pay them blindly without QUESTION.
> 
> YOU are a MORON.
Click to expand...


Your reading comprehension sux...big time....


----------



## Inthemiddle

Murf76 said:


> That statement implies public ownership.



No.


----------



## Pho_King

I can just see all you pussyassed lefties patting yourselves on the back for the success of everyone else.


----------



## Dr Grump

GuyPinestra said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't build a damned thing, child, and your entitlement attitude is the very thing that's destroying both our middle class AND our infrastructure.
> 
> You're just too damned ignorant to realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did you produce, sparky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, let's see...  2 successful businesses and one trouble-free son, why do you ask?
Click to expand...


What type of businesses?


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> fact- everyone pays a dmv reg fee. and a gas tax that sues the roads. the folks who suse buses trains etc. pay a fee to ride them. hello....your comment is vapor, its means squat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting the idea!
> 
> Everyone pays, everyone benefits. It is why "We the people" elect a government to provide for our General Welfare. People like Rozman benefit even if they don't realize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how the hell does that translate to his comments, here I know your challenged, so one more time;
> 
> _
> 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. _
> 
> 
> nice,  so no ones effort is their own, its the unicorns....and daddy gubermint will even it all out....
Click to expand...


I know you are challenged and I tried to use small words, but here is the post I replied to


> . Quote: Originally Posted by Rozman
> My response would be if I had an idea and started up a business.. it would be something like this.
> 
> I got my business to succeed in spite of government getting in the way and throwing up roadblocks
> and obstacles at every turn...
> How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?



Try to keep up


----------



## The T

Dr Grump said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live. I happen to live in NJ, the king of tolls. Yet 95% of the roads, bridges and tunnels do not require tolls.
> 
> If they were built by private enterprise you would pay on EVERY one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But YET YOU pay them blindly without QUESTION.
> 
> YOU are a MORON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reading comprehension sux...big time....
Click to expand...

 
YOU may Fuck yourself. LINE forms over there===>

IDIOT. I understood it just fine asshole.


----------



## Murf76

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're stoopit, RW. Da Gubmint didn't build SHIT, they hired PRIVATE ENTERPRISE to build it, and paid them with OUR tax dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are stoopit Guy......Da GUBMINT is prohibited by law from competing with private industry. Our tax dollars went to OUR Government to build what is necessary for the General Welfare of we the people
> 
> If you think your private business succeeds without the benefits provided by we the people, you are sadly mistaken
Click to expand...


His business succeeds with the benefits of his own hard work and infrastructure supplied by 20% of "We The People, which would include the taxes he pays himself.  Maybe we should just let the ones who pay utilize it, and the bottom 50% can stay off our lawn.  How's that?


----------



## Oddball

Inthemiddle said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That statement implies public ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

Yes...It implies that the only reason anyone succeeds is because of the benevolent patronage of arrogant  punks like Boiking and Warren....The only reason "we all did it together" is that if the producers didn't fork over a substantial portion of their earnings, they'd have their businesses confiscated and they'd be thrown in jail.

Obolshevik and Warren are no more than a couple of protection racketeers, patting themselves on the back for the business success of the people they shake down.


----------



## Wiseacre

Inthemiddle said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to show where Obama said the government is responsible for everyone's success.




You don't think that is Obama's meaning, what he really thinks?   Oh, not soley responsible maybe, but enough to where the more successful people have a debt to pay beyond what they're already paying.   It is the far left's ideology, gov't is the answer to everyting and we all owe it whatever they decide is enough.


----------



## Pho_King

This is the lefty's American dream.....a utopia where even the lowest bottom feeding slug gets a cookie for doing their part in creating the success of all businesses.  That way they can feel that they have "earned" all the freebies they demand.


----------



## GuyPinestra

rightwinger said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned? All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about you but where I live we pay tolls on just about every bridge,tunnel,Thruway,Parkway...etc...and we have for years and they always raise the price on these tolls...
> 
> I know you Libs feel we are just not taxed enough but I think we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live. I happen to live in NJ, the king of tolls. Yet 95% of the roads, bridges and tunnels do not require tolls.
> 
> If they were built by private enterprise you would pay on EVERY one
Click to expand...


I'd rather pay the toll than the tax, it cuts out the middleman...


----------



## Murf76

Inthemiddle said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That statement implies public ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it does.  Read what you posted again... *"The point is, when we succeed we do it because of our individual initiative, but also because we do it together."*

C'mon.  What's the point of taking an interest in politics if we can't be HONEST about what we see?  Words have meanings, and Obama's words above are clear.


----------



## Pho_King

When everybody has equal access to our infrastructure, what is it beyond the individual's initiative and hard work that leads to his success beyond the next person?


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dr Grump said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you produce, sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see...  2 successful businesses and one trouble-free son, why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What type of businesses?
Click to expand...


One sales, one service...


----------



## Pho_King

This is how the lefty OWS losers validate their existence, by clinging to the successes of others, and claiming those successes for themselves.



Fucking parasites.


----------



## rightwinger

Murf76 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're stoopit, RW. Da Gubmint didn't build SHIT, they hired PRIVATE ENTERPRISE to build it, and paid them with OUR tax dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are stoopit Guy......Da GUBMINT is prohibited by law from competing with private industry. Our tax dollars went to OUR Government to build what is necessary for the General Welfare of we the people
> 
> If you think your private business succeeds without the benefits provided by we the people, you are sadly mistaken
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His business succeeds with the benefits of his own hard work and infrastructure supplied by 20% of "We The People, which would include the taxes he pays himself.  Maybe we should just let the ones who pay utilize it, and the bottom 50% can stay off our lawn.  How's that?
Click to expand...


Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?

You are going to have to back that one up


----------



## GuyPinestra

rightwinger said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are stoopit Guy......Da GUBMINT is prohibited by law from competing with private industry. Our tax dollars went to OUR Government to build what is necessary for the General Welfare of we the people
> 
> If you think your private business succeeds without the benefits provided by we the people, you are sadly mistaken
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His business succeeds with the benefits of his own hard work and infrastructure supplied by 20% of "We The People, which would include the taxes he pays himself.  Maybe we should just let the ones who pay utilize it, and the bottom 50% can stay off our lawn.  How's that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?
> 
> You are going to have to back that one up
Click to expand...


So because you pay gas taxes you feel entitled to leech off of a business owner that ALSO pays gas taxes, as well as many OTHER taxes that you DON'T pay??


----------



## Dr Grump

The T said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> But YET YOU pay them blindly without QUESTION.
> 
> YOU are a MORON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reading comprehension sux...big time....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU may Fuck yourself. LINE forms over there===>
> 
> IDIOT. I understood it just fine asshole.
Click to expand...


No you don't...

But don't worry, the expectations for you are pretty low anyway. A bit worrying that you are having trouble meeting them.

Haven't you got a revolution to start somewhere....


----------



## Pho_King

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His business succeeds with the benefits of his own hard work and infrastructure supplied by 20% of "We The People, which would include the taxes he pays himself.  Maybe we should just let the ones who pay utilize it, and the bottom 50% can stay off our lawn.  How's that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?
> 
> You are going to have to back that one up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because you pay gas taxes you feel entitled to leech off of a business owner that ALSO pays gas taxes, as well as many OTHER taxes that you DON'T pay??
Click to expand...


The answer to that is a resounding YES!


----------



## rightwinger

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you but where I live we pay tolls on just about every bridge,tunnel,Thruway,Parkway...etc...and we have for years and they always raise the price on these tolls...
> 
> I know you Libs feel we are just not taxed enough but I think we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live. I happen to live in NJ, the king of tolls. Yet 95% of the roads, bridges and tunnels do not require tolls.
> 
> If they were built by private enterprise you would pay on EVERY one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather pay the toll than the tax, it cuts out the middleman...
Click to expand...


You would have to save up a lot of quarters. Leave your house and count every piss ant bridge over every creek and river. Look at every single lane road and two lane highway. You would have to pay every private entrepreneur who built them


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live. I happen to live in NJ, the king of tolls. Yet 95% of the roads, bridges and tunnels do not require tolls.
> 
> If they were built by private enterprise you would pay on EVERY one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather pay the toll than the tax, it cuts out the middleman...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to save up a lot of quarters. Leave your house and count every piss ant bridge over every creek and river. Look at every single lane road and two lane highway. You would have to pay every private entrepreneur who built them
Click to expand...

For the most part, we do pay private entrepreneurs, who contract with state and local agencies, to build them.

Your myopia is epic.


----------



## rightwinger

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His business succeeds with the benefits of his own hard work and infrastructure supplied by 20% of "We The People, which would include the taxes he pays himself.  Maybe we should just let the ones who pay utilize it, and the bottom 50% can stay off our lawn.  How's that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?
> 
> You are going to have to back that one up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because you pay gas taxes you feel entitled to leech off of a business owner that ALSO pays gas taxes, as well as many OTHER taxes that you DON'T pay??
Click to expand...


It is the business owner who makes a profit off of the roads, bridges, water systems, communications networks, police and fire protection, welfare and other services provided by we the people

The point of the thread is ......you don't succeed alone Mr Business owner


----------



## Murf76

rightwinger said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are stoopit Guy......Da GUBMINT is prohibited by law from competing with private industry. Our tax dollars went to OUR Government to build what is necessary for the General Welfare of we the people
> 
> If you think your private business succeeds without the benefits provided by we the people, you are sadly mistaken
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His business succeeds with the benefits of his own hard work and infrastructure supplied by 20% of "We The People, which would include the taxes he pays himself.  Maybe we should just let the ones who pay utilize it, and the bottom 50% can stay off our lawn.  How's that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?
> 
> You are going to have to back that one up
Click to expand...


Not gas taxes.  Income taxes.


> In a second report, the CBO said that in both 2008 and 2009, the highest-earning 20 percent of taxpayers paid 94 percent of the total income tax burden  up from 86 percent in 2007, and 81 percent before the 2001 tax cuts.  In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called Bush tax cuts.
> Portman: CBO Tears Down Yet Another Of President Obama's Straw Men - Press Releases - Newsroom - Rob Portman


----------



## BillyV

You know, Obama is right about the fact that [Business owners] didnt get there on their own. Its also true that Government didnt get there on its own; it had the prior fiscal support of business through its broad taxing authority. Where do they think the money came from to create the internet (even though it was Al Gores idea)? It came from the businesses that existed at that time. You could just as easily say that businesses today should thank businesses of the past for providing the funding for the infrastructure as government (which undoubtedly wasted significant portions of it on the way). In any case, if you put his words into context, what he is really saying is You didnt get there on your own, and we need you to pay even more than before to get you to where WE think you should go. Youll notice they never define fair share, but its always understood to mean more.
I think most business people understand that they are in an uneasy partnership with the government, local, state and federal. They pay over taxes in the way of fees, licenses, taxes on property, sales, purchases, income, payroll, use of highways, etc. In return, the government provides general services for which the individual business may or may not benefit in equal measure, but all get some benefit. Of course the business owner wants these and other input costs of his business to be as low as possible. If Obama wants to increase that burden, especially at a time of weakness in the economy, he needs to provide us with a more specific plan for spending it than infrastructure, teachers, policemen and firefighters. Make the case that the current level of spending is inadequate for needed services, reduce or eliminate those things that are not needed, justify each and every remaining program, and show that you have cut as much fat as is possible without hitting the bone. If he could make that case, I think those on both sides of the aisle would be more likely to go along with some kind of revenue increase. An actual budget might help (what a concept!). This is what a businessman would do; streamline and find greater efficiency while cutting unnecessary costs, and then if that isnt adequate, look for additional revenue sources, if they exist. All government does is look for additional revenue sources while paying lip service to budget cutting (for which, again, you need an actual budget).This is the difference between having a community organizer in office rather than someone who has been in an executive position, who is experienced in running (and turning around) a large organization. Which is why, like it or not, Romney is really the only choice.


----------



## Pho_King

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?
> 
> You are going to have to back that one up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because you pay gas taxes you feel entitled to leech off of a business owner that ALSO pays gas taxes, as well as many OTHER taxes that you DON'T pay??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the business owner who makes a profit off of the roads, bridges, water systems, communications networks, police and fire protection, welfare and other services provided by we the people
> 
> The point of the thread is ......you don't succeed alone Mr Business owner
Click to expand...


Yes, the business owner profits.  So do the fucking employees, along with various levels of government.  Quit leeching off of others.   Find your own success, you sad little tickterd.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Truthmatters said:


> your a partisan idiot who refuses to understand what your endless desire for tax cuts does to our infrastructure



he is PARTISAN?.....what the fuck are you?.....


----------



## Peach

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?
> 
> You are going to have to back that one up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because you pay gas taxes you feel entitled to leech off of a business owner that ALSO pays gas taxes, as well as many OTHER taxes that you DON'T pay??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the business owner who makes a profit off of the roads, bridges, water systems, communications networks, police and fire protection, welfare and other services provided by we the people
> 
> The point of the thread is ......you don't succeed alone Mr Business owner
Click to expand...


The larger the structure, number of persons, and value of property, the more tax dollars used to protect, and serve, yes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Inthemiddle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm not the government, and when I have sex with a woman, I really don't care if she gets there or not.  I got mine, time to move along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as you leave the money on the dresser, I'm sure she's fine with that.  I doubt she was expecting you to be able to "get her there", anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't pay.  But as far as her expectations, that's the beauty of it.  She was definitely expecting it.  That is, until we got back to my place and I took off my pants, and she realized that I wasn't joking when I said I had a tiny penis.  At that point, though, they usually feel obligated, because it's not like I lied to them.  So, it's game on.  Until I get bored.
Click to expand...


Once again, you have mistaken derisive mockery for your existence as interest in the details of your existence.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather pay the toll than the tax, it cuts out the middleman...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to save up a lot of quarters. Leave your house and count every piss ant bridge over every creek and river. Look at every single lane road and two lane highway. You would have to pay every private entrepreneur who built them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the most part, we do pay private entrepreneurs, who contract with state and local agencies, to build them.
> 
> Your myopia is epic.
Click to expand...


Please try to keep up with the thread...it is not that hard

The government hires private companies to design and construct infrastructure. That infrastructure belongs to the people

In the days of our founding fathers roads, bridges, ferries and fords were built by individuals. They owned them. When you crossed a small bridge over a tiny creek.....you paid


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we both can at least be united on one thing; no more opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, or drug usage.  Okay, three things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, the famed leftist ability to conflate two concepts that have fuck-all to do with each other in such a way as to make it inescapable to everyone that said leftist is a moron.
> 
> Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dont make me repeat the famous Animal House line for you too...
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm deeply terrified that you might cite the "profound wisdom" that you find in comedic movies at me.  Oh, lawsie, ANYTHING but that!  PLEASE!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to save up a lot of quarters. Leave your house and count every piss ant bridge over every creek and river. Look at every single lane road and two lane highway. You would have to pay every private entrepreneur who built them
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part, we do pay private entrepreneurs, who contract with state and local agencies, to build them.
> 
> Your myopia is epic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please try to keep up with the thread...it is not that hard
> 
> The government hires private companies to design and construct infrastructure. That infrastructure belongs to the people
> 
> In the days of our founding fathers roads, bridges, ferries and fords were build by individuals. They owned them. When you crossed a small bridge over a tiny creek.....you paid
Click to expand...


So our "Liberal" Founding Fathers should have been grateful to the British, no?


----------



## Cecilie1200

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, the famed leftist ability to conflate two concepts that have fuck-all to do with each other in such a way as to make it inescapable to everyone that said leftist is a moron.
> 
> Well done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont make me repeat the famous Animal House line for you too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is that akin to I might stare at you incessantly?
> 
> S0n? YOU are pathetic.
Click to expand...


Today must be my day for impotent jerkwads to make lame-ass threats at me.  I think next comes, "I'm going to breathe really hard in your general direction."


----------



## rightwinger

Murf76 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His business succeeds with the benefits of his own hard work and infrastructure supplied by 20% of "We The People, which would include the taxes he pays himself.  Maybe we should just let the ones who pay utilize it, and the bottom 50% can stay off our lawn.  How's that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?
> 
> You are going to have to back that one up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not gas taxes.  Income taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> In a second report, the CBO said that in both 2008 and 2009, the highest-earning 20 percent of taxpayers paid 94 percent of the total income tax burden &#8211; up from 86 percent in 2007, and 81 percent before the 2001 tax cuts.  In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called &#8220;Bush tax cuts.&#8221;
> Portman: CBO Tears Down Yet Another Of President Obama's Straw Men - Press Releases - Newsroom - Rob Portman
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Income taxes do not pay for our roads. Try again


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part, we do pay private entrepreneurs, who contract with state and local agencies, to build them.
> 
> Your myopia is epic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please try to keep up with the thread...it is not that hard
> 
> The government hires private companies to design and construct infrastructure. That infrastructure belongs to the people
> 
> In the days of our founding fathers roads, bridges, ferries and fords were build by individuals. They owned them. When you crossed a small bridge over a tiny creek.....you paid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So our "Liberal" Founding Fathers should have been grateful to the British, no?
Click to expand...


Is there a point there?


----------



## Murf76

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?
> 
> You are going to have to back that one up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because you pay gas taxes you feel entitled to leech off of a business owner that ALSO pays gas taxes, as well as many OTHER taxes that you DON'T pay??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the business owner who makes a profit off of the roads, bridges, water systems, communications networks, police and fire protection, welfare and other services provided by we the people
> 
> The point of the thread is ......you don't succeed alone Mr Business owner
Click to expand...


None of that is free to the business owner.  He pays his taxes, and more than his "fair share" too.  He pays for his utilities, insurance, labor, and every other form of overhead.   The ability of the government to collect revenues springs from the very EXISTENCE of commerce.  It's not the other way around.


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to save up a lot of quarters. Leave your house and count every piss ant bridge over every creek and river. Look at every single lane road and two lane highway. You would have to pay every private entrepreneur who built them
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part, we do pay private entrepreneurs, who contract with state and local agencies, to build them.
> 
> Your myopia is epic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please try to keep up with the thread...it is not that hard
> 
> The government hires private companies to design and construct infrastructure. That infrastructure belongs to the people
> 
> In the days of our founding fathers roads, bridges, ferries and fords were built by individuals. They owned them. When you crossed a small bridge over a tiny creek.....you paid
Click to expand...

It's you who needs to keep up, Dudley....Those roads and bridges don't just spring into existence because some DOT bureaucrat waves his magic wand.


BTW....Y'ever driven an 18-wheeler over that free bridge from Jersey into Manhattan?


----------



## jillian

Cecilie1200 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, MY goal in a Union isn't to wind up running other people's lives for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we both can at least be united on one thing; no more opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, or drug usage.  Okay, three things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, the famed leftist ability to conflate two concepts that have fuck-all to do with each other in such a way as to make it inescapable to everyone that said leftist is a moron.
> 
> Well done.
Click to expand...


ah...the famous rightwingnut difficulty to analogize and to comprehend any state of facts that doesn't suit them.

and cess pit does it in her usual charming manner, too.


----------



## Dr Grump

CrusaderFrank said:


> So our "Liberal" Founding Fathers should have been grateful to the British, no?



For many things....yes....


----------



## Murf76

rightwinger said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?
> 
> You are going to have to back that one up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not gas taxes.  Income taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> In a second report, the CBO said that in both 2008 and 2009, the highest-earning 20 percent of taxpayers paid 94 percent of the total income tax burden  up from 86 percent in 2007, and 81 percent before the 2001 tax cuts.  In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called Bush tax cuts.
> Portman: CBO Tears Down Yet Another Of President Obama's Straw Men - Press Releases - Newsroom - Rob Portman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Income taxes do not pay for our roads. Try again
Click to expand...


Obama didn't specify "roads".  Oh, and lest we forget..  when he did foisted off his Porkulus spending package on us  at the beginning of his term, he droned on and on about "infrastructure", but only put about 5% toward it.


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So our "Liberal" Founding Fathers should have been grateful to the British, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many things....yes....
Click to expand...


like our legal system which is based on the british common law system.

i wonder if he knows that there are parts of new york where the land grants go back to the dongen patent... which was empowered by the magna carta.

nah... he doesn' tknow.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Inthemiddle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I further misspoke, because I meant to say that he wasn't always a (near) quadriplegic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so instead of making an utterly pathetic and useless point that at least vaguely related to the topic, you were making a completely irrelevant point that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and was a waste of time and space.  Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *cough*  I'll point you to the last person who wanted to make insinuations about my feelings regarding disabled persons.  And I'll kindly ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth, regardless of the the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who said it, Sparkles.  Don't blame ME if, when repeated back to you, your remarks sound as putrid to you as they did to everyone else when you uttered them.  Whatcha gonna do, make more irrelevant, unrelated diversionary remarks at me REALLY LOUDLY?  Gosh, I'm trembling in my booties.
> 
> Any time you want to PROVE to me - and everyone else - that you were NOT, in fact, telling us that the severely handicapped are useless victims with nothing to offer society who should therefore be treated like helpless wards of the state, rather than impotently demanding that I respect some non-existent and unproven championing of the handicapped on your part, you feel free.  Until then, YOU said it.  YOU own it.  Enjoy your total, helpless inability to make me stop saying what you don't want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen you infected twat, I told you to back the fuck off.  You don't know who the fuck you're talking to, or anything about me.  Don't put words into my mouth.  You're right, you don't have to respect shit.  But come say it to my face and we'll see how much your perspective changes when I take a grinder to you eyes.  I don't have to prove shit to you or anyone here because I know who I am, and I know who my family is.   You want to see it for yourself?  What's your address?  I'll send you a plane ticket and have driver pick you up at the airport.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm well aware of what you TOLD me to do.  I'm also aware that, as in the rest of your life, you are utterly impotent and powerless, and therefore have no ability whatsoever to make me do what you tell me, or even to take notice of your "orders" except to laugh at them, and you.

I not only don't know who - or what - I'm talking to, I don't care.  And I don't have to put words in your mouth.  All I have to do is repeat back the ones YOU put in there, minus the "No, really, I'm a WONDERFUL person!  I'm a liberal, so that makes me GOOD, and you're just MEAN not to appreciate how superior I am!" bullshit.

So let me say it again, just because you hate it so much, and you told me not to, and I want to make absolutely certain that you understand that YOU CAN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT:  you look down on the poor and the handicapped.  You don't feel "compassion" for them; you PITY them.  To you, they're just worthless victims with nothing to offer the world except a vehicle for YOU to feel warm and fuzzy about yourself through, because you're "helping" them by pointing out how they have no ability to accomplish anything, and so they should lick your smarmy liberal boots in gratitude for a government pittance.

YOU said it.  YOU own it.  And YOU can't stop me from reminding you as many times as I like what a putrid, selfish, using scumbag of a leftist twerp you are.

Go ahead.  ORDER me to back the fuck off again.  Demand that I come there so that you can, no doubt, stand there screaming in my face as impotently as you type at me.  I'd love a chance to repeat the whole thing, and the spittle flying from the corners of your helplessly-enraged leftist mouth makes me laugh even harder.

Oh, did I mention that you think the severely-handicapped are worthless and have nothing to offer society?  I want to make sure you see that as many times as possible.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The T said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so instead of making an utterly pathetic and useless point that at least vaguely related to the topic, you were making a completely irrelevant point that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and was a waste of time and space. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who said it, Sparkles. Don't blame ME if, when repeated back to you, your remarks sound as putrid to you as they did to everyone else when you uttered them. Whatcha gonna do, make more irrelevant, unrelated diversionary remarks at me REALLY LOUDLY? Gosh, I'm trembling in my booties.
> 
> Any time you want to PROVE to me - and everyone else - that you were NOT, in fact, telling us that the severely handicapped are useless victims with nothing to offer society who should therefore be treated like helpless wards of the state, rather than impotently demanding that I respect some non-existent and unproven championing of the handicapped on your part, you feel free. Until then, YOU said it. YOU own it. Enjoy your total, helpless inability to make me stop saying what you don't want to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Listen you infected twat, I told you to back the fuck off. You don't know who the fuck you're talking to, or anything about me.*_ Don't put words into my mouth. You're right, you don't have to respect shit. But come say it to my face and we'll see how much your perspective changes when I take a grinder to you eyes. I don't have to prove shit to you or anyone here because I know who I am, and I know who my family is. You want to see it for yourself? What's your address? I'll send you a plane ticket and have driver pick you up at the airport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should SHE care? YOU sure as HELL don't in YOUR posts.
> 
> Do the words FUCK OFF mean anything?
Click to expand...


If the leftist you're talking to isn't reduced to a frothing, incoherent rage, you're not doing it right, according to Ann Coulter.


----------



## Dr Grump

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So our "Liberal" Founding Fathers should have been grateful to the British, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many things....yes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like our legal system which is based on the british common law system.
Click to expand...


That's a start....:O)


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> yup yup yup
> 
> I watch fox and I am stupid, yup yup yup



Well, you're half-right.  I have no idea if you watch Fox or not, though.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So our "Liberal" Founding Fathers should have been grateful to the British, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many things....yes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like our legal system which is based on the british common law system.
> 
> i wonder if he knows that there are parts of new york where the land grants go back to the dongen patent... which was empowered by the magna carta.
> 
> nah... he doesn' tknow.
Click to expand...


Are you doing your "I'm a lawyer" Schtick again?


----------



## Dr Grump

Inthemiddle said:


> Listen you infected twat, I told you to back the fuck off.  You don't know who the fuck you're talking to, or anything about me.  Don't put words into my mouth.  You're right, you don't have to respect shit.  But come say it to my face and we'll see how much your perspective changes when I take a grinder to you eyes.  I don't have to prove shit to you or anyone here because I know who I am, and I know who my family is.   You want to see it for yourself?  What's your address?  I'll send you a plane ticket and have driver pick you up at the airport.



I dunno why you engage with it. I only flame the moron for shits and giggles (although it has me on ignore, I get bored sometimes, what can I say??)

If anybody ever had an over-inflated opinion on themselves based on ignorance and arrogance (and NOTHING else), it is a the Cesspit. I'd ignore it if I were you. You can't teach the arrogant a thing....let alone one who is as dumb as two short planks...


----------



## Dr Grump

CrusaderFrank said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> For many things....yes....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like our legal system which is based on the british common law system.
> 
> i wonder if he knows that there are parts of new york where the land grants go back to the dongen patent... which was empowered by the magna carta.
> 
> nah... he doesn' tknow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you doing your "I'm a lawyer" Schtick again?
Click to expand...


No, she's doing her "I'm trying to educate the ignorant" schtick.

Is it working?

Have you learned anything?


----------



## Cecilie1200

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no shit, that's kinda obvious. How many businesses do you know that don't at the very least rely on some form of transportation through a system built and maintained by federal, state, and local government, to transport goods and customers to and from their business? That's sort of the bare minimum. Try to open up a restaurant that people can't get to by car.
> 
> Then there's all the publicly funded research that businesses use - much of it nowadays in the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, the very thing you're typing on right now was developed using technology that relies on the theories of modern physics - including quantum physics - the vast majority of which was publicly funded.  Not to mention much of the stuff the internet relies on was developed at publicly funded Universities. Technological success in the U.S. is a result of the efforts of vast numbers of both privately AND publicly funded scientists.
> 
> Lord you people are ignorant. But hey - stay that way -  I know its the only way you can be.
Click to expand...


"The VAST majority of EVERYTHING was publicly-funded!  No, really!  Don't bother me with any of that stupid evidence shit that shows most of the funding for scientific research comes from the private sector!  I KNOW that all good flows from the government, and that's all I want to hear!"

God, you might as well just say it in a Butterfly McQueen voice, and you can be the perfect liberal stereotype.  Practically stamped out of a cookie cutter in the DNC basement.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only 20% of the people pay gas taxes?
> 
> You are going to have to back that one up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because you pay gas taxes you feel entitled to leech off of a business owner that ALSO pays gas taxes, as well as many OTHER taxes that you DON'T pay??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the business owner who makes a profit off of the roads, bridges, water systems, communications networks, police and fire protection, welfare and other services provided by we the people
> 
> The point of the thread is ......you don't succeed alone Mr Business owner
Click to expand...


It is the taxpayers who pay for the federal government ie business owners, employees of businesses.  The govt collects bids and awards the job to the cheapest contractor, who is also a private company.  If it weren't for the taxpayers, govt wouldn't even have a say in the transaction of the monies.  Now, if by some miracle, govt agencies actually built infrastructure without our money, you may have a small point.  Otherwise, they get no thanks from me because I'm paying for it.  P.S.  I'd swim across a river before I'd drive a car across a bridge that a govt agency built.


----------



## jillian

CrusaderFrank said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> For many things....yes....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like our legal system which is based on the british common law system.
> 
> i wonder if he knows that there are parts of new york where the land grants go back to the dongen patent... which was empowered by the magna carta.
> 
> nah... he doesn' tknow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you doing your "I'm a lawyer" Schtick again?
Click to expand...


i don't have to do schtick, frankie.

i'm sorry the nyc public school system was such a failure for you.

now go look up the dongen patent... and maybe if you're a good boy, one day i'll tell you about the case i was involved in where it came up.

until then, kiss my ESQ, butt.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Inthemiddle said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's implied in the message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how.  I think Obama's "message" was summed up pretty well with this:  "The point is, when we succeed we do it because of our individual initiative, but also because we do it together."
Click to expand...


Yeah.  In other words, "You owe the government for your success."

And considering that your dumb ass is on the message board every day advocating for more government control, higher taxes, and more money doled out to those you've designated as "worthless" and "unable to cope on their own" so that you can feel compassionate and superior, don't even try on that whole disingenuous pretense that that's NOT what Obama's statement was about.


----------



## freedombecki

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> 
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
Click to expand...

Government knows how to put toll booths on new expressways! lol


----------



## CrusaderFrank

jillian said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> like our legal system which is based on the british common law system.
> 
> i wonder if he knows that there are parts of new york where the land grants go back to the dongen patent... which was empowered by the magna carta.
> 
> nah... he doesn' tknow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you doing your "I'm a lawyer" Schtick again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't have to do schtick, frankie.
> 
> i'm sorry the nyc public school system was such a failure for you.
> 
> now go look up the dongen patent... and maybe if you're a good boy, one day i'll tell you about the case i was involved in where it came up.
> 
> until then, kiss my ESQ, butt.
Click to expand...


Why don't you post the Clarence Thomas decision that shows what a lowbrow thinker he is?


----------



## Cecilie1200

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you but where I live we pay tolls on just about every bridge,tunnel,Thruway,Parkway...etc...and we have for years and they always raise the price on these tolls...
> 
> I know you Libs feel we are just not taxed enough but I think we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live. I happen to live in NJ, the king of tolls. Yet 95% of the roads, bridges and tunnels do not require tolls.
> 
> If they were built by private enterprise you would pay on EVERY one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather pay the toll than the tax, it cuts out the middleman...
Click to expand...


And the roads would almost certainly be better-maintained.  Think how much money that would save you on car repairs.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pho_King said:


> When everybody has equal access to our infrastructure, what is it beyond the individual's initiative and hard work that leads to his success beyond the next person?



Yes, what about this excellent point, leftists?  If, as Obama says, we shouldn't be congratulating ourselves on our success because of our individual intelligence and hard work, because "WE" did it together, why is it that only some people have that success to "unfairly" congratulate themselves about?  We all have access to the "wonderful" government contributions, so if they're what REALLY created the success, how come everyone doesn't have it?


----------



## Pho_King

S let's see.  The French and British get pats on the back for the success of any given American small business.  And every other citizen gets credit for the success which is dive in large part to government.  No wonder the lefties would like to tax the ever loving shit out of small businesses......they fucking owe everyone!


----------



## mudwhistle

Everyone knows that if it weren't for government it would be nothing but chaos.

Human sacrifice.

Cats and dogs living together. 

Mass hysteria.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Peach said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> So because you pay gas taxes you feel entitled to leech off of a business owner that ALSO pays gas taxes, as well as many OTHER taxes that you DON'T pay??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the business owner who makes a profit off of the roads, bridges, water systems, communications networks, police and fire protection, welfare and other services provided by we the people
> 
> The point of the thread is ......you don't succeed alone Mr Business owner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The larger the structure, number of persons, and value of property, the more tax dollars used to protect, and serve, yes.
Click to expand...


Oh, really?  So big businesses with big buildings are getting more police attention than other people are?  Because I could swear the police just drive their patrols through the neighborhood without stopping, and each and every one of those big businesses hires their own private security people.  Maybe the doughtnut shops and convenience stores are getting more tax dollars used to "protect and serve" them . . .


----------



## Cecilie1200

jillian said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we both can at least be united on one thing; no more opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, or drug usage.  Okay, three things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, the famed leftist ability to conflate two concepts that have fuck-all to do with each other in such a way as to make it inescapable to everyone that said leftist is a moron.
> 
> Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah...the famous rightwingnut difficulty to analogize and to comprehend any state of facts that doesn't suit them.
> 
> and cess pit does it in her usual charming manner, too.
Click to expand...


Oh, look, an ignorant twat stopping by to suck up to the guys in the hopes of FINALLY getting some male attention in her life.

Run along, twat.  No one's waving any ten-dollar bills in your direction at the moment.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, the famed leftist ability to conflate two concepts that have fuck-all to do with each other in such a way as to make it inescapable to everyone that said leftist is a moron.
> 
> Well done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah...the famous rightwingnut difficulty to analogize and to comprehend any state of facts that doesn't suit them.
> 
> and cess pit does it in her usual charming manner, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, look, an ignorant twat stopping by to suck up to the guys in the hopes of FINALLY getting some male attention in her life.
> 
> Run along, twat.  No one's waving any ten-dollar bills in your direction at the moment.
Click to expand...


Ah, that charming manner...

...and her also sharing her experiences of the good old days.

Maybe you should have kept those detes to yourself, Cesspit. Although I like how you have taken into account inflation for your pricing structure....I guess $10 is equivalent to $1 a blowjob you were giving at the Blind Institute back in '99...


----------



## P@triot

jillian said:


> i don't have to do schtick, frankie.
> 
> i'm sorry the nyc public school system was such a failure for you.
> 
> now go look up the dongen patent... and maybe if you're a good boy, one day i'll tell you about the case i was involved in where it came up.
> 
> until then, kiss my ESQ, butt.



Jillian, sweetie, I think we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that either you are not an attorney, or you are the worst "attorney" ever, because I have completely _destroyed_ you in every debate we have ever had.

But let's put that aside for a moment. If you are in fact an attorney, you should be a person of means (even the lowest paid of attorney's make a respectable living). Which raises the question - why don't _you_ provide for those in need? How many people without health insurance (that your bleeding heart cries for) have you offered to pay an insurance policy for? How many homeless people have you offered to pay rent for (or brought into your own home)? How many hungry people have you taken out to dinner?

This is why the liberal is the laughing joke of America. They scream about those in need, then go out and buy themselves an $800 iPhone while neglecting those same in need. I would vomit if I were 1/1000th the hypocrite of the idiot liberal.


----------



## Dr Grump

mudwhistle said:


> Human sacrifice.
> 
> Cats and dogs living together.
> 
> Mass hysteria.



Everybody knows you need minimal govt.
Everybody knows that corporations don't need regulation and can be trusted to do the right thing by everybody. After all, Wall St almost hitting the skids in '08 was all down to the govt...

I could go on....


----------



## rightwinger

LordBrownTrout said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> So because you pay gas taxes you feel entitled to leech off of a business owner that ALSO pays gas taxes, as well as many OTHER taxes that you DON'T pay??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the business owner who makes a profit off of the roads, bridges, water systems, communications networks, police and fire protection, welfare and other services provided by we the people
> 
> The point of the thread is ......you don't succeed alone Mr Business owner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the taxpayers who pay for the federal government ie business owners, employees of businesses.  The govt collects bids and awards the job to the cheapest contractor, who is also a private company.  If it weren't for the taxpayers, govt wouldn't even have a say in the transaction of the monies.  Now, if by some miracle, govt agencies actually built infrastructure without our money, you may have a small point.  Otherwise, they get no thanks from me because I'm paying for it.  P.S.  I'd swim across a river before I'd drive a car across a bridge that a govt agency built.
Click to expand...


Hate to break it to you..

But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us

P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge


----------



## salem.hills

Right we had to go shit outta luck and broke up is he reimbursing us? Naw so we didn't get here on our own he helped but we owe him. Lmfao fck that guy


----------



## P@triot

To all of you liberals (ie ignorant asshole who lack the integrity to admit you are Communists/Marxists/Socialists):

It takes a 4 year old with a shred of common sense to realize how ignorant Barack Obama, his statement, and you guys supporting it are...

Barack says that the successful didn't get there alone and that there are "many smart people" out there and "many working hard". Ok, then why aren't ALL of them billionaires? Every single child in America had teachers (education is not only free, it's mandatory). Every single child had streets, and bridges, and stops signs (none of which have anything to do with success, but Communists are too stupid to realize that )

If what he said were true, than 100% of the people would be billionaires. The fact that only a few are is a clear indication that they were brighter and worked harder than the rest. Period.

I love watching the ignorant liberal fall all over themselves with absurd statements trying to justify their Communism/Marxism/Socialism...


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> When everybody has equal access to our infrastructure, what is it beyond the individual's initiative and hard work that leads to his success beyond the next person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, what about this excellent point, leftists?  If, as Obama says, we shouldn't be congratulating ourselves on our success because of our individual intelligence and hard work, because "WE" did it together, why is it that only some people have that success to "unfairly" congratulate themselves about?  We all have access to the "wonderful" government contributions, so if they're what REALLY created the success, how come everyone doesn't have it?
Click to expand...



The whole point of this meme is that the barely sentient slugs who are able to make a living by screwing a nut onto a bolt 1000 times a day deserve a share of what the entrepreneurs who built the company are earning.  The reality is that if it wasn't for the later, the former would be eating rodents and bugs and living under a rock.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the business owner who makes a profit off of the roads, bridges, water systems, communications networks, police and fire protection, welfare and other services provided by we the people
> 
> The point of the thread is ......you don't succeed alone Mr Business owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the taxpayers who pay for the federal government ie business owners, employees of businesses.  The govt collects bids and awards the job to the cheapest contractor, who is also a private company.  If it weren't for the taxpayers, govt wouldn't even have a say in the transaction of the monies.  Now, if by some miracle, govt agencies actually built infrastructure without our money, you may have a small point.  Otherwise, they get no thanks from me because I'm paying for it.  P.S.  I'd swim across a river before I'd drive a car across a bridge that a govt agency built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
Click to expand...


In other words, leftwinger is a stupid, lazy, mooch who wants to live off of all of us hard working conservatives, so he wants government to confiscate our wealth by force.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> Jillian, sweetie, I think we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that either you are not an attorney, or you are the worst "attorney" ever, because I have completely _destroyed_ you in every debate we have ever had.
> 
> But let's put that aside for a moment. If you are in fact an attorney, you should be a person of means (even the lowest paid of attorney's make a respectable living). Which raises the question - why don't _you_ provide for those in need? How many people without health insurance (that your bleeding heart cries for) have you offered to pay an insurance policy for? How many homeless people have you offered to pay rent for (or brought into your own home)? How many hungry people have you taken out to dinner?
> 
> This is why the liberal is the laughing joke of America. They scream about those in need, then go out and buy themselves an $800 iPhone while neglecting those same in need. I would vomit if I were 1/1000th the hypocrite of the idiot liberal.



Ah, yes, that old chestnut of attacking somebody's bona fides when they have little else to go on..

So you can't be liberal, own an iPhone and give to charity? Is that what your warped sense of thinking comes up with, Rotty? Is that what you are saying?

While you're having a crack at Jillian and her occupation, can you please tell us yours? And while you're at it, tell us that if indeed by some miracle you do have a job, where you operate so we can avoid it like the plague. Anybody who posts such vacuous, insipid drivel must be on welfare.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part, we do pay private entrepreneurs, who contract with state and local agencies, to build them.
> 
> Your myopia is epic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please try to keep up with the thread...it is not that hard
> 
> The government hires private companies to design and construct infrastructure. That infrastructure belongs to the people
> 
> In the days of our founding fathers roads, bridges, ferries and fords were built by individuals. They owned them. When you crossed a small bridge over a tiny creek.....you paid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's you who needs to keep up, Dudley....Those roads and bridges don't just spring into existence because some DOT bureaucrat waves his magic wand.
> 
> 
> BTW....Y'ever driven an 18-wheeler over that free bridge from Jersey into Manhattan?
Click to expand...


Of course they don't. That DOT bureaucrat has to establish a need, get budget approval, put out an RFP, evaluate bidders for best cost and value, award a contract, monitor performance, inspect for quality and safety and sign off that the final product meets requirements

Those bridges would be in much better shape if Republicans did not block funding for infrastructure improvement


----------



## LordBrownTrout

rightwinger said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the business owner who makes a profit off of the roads, bridges, water systems, communications networks, police and fire protection, welfare and other services provided by we the people
> 
> The point of the thread is ......you don't succeed alone Mr Business owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the taxpayers who pay for the federal government ie business owners, employees of businesses.  The govt collects bids and awards the job to the cheapest contractor, who is also a private company.  If it weren't for the taxpayers, govt wouldn't even have a say in the transaction of the monies.  Now, if by some miracle, govt agencies actually built infrastructure without our money, you may have a small point.  Otherwise, they get no thanks from me because I'm paying for it.  P.S.  I'd swim across a river before I'd drive a car across a bridge that a govt agency built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
Click to expand...


Yes, they got us there 45 years ago.  They're only good for running up trillions of debt now.  Yes, they are our chosen representative.  

Yes, we elect them and pay them to do our bidding using private companies to build infrastructure.  We pay them to do this.


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Jillian, sweetie, I think we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that either you are not an attorney, or you are the worst "attorney" ever, because I have completely _destroyed_ you in every debate we have ever had.
> 
> But let's put that aside for a moment. If you are in fact an attorney, you should be a person of means (even the lowest paid of attorney's make a respectable living). Which raises the question - why don't _you_ provide for those in need? How many people without health insurance (that your bleeding heart cries for) have you offered to pay an insurance policy for? How many homeless people have you offered to pay rent for (or brought into your own home)? How many hungry people have you taken out to dinner?
> 
> This is why the liberal is the laughing joke of America. They scream about those in need, then go out and buy themselves an $800 iPhone while neglecting those same in need. I would vomit if I were 1/1000th the hypocrite of the idiot liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, that old chestnut of attacking somebody's bona fides when they have little else to go on..
> 
> So you can't be liberal, own and iPhone and give to charity? Is that what your warped sense of thinking comes up with, Rotty? Is that what you are saying?
> 
> While you're having a crack at Jillian and her occupation, can you please tell us yours? And while you're at it, tell us that if indeed by some miracle you do have a job, where you operate so we can avoid it like the plague. Anybody who posts such a vacuous, insipid drivel must be on welfare.
Click to expand...


LMAO! Yeah, right. I'm the one saying government should get the fuck out of our lives and abide by the constitution, but _I'm the one_ living off of government.

Sorry asshole, *you're* the *mooch* who wants to live off us hard working conservatives. You're the one who wants government to take what we earn and give it to your lazy, sorry, stupid ass.

And don't avoid the question. Which raises the question - *why don't you provide for those in need? How many people without health insurance (that your bleeding heart cries for) have you offered to pay an insurance policy for? How many homeless people have you offered to pay rent for (or brought into your own home)? How many hungry people have you taken out to dinner?*


----------



## Moonglow

Rottweiler said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't have to do schtick, frankie.
> 
> i'm sorry the nyc public school system was such a failure for you.
> 
> now go look up the dongen patent... and maybe if you're a good boy, one day i'll tell you about the case i was involved in where it came up.
> 
> until then, kiss my ESQ, butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian, sweetie, I think we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that either you are not an attorney, or you are the worst "attorney" ever, because I have completely _destroyed_ you in every debate we have ever had.
> 
> But let's put that aside for a moment. If you are in fact an attorney, you should be a person of means (even the lowest paid of attorney's make a respectable living). Which raises the question - why don't _you_ provide for those in need? How many people without health insurance (that your bleeding heart cries for) have you offered to pay an insurance policy for? How many homeless people have you offered to pay rent for (or brought into your own home)? How many hungry people have you taken out to dinner?
> 
> This is why the liberal is the laughing joke of America. They scream about those in need, then go out and buy themselves an $800 iPhone while neglecting those same in need. I would vomit if I were 1/1000th the hypocrite of the idiot liberal.
Click to expand...


How many soon to be aborted babies have you adopted?


----------



## Moonglow

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah...the famous rightwingnut difficulty to analogize and to comprehend any state of facts that doesn't suit them.
> 
> and cess pit does it in her usual charming manner, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, look, an ignorant twat stopping by to suck up to the guys in the hopes of FINALLY getting some male attention in her life.
> 
> Run along, twat.  No one's waving any ten-dollar bills in your direction at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, that charming manner...
> 
> ...and her also sharing her experiences of the good old days.
> 
> Maybe you should have kept those detes to yourself, Cesspit. Although I like how you have taken into account inflation for your pricing structure....I guess $10 is equivalent to $1 a blowjob you were giving at the Blind Institute back in '99...
Click to expand...


I thought she was there since '79?


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Ah, yes, that old chestnut of attacking somebody's bona fides when they have little else to go on...



Why can't you answer the question asshole? If you heart bleeds so much for those in need, why aren't YOU doing anything about it? Why are you spending your time on USMB through very expensive computers connected to very expensive high speed internet?

That's valuable money spent on trivial items that instead could be feeding children, housing women, and providing life saving health insurance to men.

Oh...that's right! Dr. Grump does give a shit about his fellow man. What he cares about is getting his greedy hands on wealth that other people worked hard to acquire.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Jillian, sweetie, I think we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that either you are not an attorney, or you are the worst "attorney" ever, because I have completely _destroyed_ you in every debate we have ever had.
> 
> But let's put that aside for a moment. If you are in fact an attorney, you should be a person of means (even the lowest paid of attorney's make a respectable living). Which raises the question - why don't _you_ provide for those in need? How many people without health insurance (that your bleeding heart cries for) have you offered to pay an insurance policy for? How many homeless people have you offered to pay rent for (or brought into your own home)? How many hungry people have you taken out to dinner?
> 
> This is why the liberal is the laughing joke of America. They scream about those in need, then go out and buy themselves an $800 iPhone while neglecting those same in need. I would vomit if I were 1/1000th the hypocrite of the idiot liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, that old chestnut of attacking somebody's bona fides when they have little else to go on..
> 
> So you can't be liberal, own and iPhone and give to charity? Is that what your warped sense of thinking comes up with, Rotty? Is that what you are saying?
> 
> While you're having a crack at Jillian and her occupation, can you please tell us yours? And while you're at it, tell us that if indeed by some miracle you do have a job, where you operate so we can avoid it like the plague. Anybody who posts such a vacuous, insipid drivel must be on welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO! Yeah, right. I'm the one saying government should get the fuck out of our lives and abide by the constitution, but _I'm the one_ living off of government.
> 
> Sorry asshole, *you're* the *mooch* who wants to live off us hard working conservatives. You're the one who wants government to take what we earn and give it to your lazy, sorry, stupid ass.
> 
> And don't avoid the question. Which raises the question - *why don't you provide for those in need? How many people without health insurance (that your bleeding heart cries for) have you offered to pay an insurance policy for? How many homeless people have you offered to pay rent for (or brought into your own home)? How many hungry people have you taken out to dinner?*
Click to expand...


1) My taxes provide for those in need
2) I live in a country where some have health insurance and we have a public service too. In fact, my wife just had a very successful operation on the public dime
3) What do your last two points have to do with anything? It proves nothing

4) Too much of a chicken shit to put your bona fides on the table, huh? Why am I not surprised...


----------



## P@triot

Moonglow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't have to do schtick, frankie.
> 
> i'm sorry the nyc public school system was such a failure for you.
> 
> now go look up the dongen patent... and maybe if you're a good boy, one day i'll tell you about the case i was involved in where it came up.
> 
> until then, kiss my ESQ, butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian, sweetie, I think we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that either you are not an attorney, or you are the worst "attorney" ever, because I have completely _destroyed_ you in every debate we have ever had.
> 
> But let's put that aside for a moment. If you are in fact an attorney, you should be a person of means (even the lowest paid of attorney's make a respectable living). Which raises the question - why don't _you_ provide for those in need? How many people without health insurance (that your bleeding heart cries for) have you offered to pay an insurance policy for? How many homeless people have you offered to pay rent for (or brought into your own home)? How many hungry people have you taken out to dinner?
> 
> This is why the liberal is the laughing joke of America. They scream about those in need, then go out and buy themselves an $800 iPhone while neglecting those same in need. I would vomit if I were 1/1000th the hypocrite of the idiot liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many soon to be aborted babies have you adopted?
Click to expand...


None - because you can't adobt children who were murdered, _stupid_....


----------



## del

Rottweiler said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian, sweetie, I think we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that either you are not an attorney, or you are the worst "attorney" ever, because I have completely _destroyed_ you in every debate we have ever had.
> 
> But let's put that aside for a moment. If you are in fact an attorney, you should be a person of means (even the lowest paid of attorney's make a respectable living). Which raises the question - why don't _you_ provide for those in need? How many people without health insurance (that your bleeding heart cries for) have you offered to pay an insurance policy for? How many homeless people have you offered to pay rent for (or brought into your own home)? How many hungry people have you taken out to dinner?
> 
> This is why the liberal is the laughing joke of America. They scream about those in need, then go out and buy themselves an $800 iPhone while neglecting those same in need. I would vomit if I were 1/1000th the hypocrite of the idiot liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many *soon to be* aborted babies have you adopted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None - because you can't adobt children who were murdered, _stupid_....
Click to expand...


do you speak english, assrabbit?


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> 1) My taxes provide for those in need
> 2) I live in a country where some have health insurance and we have a public service too. *In fact, my wife just had a very successful operation on the public dime*
> 3) What do your last two points have to do with anything? It proves nothing
> 
> 4) Too much of a chicken shit to put your bona fides on the table, huh? Why am I not surprised...



See? Liberal mooching off of hard working Americans. He'll pay for expensive computers and expensive high speed internet so he can surf porn all day and spew Communist bullshit on message boards, but he won't even pay for his wife's surgery. Fucking amazing...


----------



## Dr Grump

Moonglow said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, look, an ignorant twat stopping by to suck up to the guys in the hopes of FINALLY getting some male attention in her life.
> 
> Run along, twat.  No one's waving any ten-dollar bills in your direction at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, that charming manner...
> 
> ...and her also sharing her experiences of the good old days.
> 
> Maybe you should have kept those detes to yourself, Cesspit. Although I like how you have taken into account inflation for your pricing structure....I guess $10 is equivalent to $1 a blowjob you were giving at the Blind Institute back in '99...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought she was there since '79?
Click to expand...


Two young I think. Although, soon as she hit 18 she apperently was trawling the sidewalks of Pheonix...

But this reminds of a true story. Was in a bar when this drunk guy was asked in jest "what do you do for a living"...he replied "I'm a male prostitute". As quick as a flash the young lady who asked the question looked him up and down and replied "Shit, you must be poor." Ditto Cesspit I reckon


----------



## P@triot

del said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many *soon to be* aborted babies have you adopted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None - because you can't adobt children who were murdered, _stupid_....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you speak english, assrabbit?
Click to expand...


Again, I can't adopt a child that some liberal whore has earmarked for murder already. It's not like the liberal whore intended to have someone adobt the child and just couldn't find someone, so they decided on abortion, _stupid_...


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) My taxes provide for those in need
> 2) I live in a country where some have health insurance and we have a public service too. *In fact, my wife just had a very successful operation on the public dime*
> 3) What do your last two points have to do with anything? It proves nothing
> 
> 4) Too much of a chicken shit to put your bona fides on the table, huh? Why am I not surprised...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? Liberal mooching off of hard working Americans. He'll pay for expensive computers and expensive high speed internet so he can surf porn all day and spew Communist bullshit on message boards, but he won't even pay for his wife's surgery. Fucking amazing...
Click to expand...


1) I'm not American
2) My wife has paid taxes for the past 25 years, some of which has gone to fund our public hospitals. I feel no guilt about her getting some of those dollars back in the form of treatment from a health provider...


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, that charming manner...
> 
> ...and her also sharing her experiences of the good old days.
> 
> Maybe you should have kept those detes to yourself, Cesspit. Although I like how you have taken into account inflation for your pricing structure....I guess $10 is equivalent to $1 a blowjob you were giving at the Blind Institute back in '99...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought she was there since '79?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two young I think. Although, soon as she hit 18 she apperently was trawling the sidewalks of Pheonix...
> 
> But this reminds of a true story. Was in a bar when this drunk guy was asked in jest "what do you do for a living"...he replied "I'm a male prostitute". As quick as a flash the young lady who asked the question looked him up and down and replied "Shit, you must be poor." Ditto Cesspit I reckon
Click to expand...


Why can't you answer the question? If you heart bleeds so much for those in need, why aren't YOU doing anything about it? Why are you spending your time on USMB through very expensive computers connected to very expensive high speed internet?

That's valuable money spent on trivial items that instead could be feeding children, housing women, and providing life saving health insurance to men.

Oh...that's right! Dr. Grump does give a shit about his fellow man. What he cares about is getting his greedy hands on wealth that other people worked hard to acquire.


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) My taxes provide for those in need
> 2) I live in a country where some have health insurance and we have a public service too. *In fact, my wife just had a very successful operation on the public dime*
> 3) What do your last two points have to do with anything? It proves nothing
> 
> 4) Too much of a chicken shit to put your bona fides on the table, huh? Why am I not surprised...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? Liberal mooching off of hard working Americans. He'll pay for expensive computers and expensive high speed internet so he can surf porn all day and spew Communist bullshit on message boards, but he won't even pay for his wife's surgery. Fucking amazing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) I'm not American
> 2) My wife has paid taxes for the past 25 years, some of which has gone to fund our public hospitals. I feel no guilt about her getting some of those dollars back in the form of treatment from a health provider...
Click to expand...


Which brings us right back to the original point - had government not taken those taxes for so many years, you could have afforded the surgery. Yet here you sit, dumber than a box of rocks, calling for more government control (Communism/Marxism/Socialism).

Instead of your money being taken from you, going to Washington, then come back to you for the surgery, how about you just eliminate the inefficient middle man, keep your money, and pay for the surgery directly, yourself?

Duh... that would just make too much sense to the idiot liberal I guess.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought she was there since '79?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two young I think. Although, soon as she hit 18 she apperently was trawling the sidewalks of Pheonix...
> 
> But this reminds of a true story. Was in a bar when this drunk guy was asked in jest "what do you do for a living"...he replied "I'm a male prostitute". As quick as a flash the young lady who asked the question looked him up and down and replied "Shit, you must be poor." Ditto Cesspit I reckon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question? If you heart bleeds so much for those in need, why aren't YOU doing anything about it? Why are you spending your time on USMB through very expensive computers connected to very expensive high speed internet?
> 
> That's valuable money spent on trivial items that instead could be feeding children, housing women, and providing life saving health insurance to men.
> 
> Oh...that's right! Dr. Grump does give a shit about his fellow man. What he cares about is getting his greedy hands on wealth that other people worked hard to acquire.
Click to expand...


Well, if you could be arsed reading my responses, you would see that I have already said I give to charity.

And why won't you tell us what you do for a living, if indeed you do work...


----------



## rightwinger

LordBrownTrout said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the taxpayers who pay for the federal government ie business owners, employees of businesses.  The govt collects bids and awards the job to the cheapest contractor, who is also a private company.  If it weren't for the taxpayers, govt wouldn't even have a say in the transaction of the monies.  Now, if by some miracle, govt agencies actually built infrastructure without our money, you may have a small point.  Otherwise, they get no thanks from me because I'm paying for it.  P.S.  I'd swim across a river before I'd drive a car across a bridge that a govt agency built.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they got us there 45 years ago.  They're only good for running up trillions of debt now.  Yes, they are our chosen representative.
> 
> Yes, we elect them and pay them to do our bidding using private companies to build infrastructure.  We pay them to do this.
Click to expand...


The reason the evil government runs up debt is because taxpayers are lazy and stupid. They demand services and don't want the tax structure to pay for them. Start electing representatives who will slash Social Security, Welfare, Veterans Benefits, Defense and Education while raising your taxes


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) My taxes provide for those in need
> 2) I live in a country where some have health insurance and we have a public service too. *In fact, my wife just had a very successful operation on the public dime*
> 3) What do your last two points have to do with anything? It proves nothing
> 
> 4) Too much of a chicken shit to put your bona fides on the table, huh? Why am I not surprised...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? Liberal mooching off of hard working Americans. He'll pay for expensive computers and expensive high speed internet so he can surf porn all day and spew Communist bullshit on message boards, but he won't even pay for his wife's surgery. Fucking amazing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) I'm not American
> 2) My wife has paid taxes for the past 25 years, some of which has gone to fund our public hospitals. I feel no guilt about her getting some of those dollars back in the form of treatment from a health provider...
Click to expand...


If you're an American, then get the fuck out of the conversation and let us handle our own country.

P.S. - if you're married, and you're wife has paid taxes for 25 years, I'm guessing she is an American. Which means, by law, you are an American as well. We have to explain _everything_ to liberals...


----------



## rightwinger

Dr Grump said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two young I think. Although, soon as she hit 18 she apperently was trawling the sidewalks of Pheonix...
> 
> But this reminds of a true story. Was in a bar when this drunk guy was asked in jest "what do you do for a living"...he replied "I'm a male prostitute". As quick as a flash the young lady who asked the question looked him up and down and replied "Shit, you must be poor." Ditto Cesspit I reckon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question? If you heart bleeds so much for those in need, why aren't YOU doing anything about it? Why are you spending your time on USMB through very expensive computers connected to very expensive high speed internet?
> 
> That's valuable money spent on trivial items that instead could be feeding children, housing women, and providing life saving health insurance to men.
> 
> Oh...that's right! Dr. Grump does give a shit about his fellow man. What he cares about is getting his greedy hands on wealth that other people worked hard to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you could be arsed reading my responses, you would see that I have already said I give to charity.
> 
> And why won't you tell us what you do for a living, if indeed you do work...
Click to expand...


Lay off...Rott lives in his Moms basement


----------



## Mr.Nick

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, that old chestnut of attacking somebody's bona fides when they have little else to go on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question asshole? If you heart bleeds so much for those in need, why aren't YOU doing anything about it? Why are you spending your time on USMB through very expensive computers connected to very expensive high speed internet?
> 
> That's valuable money spent on trivial items that instead could be feeding children, housing women, and providing life saving health insurance to men.
> 
> Oh...that's right! Dr. Grump does give a shit about his fellow man. What he cares about is getting his greedy hands on wealth that other people worked hard to acquire.
Click to expand...


Progressives believe its not up to them to feed the needy, they believe just because they pay taxes that within itself is charity and the government will dole it out.

I believe it's up to man and the Church to help the needy via charity (like we have been doing for the last 2,000 years).

Presently our government is nothing more than a big ATM machine and it is being abused.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they got us there 45 years ago.  They're only good for running up trillions of debt now.  Yes, they are our chosen representative.
> 
> Yes, we elect them and pay them to do our bidding using private companies to build infrastructure.  We pay them to do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason the evil government runs up debt is because taxpayers are lazy and stupid. They demand services and don't want the tax structure to pay for them. Start electing representatives who will slash Social Security, Welfare, Veterans Benefits, Defense and Education while raising your taxes
Click to expand...


Or, we could do the SMART thing and get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. while cutting taxes. Then we'll solve *ALL* problems.

But that's not the Communist/Marxist/Socialist way, is it now _stupid_....?


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> See? Liberal mooching off of hard working Americans. He'll pay for expensive computers and expensive high speed internet so he can surf porn all day and spew Communist bullshit on message boards, but he won't even pay for his wife's surgery. Fucking amazing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I'm not American
> 2) My wife has paid taxes for the past 25 years, some of which has gone to fund our public hospitals. I feel no guilt about her getting some of those dollars back in the form of treatment from a health provider...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which brings us right back to the original point - had government not taken those taxes for so many years, you could have afforded the surgery. Yet here you sit, dumber than a box of rocks, calling for more government control (Communism/Marxism/Socialism).
> 
> Instead of your money being taken from you, going to Washington, then come back to you for the surgery, how about you just eliminate the inefficient middle man, keep your money, and pay for the surgery directly, yourself?
> 
> Duh... that would just make too much sense to the idiot liberal I guess.
Click to expand...


Well, actually, you're right and wrong. Some surgeries could easily be paid for by your method. However some are not. I realize this, but I like a system whereby my tax dollars will help fund the system that I may one day need. I may drop dead of a heart attack or get killed in a car accident and never get to utilise the health system. Then again, I may...shrug...them's the breaks.

Certainly beats the US system....although the current legislation that was passed might help fix it


----------



## P@triot

Mr.Nick said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, that old chestnut of attacking somebody's bona fides when they have little else to go on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question asshole? If you heart bleeds so much for those in need, why aren't YOU doing anything about it? Why are you spending your time on USMB through very expensive computers connected to very expensive high speed internet?
> 
> That's valuable money spent on trivial items that instead could be feeding children, housing women, and providing life saving health insurance to men.
> 
> Oh...that's right! Dr. Grump does give a shit about his fellow man. What he cares about is getting his greedy hands on wealth that other people worked hard to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressives believe its not up to them to feed the needy, they believe just because they pay taxes that within itself is charity and the government will dole it out.
> 
> I believe it's up to man and the Church to help the needy via charity (like we have been doing for the last 2,000 years).
> 
> Presently our government is nothing more than a big ATM machine and it is being abused.
Click to expand...


Amen brother Nick! Amen! And what you believe would solve all of our problems. While what the liberals believe creates all of our problems.


----------



## del

Rottweiler said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> None - because you can't adobt children who were murdered, _stupid_....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you speak english, assrabbit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I can't adopt a child that some liberal whore has earmarked for murder already. It's not like the liberal whore intended to have someone adobt the child and just couldn't find someone, so they decided on abortion, _stupid_...
Click to expand...


massive fail, assrabbit. 

keep swinging


----------



## Mr.Nick

rightwinger said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question? If you heart bleeds so much for those in need, why aren't YOU doing anything about it? Why are you spending your time on USMB through very expensive computers connected to very expensive high speed internet?
> 
> That's valuable money spent on trivial items that instead could be feeding children, housing women, and providing life saving health insurance to men.
> 
> Oh...that's right! Dr. Grump does give a shit about his fellow man. What he cares about is getting his greedy hands on wealth that other people worked hard to acquire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you could be arsed reading my responses, you would see that I have already said I give to charity.
> 
> And why won't you tell us what you do for a living, if indeed you do work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lay off...Rott lives in his Moms basement
Click to expand...


I'd bet anything you live in your moms basement - that or you're somehow on the government dole....


----------



## del

rightwinger said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question? If you heart bleeds so much for those in need, why aren't YOU doing anything about it? Why are you spending your time on USMB through very expensive computers connected to very expensive high speed internet?
> 
> That's valuable money spent on trivial items that instead could be feeding children, housing women, and providing life saving health insurance to men.
> 
> Oh...that's right! Dr. Grump does give a shit about his fellow man. What he cares about is getting his greedy hands on wealth that other people worked hard to acquire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you could be arsed reading my responses, you would see that I have already said I give to charity.
> 
> And why won't you tell us what you do for a living, if indeed you do work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lay off...Rott lives in his Moms basement
Click to expand...


he's especially cranky today because she didn't cut the crusts off his tuna sandwich.


and she left it at the top of the stairs


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I'm not American
> 2) My wife has paid taxes for the past 25 years, some of which has gone to fund our public hospitals. I feel no guilt about her getting some of those dollars back in the form of treatment from a health provider...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us right back to the original point - had government not taken those taxes for so many years, you could have afforded the surgery. Yet here you sit, dumber than a box of rocks, calling for more government control (Communism/Marxism/Socialism).
> 
> Instead of your money being taken from you, going to Washington, then come back to you for the surgery, how about you just eliminate the inefficient middle man, keep your money, and pay for the surgery directly, yourself?
> 
> Duh... that would just make too much sense to the idiot liberal I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, actually, you're right and wrong. Some surgeries could easily be paid for by your method. However some are not. I realise this, but I like a system whereby my tax dollars will help fund the system that I may one day need. I may drop dead of a heart attack or get killed in a car accident and never get to utilise the health system. Then again, I may...shrug...them's the breaks.
> 
> Certainly beats the US system....although the current legislation that was passed might help fix it
Click to expand...


Or.... you could demand that everyone take personal responsibility for themselves. But instead you *shrug* and advocate for a system that has proven - worldwide - to end in complete collapse.


----------



## rightwinger

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they got us there 45 years ago.  They're only good for running up trillions of debt now.  Yes, they are our chosen representative.
> 
> Yes, we elect them and pay them to do our bidding using private companies to build infrastructure.  We pay them to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the evil government runs up debt is because taxpayers are lazy and stupid. They demand services and don't want the tax structure to pay for them. Start electing representatives who will slash Social Security, Welfare, Veterans Benefits, Defense and Education while raising your taxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, we could do the SMART thing and get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. while cutting taxes. Then we'll solve *ALL* problems.
> 
> But that's not the Communist/Marxist/Socialist way, is it now _stupid_....?
Click to expand...


Why not trash the military while we are at it?  We have over 1500 nukes, nobody is going to fuck with us


----------



## P@triot

del said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you speak english, assrabbit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I can't adopt a child that some liberal whore has earmarked for murder already. It's not like the liberal whore intended to have someone adobt the child and just couldn't find someone, so they decided on abortion, _stupid_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> massive fail, assrabbit.
> 
> keep swinging
Click to expand...


In other words,"damn, Rottweiler just owned me and I can't dispute anything he just said because it's 100% true, so I'll just say 'assrabbit' over and over, despite the fact that it's not even a real word"....


----------



## del

Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you could be arsed reading my responses, you would see that I have already said I give to charity.
> 
> And why won't you tell us what you do for a living, if indeed you do work...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lay off...Rott lives in his Moms basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd bet anything you live in your moms basement - that or you're somehow on the government dole....
Click to expand...


i'd bet anything you haven't moved out of your original bedroom yet, nicky.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the evil government runs up debt is because taxpayers are lazy and stupid. They demand services and don't want the tax structure to pay for them. Start electing representatives who will slash Social Security, Welfare, Veterans Benefits, Defense and Education while raising your taxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could do the SMART thing and get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. while cutting taxes. Then we'll solve *ALL* problems.
> 
> But that's not the Communist/Marxist/Socialist way, is it now _stupid_....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not trash the military while we are at it?  We have over 1500 nukes, nobody is going to fuck with us
Click to expand...


Really? Nobody "fucked with us" on September 11, 2001? As usual, you must have been passed out drunk and stoned that day, uh?


----------



## rightwinger

Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you could be arsed reading my responses, you would see that I have already said I give to charity.
> 
> And why won't you tell us what you do for a living, if indeed you do work...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lay off...Rott lives in his Moms basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd bet anything you live in your moms basement - that or you're somehow on the government dole....
Click to expand...


Nicky.....you still trying to match your career to mine?


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> See? Liberal mooching off of hard working Americans. He'll pay for expensive computers and expensive high speed internet so he can surf porn all day and spew Communist bullshit on message boards, but he won't even pay for his wife's surgery. Fucking amazing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I'm not American
> 2) My wife has paid taxes for the past 25 years, some of which has gone to fund our public hospitals. I feel no guilt about her getting some of those dollars back in the form of treatment from a health provider...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're an American, then get the fuck out of the conversation and let us handle our own country.
> 
> P.S. - if you're married, and you're wife has paid taxes for 25 years, I'm guessing she is an American. Which means, by law, you are an American as well. We have to explain _everything_ to liberals...
Click to expand...



Well, if you haven't infested any threads of Iraq or Afghanistan, then fair play. If so, shut the fuck up..

And no, she is not a Seppo...


----------



## Mr.Nick

Rottweiler said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question asshole? If you heart bleeds so much for those in need, why aren't YOU doing anything about it? Why are you spending your time on USMB through very expensive computers connected to very expensive high speed internet?
> 
> That's valuable money spent on trivial items that instead could be feeding children, housing women, and providing life saving health insurance to men.
> 
> Oh...that's right! Dr. Grump does give a shit about his fellow man. What he cares about is getting his greedy hands on wealth that other people worked hard to acquire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives believe its not up to them to feed the needy, they believe just because they pay taxes that within itself is charity and the government will dole it out.
> 
> I believe it's up to man and the Church to help the needy via charity (like we have been doing for the last 2,000 years).
> 
> Presently our government is nothing more than a big ATM machine and it is being abused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen brother Nick! Amen! And what you believe would solve all of our problems. While what the liberals believe creates all of our problems.
Click to expand...


Progressives believe big government is the solution when in reality its the problem...

People will always help the truly needy, however people will imposter the truly needy to exploit the government, hence the taxpayer.... 

At least the Church or charities for that matter have a say in who they help - they just don't dole out money like an ATM like our government(s).


----------



## del

Rottweiler said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I can't adopt a child that some liberal whore has earmarked for murder already. It's not like the liberal whore intended to have someone adobt the child and just couldn't find someone, so they decided on abortion, _stupid_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> massive fail, assrabbit.
> 
> keep swinging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words,"damn, Rottweiler just owned me and I can't dispute anything he just said because it's 100% true, so I'll just say 'assrabbit' over and over, despite the fact that it's not even a real word"....
Click to expand...


no, in other words, you made a really lame attempt to deflect. 

again

assrabbit


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings us right back to the original point - had government not taken those taxes for so many years, you could have afforded the surgery. Yet here you sit, dumber than a box of rocks, calling for more government control (Communism/Marxism/Socialism).
> 
> Instead of your money being taken from you, going to Washington, then come back to you for the surgery, how about you just eliminate the inefficient middle man, keep your money, and pay for the surgery directly, yourself?
> 
> Duh... that would just make too much sense to the idiot liberal I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually, you're right and wrong. Some surgeries could easily be paid for by your method. However some are not. I realise this, but I like a system whereby my tax dollars will help fund the system that I may one day need. I may drop dead of a heart attack or get killed in a car accident and never get to utilise the health system. Then again, I may...shrug...them's the breaks.
> 
> Certainly beats the US system....although the current legislation that was passed might help fix it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.... you could demand that everyone take personal responsibility for themselves. But instead you *shrug* and advocate for a system that has proven - worldwide - to end in complete collapse.
Click to expand...


Umm...no. It works in Aus, NZ, Britain, Northern/WEstern Europe...shrug...


----------



## rightwinger

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could do the SMART thing and get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. while cutting taxes. Then we'll solve *ALL* problems.
> 
> But that's not the Communist/Marxist/Socialist way, is it now _stupid_....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not trash the military while we are at it?  We have over 1500 nukes, nobody is going to fuck with us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Nobody "fucked with us" on September 11, 2001? As usual, you must have been passed out drunk and stoned that day, uh?
Click to expand...


Our military didn't stop 9-11 did they?

You are the one slashing our government. Military is a major expenditure  when we haven't been invaded in 150 years


----------



## Jackson

Some people's debating skills are definetly lacking.


----------



## Sinjorri

Mr.Nick said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives believe its not up to them to feed the needy, they believe just because they pay taxes that within itself is charity and the government will dole it out.
> 
> I believe it's up to man and the Church to help the needy via charity (like we have been doing for the last 2,000 years).
> 
> Presently our government is nothing more than a big ATM machine and it is being abused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen brother Nick! Amen! And what you believe would solve all of our problems. While what the liberals believe creates all of our problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressives believe big government is the solution when in reality its the problem...
> 
> People will always help the truly needy, however people will imposter the truly needy to exploit the government, hence the taxpayer....
> 
> At least the Church or charities for that matter have a say in who they help - they just don't dole out money like an ATM like our government(s).
Click to expand...




in libs eyes   big brother knows whats best.   so listen to big brother   they can think for u.


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I'm not American
> 2) My wife has paid taxes for the past 25 years, some of which has gone to fund our public hospitals. I feel no guilt about her getting some of those dollars back in the form of treatment from a health provider...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an American, then get the fuck out of the conversation and let us handle our own country.
> 
> P.S. - if you're married, and you're wife has paid taxes for 25 years, I'm guessing she is an American. Which means, by law, you are an American as well. We have to explain _everything_ to liberals...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you haven't infested any threads of Iraq or Afghanistan, then fair play. If so, shut the fuck up..
> 
> And no, she is not a Seppo...
Click to expand...


I have NEVER been on an Iraq of Afghanistan message board. NEVER. Now, if you're asking if I've been on an American one discussing that issue, then you make zero sense because the American military is over there, using my American tax dollars, so it is 100% my business.


----------



## del

Jackson said:


> Some people's debating skills are definetly lacking.



as are some people's spelling ability.

did you have a point?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

rightwinger said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they got us there 45 years ago.  They're only good for running up trillions of debt now.  Yes, they are our chosen representative.
> 
> Yes, we elect them and pay them to do our bidding using private companies to build infrastructure.  We pay them to do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason the evil government runs up debt is because taxpayers are lazy and stupid. They demand services and don't want the tax structure to pay for them. Start electing representatives who will slash Social Security, Welfare, Veterans Benefits, Defense and Education while raising your taxes
Click to expand...


Most of us are by products of welfare education so we can't think very good.  Hopefully there will be a few smart ones in a generation or two who jettison the cyborg that has become our government.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an American, then get the fuck out of the conversation and let us handle our own country.
> 
> P.S. - if you're married, and you're wife has paid taxes for 25 years, I'm guessing she is an American. Which means, by law, you are an American as well. We have to explain _everything_ to liberals...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you haven't infested any threads of Iraq or Afghanistan, then fair play. If so, shut the fuck up..
> 
> And no, she is not a Seppo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have NEVER been on an Iraq of Afghanistan message board. NEVER. Now, if you're asking if I've been on an American one discussing that issue, then you make zero sense because the American military is over there, using my American tax dollars, so it is 100% my business.
Click to expand...


No re iraq or afghanistan messageboard.
'
And you are not there at the behest of those nationals.
'
Then you haven't commented on Libya or Egypt either...good!


----------



## Jackson

Small businesses are the backbone of this country.  It takes guts to put everything you have into a shop or a company and gamble your idea or expertise on your idea.  Obama has belittles these people by saying their sweat and gamble that gave jobs to Americans everywhere was because of others.  A nice "Thank You!" from our grand leader.


----------



## Moonglow

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an American, then get the fuck out of the conversation and let us handle our own country.
> 
> P.S. - if you're married, and you're wife has paid taxes for 25 years, I'm guessing she is an American. Which means, by law, you are an American as well. We have to explain _everything_ to liberals...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you haven't infested any threads of Iraq or Afghanistan, then fair play. If so, shut the fuck up..
> 
> And no, she is not a Seppo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have NEVER been on an Iraq of Afghanistan message board. NEVER. Now, if you're asking if I've been on an American one discussing that issue, then you make zero sense because the American military is over there, using my American tax dollars, so it is 100% my business.
Click to expand...


you think they give a shit about what you think.?


----------



## Mr.Nick

del said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lay off...Rott lives in his Moms basement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet anything you live in your moms basement - that or you're somehow on the government dole....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'd bet anything you haven't moved out of your original bedroom yet, nicky.
Click to expand...


That's kinda funny considering how much moving I have actually done over the last 5-6 years.

I own a home now - no mortgage... 

If it matters - my grandma died and left enough for everyone. We chose to use our share to invest in real estate... I bought a house that sold in 2007/08 at 160,000k for 45k.

Once the housing bullshit gets better I'm going to sell it and move to Wisconsin.... I hate it here, progressives are assholes with their authoritarianism and I can no longer support such insanity...


----------



## rdean

These white wingers are so far gone, they think the truth is "mocking" them.


----------



## salem.hills

Moonglow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you haven't infested any threads of Iraq or Afghanistan, then fair play. If so, shut the fuck up..
> 
> And no, she is not a Seppo...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have NEVER been on an Iraq of Afghanistan message board. NEVER. Now, if you're asking if I've been on an American one discussing that issue, then you make zero sense because the American military is over there, using my American tax dollars, so it is 100% my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you think they give a shit about what you think.?
Click to expand...

who gives a fck what you think idiot? How many ppl do you employ? 
Zero
Surprise!


----------



## Dr Grump

Jackson said:


> Small businesses are the backbone of this country.  It takes guts to put everything you have into a shop or a company and gamble your idea or expertise on your idea.  Obama has belittles these people by saying their sweat and gamble that gave jobs to Americans everywhere was because of others.  A nice "Thank You!" from our grand leader.



Of course the corporate behemoths like Walmart, Mcdonalds etc - the darlings of corporate America and therefore the Cons - are responsible for a plethora of mom and pop stores going to the wall in small town (and big town for that matter) America. But they're to be applauded, right?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the business owner who makes a profit off of the roads, bridges, water systems, communications networks, police and fire protection, welfare and other services provided by we the people
> 
> The point of the thread is ......you don't succeed alone Mr Business owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the taxpayers who pay for the federal government ie business owners, employees of businesses.  The govt collects bids and awards the job to the cheapest contractor, who is also a private company.  If it weren't for the taxpayers, govt wouldn't even have a say in the transaction of the monies.  Now, if by some miracle, govt agencies actually built infrastructure without our money, you may have a small point.  Otherwise, they get no thanks from me because I'm paying for it.  P.S.  I'd swim across a river before I'd drive a car across a bridge that a govt agency built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
Click to expand...


And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.


----------



## Cecilie1200

del said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many *soon to be* aborted babies have you adopted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None - because you can't adobt children who were murdered, _stupid_....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you speak english, assrabbit?
Click to expand...


Do YOU?  If they were "soon to be ABORTED", then they've been aborted by now.  That's what the phrase MEANS, moron.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Rottweiler said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> None - because you can't adobt children who were murdered, _stupid_....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you speak english, assrabbit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I can't adopt a child that some liberal whore has earmarked for murder already. It's not like the liberal whore intended to have someone adobt the child and just couldn't find someone, so they decided on abortion, _stupid_...
Click to expand...


And if I recall correctly, liberals are DEEPLY opposed to letting anyone talk to her and have a chance at convincing her not to abort, so how in the hell are you supposed to get a chance to offer to adopt the kid?


----------



## rightwinger

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the taxpayers who pay for the federal government ie business owners, employees of businesses.  The govt collects bids and awards the job to the cheapest contractor, who is also a private company.  If it weren't for the taxpayers, govt wouldn't even have a say in the transaction of the monies.  Now, if by some miracle, govt agencies actually built infrastructure without our money, you may have a small point.  Otherwise, they get no thanks from me because I'm paying for it.  P.S.  I'd swim across a river before I'd drive a car across a bridge that a govt agency built.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.
Click to expand...


Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure


----------



## Oddball

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.


Thanks for sharing that drive-by brain dropping, Uncle Joe.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Obamination again shows he's a classless idiot, claiming rich people live off other's people money and labor. 

I didn't realize those roads they drive on were paid for by the 50% that don't pay taxes, what a dumbfuck asswipe. 

Oh, my success in life wasn't given to me by anyone outside my family. My parents helped me get through college, but the rest of my success was because I studied to graduate with 3 college degrees.


----------



## Dr Grump

rightwinger said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
Click to expand...


HHmm. Do you mean, this current Obama administration? Or type of govt.

I'd say "far from it" to both...


----------



## Cecilie1200

del said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you speak english, assrabbit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I can't adopt a child that some liberal whore has earmarked for murder already. It's not like the liberal whore intended to have someone adobt the child and just couldn't find someone, so they decided on abortion, _stupid_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> massive fail, assrabbit.
> 
> keep swinging
Click to expand...


In other words, you have no response.  You just WANT him to be wrong, so you figure you can declare that he's wrong, and that'll do it.


----------



## Dr Grump

GoneBezerk said:


> Obamination again shows he's a classless idiot, claiming rich people live off other's people money and labor.
> 
> I didn't realize those roads they drive on were paid for by the 50% that don't pay taxes, what a dumbfuck asswipe.
> 
> Oh, my success in life wasn't given to me by anyone outside my family. My parents helped me get through college, but the rest of my success was because I studied to graduate with 3 college degrees.



Have you signed out as Rotty and signed back in as your second Loon avatar?


----------



## Intense

Jackson said:


> Small businesses are the backbone of this country.  It takes guts to put everything you have into a shop or a company and gamble your idea or expertise on your idea.  Obama has belittles these people by saying their sweat and gamble that gave jobs to Americans everywhere was because of others.  A nice "Thank You!" from our grand leader.



Yeah, he did. Same crap has been on this Site for years. It's part of the War on the Individual, whenever the Collective is offended by a Principle. News Flash. We Each Matter, We Each have Value. We are not as Interchangeable as Some Imply. Every time they screw with the balance, and do not get the result they desire, because of loss of focus and Incompetence, they deflect blame, rather than admit the failure by their own blinded mismanagement. Obama is good at one thing, besides division, and that is compounding problems. On the Up side, maybe he is just a Puppet.


----------



## Cecilie1200

del said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> massive fail, assrabbit.
> 
> keep swinging
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words,"damn, Rottweiler just owned me and I can't dispute anything he just said because it's 100% true, so I'll just say 'assrabbit' over and over, despite the fact that it's not even a real word"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, in other words, you made a really lame attempt to deflect.
> 
> again
> 
> assrabbit
Click to expand...


About this whole "assrabbit" thing . . . If you've moved up from gerbils to larger animals, we really don't want to know.


----------



## freedombecki

Jackson said:


> Small businesses are the backbone of this country.  It takes guts to put everything you have into a shop or a company and gamble your idea or expertise on your idea.  Obama has belittles these people by saying their sweat and gamble that gave jobs to Americans everywhere was because of others.  A nice "Thank You!" from our grand leader.


Jackson, I don't think the man has a clue what kind of headache a small business can be sometimes, nor what goes on to educate people who graduated from a high school or college and cannot do the necessary mathematics to make simple change for a customer without balancing their drawer all week long, and what the owner has to do to get across the demands customers make on proficience, as just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of things business owners must do to make their accounting to sundry city, county, state, federal, and social security collection offices one that is totally above board and accurate.

He's listened to soap boxers accuse big businesses and politicians who come from the business sector, of graft for so long he may believe that and dishonesty in the private sector is rampant. It isn't. 98% of all businesses, just like the rest of the population, are run by people who give an honest and true accounting to various agents as well as they can with the skills they and their employees have.

Obama doesn't know us as ethical people. He only follows the diatribe that tells him all business owners who don't do union shops are garbage and acts on that calumny and not the verifiable facts of accounting procedure we do our best to provide and live by on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual basis.

It's a crying shame, but none of us can deal with that kind of disparagement forever. He's killing business with all this fire-storming of innocent people.

He's just gotta go in November. We need a person in the presidency with a little more versatility and a little less hatred for hardworking Americans who own businesses.


----------



## rightwinger

Dr Grump said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HHmm. Do you mean, this current Obama administration? Or type of govt.
> 
> I'd say "far from it" to both...
Click to expand...


Sorry....but no other government on earth is close


----------



## salem.hills

rightwinger said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
Click to expand...


Government destroys all that is good prosperity liberty etc only a desolate fool touts government the 18% that hi jacked the democrap party are the targets to get out of every one of our institutions. That's all


----------



## del

Mr.Nick said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet anything you live in your moms basement - that or you're somehow on the government dole....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd bet anything you haven't moved out of your original bedroom yet, nicky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kinda funny considering how much moving I have actually done over the last 5-6 years.
> 
> I own a home now - no mortgage...
> 
> If it matters - my grandma died and left enough for everyone. We chose to use our share to invest in real estate... I bought a house that sold in 2007/08 at 160,000k for 45k.
> 
> Once the housing bullshit gets better I'm going to sell it and move to Wisconsin.... I hate it here, progressives are assholes with their authoritarianism and I can no longer support such insanity...
Click to expand...


so you've earned nothing for yourself; you're just living off your dead grandma.

i'm sure she's very proud


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the taxpayers who pay for the federal government ie business owners, employees of businesses.  The govt collects bids and awards the job to the cheapest contractor, who is also a private company.  If it weren't for the taxpayers, govt wouldn't even have a say in the transaction of the monies.  Now, if by some miracle, govt agencies actually built infrastructure without our money, you may have a small point.  Otherwise, they get no thanks from me because I'm paying for it.  P.S.  I'd swim across a river before I'd drive a car across a bridge that a govt agency built.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.
Click to expand...


This is, without a doubt, the saddest, most pitiful thing I've heard from the mouth of a putative American in . . . I dunno, since the last time I actually sat still and listened to Obama talking.


----------



## GoneBezerk

I wonder what a shithead Aussie knows about the USA. 

Oh, you watch the BBC and CNN.....you're soooooo educated about small towns, small businesses, "Wal Mart," etc in America.

We don't talk about your country here, mostly because we don't care but we also don't live there.....take a hint, dumbfuck.



Dr Grump said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamination again shows he's a classless idiot, claiming rich people live off other's people money and labor.
> 
> I didn't realize those roads they drive on were paid for by the 50% that don't pay taxes, what a dumbfuck asswipe.
> 
> Oh, my success in life wasn't given to me by anyone outside my family. My parents helped me get through college, but the rest of my success was because I studied to graduate with 3 college degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you signed out as Rotty and signed back in as your second Loon avatar?
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr Grump

Four signs, that somebody around here is getting under a moron's skin,,

_1) Do YOU? If they were "soon to be ABORTED", then they've been aborted by now. That's what the phrase MEANS, moron. 

2) And if I recall correctly, liberals are DEEPLY opposed to letting anyone talk to her and have a chance at convincing her not to abort, so how in the hell are you supposed to get a chance to offer to adopt the kid? 

3) In other words, you have no response. You just WANT him to be wrong, so you figure you can declare that he's wrong, and that'll do it. 

4) About this whole "assrabbit" thing . . . If you've moved up from gerbils to larger animals, we really don't want to know._


----------



## Dr Grump

rightwinger said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HHmm. Do you mean, this current Obama administration? Or type of govt.
> 
> I'd say "far from it" to both...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry....but no other government on earth is close
Click to expand...


Well, I would argue that the Obama admin has been far from successful. Hasn't been the raging disappointment that Cons would people believe either.

As for the type of govt you have, I would put it as the second worst in Western Countries after the FFP system of Britain.


----------



## del

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> None - because you can't adobt children who were murdered, _stupid_....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you speak english, assrabbit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do YOU?  If they were "soon to be ABORTED", then they've been aborted by now.  That's what the phrase MEANS, moron.
Click to expand...


*soon to be* would imply, to a rational, intelligent person familiar with standard english, that they had not yet been aborted, assrabbit.

i can see why a person of your obvious limitations would have trouble with it.

why don't you go back to testing butt plugs and ball gags, dearie, and leave the more difficult tasks, like basic english comprehension, to those equipped to handle it. 

run along now


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Small businesses are the backbone of this country.  It takes guts to put everything you have into a shop or a company and gamble your idea or expertise on your idea.  Obama has belittles these people by saying their sweat and gamble that gave jobs to Americans everywhere was because of others.  A nice "Thank You!" from our grand leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the corporate behemoths like Walmart, Mcdonalds etc - the darlings of corporate America and therefore the Cons - are responsible for a plethora of mom and pop stores going to the wall in small town (and big town for that matter) America. But they're to be applauded, right?
Click to expand...


You make ZERO sense (typical of the liberal). Both McDonald's and WalMart started off as single, small shops. Because they were exceptionally successful at what they did, you think they should be demonized???

If that doesn't sum up the liberal philosophy, I don't know what does. Punish and demonize the successful, reward the lazy and useless...


----------



## Dr Grump

GoneBezerk said:


> I wonder what a shithead Aussie knows about the USA.
> 
> Oh, you watch the BBC and CNN.....you're soooooo educated about small towns, small businesses, "Wal Mart," etc in America.
> 
> We don't talk about your country here, mostly because we don't care but we also don't live there.....take a hint, dumbfuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamination again shows he's a classless idiot, claiming rich people live off other's people money and labor.
> 
> I didn't realize those roads they drive on were paid for by the 50% that don't pay taxes, what a dumbfuck asswipe.
> 
> Oh, my success in life wasn't given to me by anyone outside my family. My parents helped me get through college, but the rest of my success was because I studied to graduate with 3 college degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you signed out as Rotty and signed back in as your second Loon avatar?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No, we get Fox too! Watch it for shits and giggles though..

America is not that hard to figure out...seriously.. Right wing loons like yourself are even easier...


----------



## LordBrownTrout

rightwinger said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
Click to expand...



None of it would have occured without the ingenuity and innovation of our citizenry.


----------



## del

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words,"damn, Rottweiler just owned me and I can't dispute anything he just said because it's 100% true, so I'll just say 'assrabbit' over and over, despite the fact that it's not even a real word"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, in other words, you made a really lame attempt to deflect.
> 
> again
> 
> assrabbit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About this whole "assrabbit" thing . . . If you've moved up from gerbils to larger animals, we really don't want to know.
Click to expand...


i would imagine you're up to badgers by now, elvira 

does the echo bother them?


----------



## P@triot

del said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'd bet anything you haven't moved out of your original bedroom yet, nicky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kinda funny considering how much moving I have actually done over the last 5-6 years.
> 
> I own a home now - no mortgage...
> 
> If it matters - my grandma died and left enough for everyone. We chose to use our share to invest in real estate... I bought a house that sold in 2007/08 at 160,000k for 45k.
> 
> Once the housing bullshit gets better I'm going to sell it and move to Wisconsin.... I hate it here, progressives are assholes with their authoritarianism and I can no longer support such insanity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you've earned nothing for yourself; you're just living off your dead grandma.
> 
> i'm sure she's very proud
Click to expand...


Says the liberal failure living off of the government.

I'd rather live off of a family member who cared about me than steal from strangers....


----------



## buckeye45_73

rightwinger said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
Click to expand...

 
No I do, but that was because the government was smaller and less intrusive than others, now it's becoming like Europe and those governments suck ass.


----------



## del

Rottweiler said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's kinda funny considering how much moving I have actually done over the last 5-6 years.
> 
> I own a home now - no mortgage...
> 
> If it matters - my grandma died and left enough for everyone. We chose to use our share to invest in real estate... I bought a house that sold in 2007/08 at 160,000k for 45k.
> 
> Once the housing bullshit gets better I'm going to sell it and move to Wisconsin.... I hate it here, progressives are assholes with their authoritarianism and I can no longer support such insanity...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you've earned nothing for yourself; you're just living off your dead grandma.
> 
> i'm sure she's very proud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the liberal failure living off of the government.
> 
> I'd rather live off of a family member who cared about me than steal from strangers....
Click to expand...


i assume you've done both.

good to know 

the truth will set you free


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Punish and demonize the successful, reward the lazy and useless...



Yeah, I'm sure all those mom and pop store owners who had shops generation after generation were lazy and useless..


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you..
> 
> But the government is the taxpayers chosen representative. They are us
> 
> P.S. The Government got us to the moon....I think they can handle a bridge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War &#8211; it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is, without a doubt, the saddest, most pitiful thing I've heard from the mouth of a putative American in . . . I dunno, since the last time I actually sat still and listened to Obama talking.
Click to expand...


Is that when you were doing the trick with the rope and donkey?~ Don Rickles(Hello Dummy)


----------



## GoneBezerk

I've been to Australia and worked with a handful of Aussies in the military, so I know your country better than you know this country. 

I've also lived in Europe, so I'm more educated about other cultures/nations than a twit like you hiding under our shadow in Australia. 

I laugh when foreign scum like you that never came to America thinks they know about the USA through news blurbs, movies and music.  

Just go find one of the numerous animals or insects in Australia that can kill you and play with them.



Dr Grump said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what a shithead Aussie knows about the USA.
> 
> Oh, you watch the BBC and CNN.....you're soooooo educated about small towns, small businesses, "Wal Mart," etc in America.
> 
> We don't talk about your country here, mostly because we don't care but we also don't live there.....take a hint, dumbfuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you signed out as Rotty and signed back in as your second Loon avatar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we get Fox too! Watch it for shits and giggles though..
> 
> America is not that hard to figure out...seriously.. Right wing loons like yourself are even easier...
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

LordBrownTrout said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of it would have occured without the ingenuity and innovation of our citizenry.
Click to expand...


Very true.....but there have been innovative citizens in other countries that had to come here to succeed


----------



## Moonglow

del said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you've earned nothing for yourself; you're just living off your dead grandma.
> 
> i'm sure she's very proud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the liberal failure living off of the government.
> 
> I'd rather live off of a family member who cared about me than steal from strangers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i assume you've done both.
> 
> good to know
> 
> the truth will set you free
Click to expand...


What I am truely amazed by rightwingnutz physic abilities to know that all liberals are on the welfare dole.


----------



## del

Moonglow said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the liberal failure living off of the government.
> 
> I'd rather live off of a family member who cared about me than steal from strangers....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i assume you've done both.
> 
> good to know
> 
> the truth will set you free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am truely amazed by rightwingnutz physic abilities to know that all liberals are on the welfare dole.
Click to expand...


i'm a liberal in the same sense that a kangaroo is a bird.

other than that, i agree with you.


----------



## Dr Grump

GoneBezerk said:


> I've been to Australia and worked with a handful of Aussies in the military, so I know your country better than you know this country.
> 
> I've also lived in Europe, so I'm more educated about other cultures/nations than a twit like you hiding under our shadow in Australia.
> 
> I laugh when foreign scum like you that never came to America thinks they know about the USA through news blurbs, movies and music.
> 
> Just go find one of the numerous animals or insects in Australia that can kill you and play with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what a shithead Aussie knows about the USA.
> 
> Oh, you watch the BBC and CNN.....you're soooooo educated about small towns, small businesses, "Wal Mart," etc in America.
> 
> We don't talk about your country here, mostly because we don't care but we also don't live there.....take a hint, dumbfuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we get Fox too! Watch it for shits and giggles though..
> 
> America is not that hard to figure out...seriously.. Right wing loons like yourself are even easier...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


1) I'm not Australian
2) I too have lived in Europe
3) Have visited the US several times..
4) I'd put my knowledge of cultures up against yours any day....


----------



## rightwinger

buckeye45_73 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And government preserved the Nation during Depression and won a World War  it is the repository of our genius and representative of our greatness. It is ignorant idiocy, therefore, to argue that any business might flourish without the assistance of the people as expressed through the conduit of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I do, but that was because the government was smaller and less intrusive than others, now it's becoming like Europe and those governments suck ass.
Click to expand...


Our nation did not move into worldwide prominence until FDR. He did it by abandoning small, parochial government.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Obamination's speech today was for the idiots in the crowd and around America that haven't done shit for this country, but he wants to give them a belief they are owed something from (white folks) Romney and others like him that went to college and started their own businesses. 

Obamination talks out both ends, one time trashing Bain but then talking up companies like Bain stimulating jobs through investment. He is nothing but a trained idiot puppet.


----------



## Moonglow

rightwinger said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of it would have occured without the ingenuity and innovation of our citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.....but there have been innovative citizens in other countries that had to come here to succeed
Click to expand...


let us look at two. Verner Von Braun - devoloper of infancy stage of US rocket project that eventually ended up on the Moon. And ICBM's.
Albert Einstein- made us an atomic super power.


----------



## del

rightwinger said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I do, but that was because the government was smaller and less intrusive than others, now it's becoming like Europe and those governments suck ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation did not move into worldwide prominence until FDR. He did it by abandoning small, parochial government.
Click to expand...


unfortunate, but true.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Good, my opinion of Australia went back up. 

You're a scumbag from (pick a country).



Dr Grump said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to Australia and worked with a handful of Aussies in the military, so I know your country better than you know this country.
> 
> I've also lived in Europe, so I'm more educated about other cultures/nations than a twit like you hiding under our shadow in Australia.
> 
> I laugh when foreign scum like you that never came to America thinks they know about the USA through news blurbs, movies and music.
> 
> Just go find one of the numerous animals or insects in Australia that can kill you and play with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we get Fox too! Watch it for shits and giggles though..
> 
> America is not that hard to figure out...seriously.. Right wing loons like yourself are even easier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) I'm not Australian
> 2) I too have lived in Europe
> 3) Have visited the US several times..
> 4) I'd put my knowledge of cultures up against yours any day....
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr Grump

GoneBezerk said:


> Good, my opinion of Australia went back up.
> 
> You're a scumbag from (*New Zealand* ).
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to Australia and worked with a handful of Aussies in the military, so I know your country better than you know this country.
> 
> I've also lived in Europe, so I'm more educated about other cultures/nations than a twit like you hiding under our shadow in Australia.
> 
> I laugh when foreign scum like you that never came to America thinks they know about the USA through news blurbs, movies and music.
> 
> Just go find one of the numerous animals or insects in Australia that can kill you and play with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I'm not Australian
> 2) I too have lived in Europe
> 3) Have visited the US several times..
> 4) I'd put my knowledge of cultures up against yours any day....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Moonglow

rightwinger said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I do, but that was because the government was smaller and less intrusive than others, now it's becoming like Europe and those governments suck ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation did not move into worldwide prominence until FDR. He did it by abandoning small, parochial government.
Click to expand...


and killing the hideous disaster of lazier faire a French political innovation brought about by mega rich capitalist, colonialist and mercantile sytem hold outs.


----------



## del

Moonglow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I do, but that was because the government was smaller and less intrusive than others, now it's becoming like Europe and those governments suck ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation did not move into worldwide prominence until FDR. He did it by abandoning small, parochial government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and killing the hideous disaster of lazier faire a French political innovation brought about by mega rich capitalist, colonialist and mercantile sytem hold outs.
Click to expand...


wrong roosevelt


----------



## Moonglow

Dr Grump said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to Australia and worked with a handful of Aussies in the military, so I know your country better than you know this country.
> 
> I've also lived in Europe, so I'm more educated about other cultures/nations than a twit like you hiding under our shadow in Australia.
> 
> I laugh when foreign scum like you that never came to America thinks they know about the USA through news blurbs, movies and music.
> 
> Just go find one of the numerous animals or insects in Australia that can kill you and play with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we get Fox too! Watch it for shits and giggles though..
> 
> America is not that hard to figure out...seriously.. Right wing loons like yourself are even easier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) I'm not Australian
> 2) I too have lived in Europe
> 3) Have visited the US several times..
> 4) I'd put my knowledge of cultures up against yours any day....
Click to expand...


Then you go for a Fosters in the eski?


----------



## Moonglow

del said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation did not move into worldwide prominence until FDR. He did it by abandoning small, parochial government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and killing the hideous disaster of lazier faire a French political innovation brought about by mega rich capitalist, colonialist and mercantile sytem hold outs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong roosevelt
Click to expand...


Calvin Coolridge instituted it and then came Hoover and the crash.


----------



## GoneBezerk

It figures, NZ has more kooks than Australia. 

At least Australia carries some weight in the world, whereas NZ is a leach hiding down in the south Pacific knowing the USA will protect your asses from China. 

You'd better hope Obamination doesn't get his way gutting the US military because China might take a look at NZ's natural resources for themselves in 5-10 years.



Dr Grump said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, my opinion of Australia went back up.
> 
> You're a scumbag from (*New Zealand* ).
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I'm not Australian
> 2) I too have lived in Europe
> 3) Have visited the US several times..
> 4) I'd put my knowledge of cultures up against yours any day....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## The Infidel

rightwinger said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though conservatives won't recognize it, we have the greatest government in the history of mankind. None of the economic boom that made this country great would have occurred without our government structure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HHmm. Do you mean, this current Obama administration? Or type of govt.
> 
> I'd say "far from it" to both...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry....but no other government on earth is close
Click to expand...


Then why on earth is Obama and all his minions trying to "fundamentally change" America?

You are so correct when you state we have the greatest gov't on the planet... BUT, it is ran with checks and balances. All of which Obama is bending and testing every day. 

However, there is a point when the gov't becomes tyranical in nature... and we are watching a POTUS show himself to be illiterate in the way business and gov't are related.

The egg did not come before the chicken in this case.... there would be no infrastructure without the tax payers.
Why do you think cities and municipalities love it when a big company decides to do business in the town? It automatically means more revenue for the local gov't.

None of us want to pay 0 taxes.... give me a break! This is hyperbole.

But what I DO want to know it is....I want to know that mine and yours taxes are not being wasted.


I also have got to say... I read up to maybe page 6 of this thread and I am STUNNED at the ignorance exhibited by the left on this subject. 

Absolutely stunned..!


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Our nation did not move into worldwide prominence until FDR. He did it by abandoning small, parochial government.


WTF are you smoking, s0n?

It was the Industrial Revolution that moved America into worldwide prominence, not one of the 20th century's biggest warmongers and tyrants.


----------



## P@triot

Moonglow said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the liberal failure living off of the government.
> 
> I'd rather live off of a family member who cared about me than steal from strangers....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i assume you've done both.
> 
> good to know
> 
> the truth will set you free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am truely amazed by rightwingnutz physic abilities to know that all liberals are on the welfare dole.
Click to expand...


"Physic ability" or psychic ability, you fucking uneducated liberal tool...


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation did not move into worldwide prominence until FDR. He did it by abandoning small, parochial government.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you smoking, s0n?
> 
> It was the Industrial Revolution that moved America into worldwide prominence, not one of the 20th century's biggest warmongers and tyrants.
Click to expand...


have you read any american history?

s0n?


----------



## del

Rottweiler said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i assume you've done both.
> 
> good to know
> 
> the truth will set you free
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am truely amazed by rightwingnutz physic abilities to know that all liberals are on the welfare dole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Physic ability" or psychic ability, you fucking uneducated liberal tool...
Click to expand...


which relative did you leech off of the most?

was it before or after you went on the dole?


----------



## Buford

ConzHateUSA said:


> Jesus, I cant keep up with the dumb here, I really cant...
> 
> So sad....To think we built the greatest middle class and infrastructure on the planet, but these idiot rightwing terrorists want to forget all that...



"rightwing terrorists".  

You're very ill.


----------



## Buford

del said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am truely amazed by rightwingnutz physic abilities to know that all liberals are on the welfare dole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Physic ability" or psychic ability, you fucking uneducated liberal tool...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which relative did you leech off of the most?
> 
> was it before or after you went on the dole?
Click to expand...


You really are one of the dumbest twits around here.  Honestly.  No offense.


----------



## Oddball

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation did not move into worldwide prominence until FDR. He did it by abandoning small, parochial government.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you smoking, s0n?
> 
> It was the Industrial Revolution that moved America into worldwide prominence, not one of the 20th century's biggest warmongers and tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have you read any american history?
> 
> s0n?
Click to expand...

Plenty of it, Corky.


----------



## Dr Grump

GoneBezerk said:


> It figures, NZ has more kooks than Australia.
> 
> At least Australia carries some weight in the world, whereas NZ is a leach hiding down in the south Pacific knowing the USA will protect your asses from China.
> 
> You'd better hope Obamination doesn't get his way gutting the US military because China might take a look at NZ's natural resources for themselves in 5-10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, my opinion of Australia went back up.
> 
> You're a scumbag from (*New Zealand* ).
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I live in Australia...;o)

China couldn't give two fucks about NZ
The US has just opened a base in Darwin, now  there's a message to China..

ANd you don't protect us from squat after we told you to stick your nukes where the sun don't shine....


----------



## Mr.Nick

del said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'd bet anything you haven't moved out of your original bedroom yet, nicky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kinda funny considering how much moving I have actually done over the last 5-6 years.
> 
> I own a home now - no mortgage...
> 
> If it matters - my grandma died and left enough for everyone. We chose to use our share to invest in real estate... I bought a house that sold in 2007/08 at 160,000k for 45k.
> 
> Once the housing bullshit gets better I'm going to sell it and move to Wisconsin.... I hate it here, progressives are assholes with their authoritarianism and I can no longer support such insanity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you've earned nothing for yourself; you're just living off your dead grandma.
> 
> i'm sure she's very proud
Click to expand...


I earn plenty for myself.... I just didn't have 45k at 29 years of age.... But like I said it was an investment - It's not my tomb..... I don't take on debt because I really don't need to. I don't have credit cards.... In theory I don't really even exist.... But that is the way I want to live and that is the way I want to keep it....

I haven't even changed my address on my ID....

My intent is to stay off the map...... Outside of an SS number and Birth Certificate I don't exist....  This is because I don't want to....  Except for my degree and stupid tax bills - in which they cant even spell my name correctly - my first name to be precise - there is little to even know I exist as an individual. I have my utilities in my brothers names.... 

I suppose I like to be anonymous....

No I'm NOT paranoid, although I should be.....


----------



## Dr Grump

The Infidel said:


> [q
> You are so correct when you state we have the greatest gov't on the planet...



No you don't...


----------



## Dr Grump

Buford said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Physic ability" or psychic ability, you fucking uneducated liberal tool...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which relative did you leech off of the most?
> 
> was it before or after you went on the dole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are one of the dumbest twits around here.  Honestly.  No offense.
Click to expand...


Anyone with a clown as their avatar shouldn't really be throwing the word 'dumb' around. Just sayin'...


----------



## freedombecki

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation did not move into worldwide prominence until FDR. He did it by abandoning small, parochial government.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you smoking, s0n?
> 
> It was the Industrial Revolution that moved America into worldwide prominence, not one of the 20th century's biggest warmongers and tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have you read any american history?
> 
> s0n?
Click to expand...

I think he read the same one I read, Mr. Del.

Plus, my business was boosted by inventions of that fueled the Industrial Revolution during the 1860s with machines that turned a garment maker's overload of making one garment per diem to making literally hundreds a day. Products invented then are responsible for viable businesses for then through this very day. We're still seeing updates, innovations, and steps forward started back then.

People in businesses with a history just have benefits of the industrial revolution's demands driven home to them every day with enough money to make a payroll and order more customer supplies. It's a win-win, Del.


----------



## GoneBezerk

All of you in the Pacific Rim hide behind us, even if you deny it out of stupidity. 

But of course, you're an idiot that doesn't even know about the China threat yet you're here talking about "jobs" in the USA.....fucking insane. Just shut the fuck up.



Dr Grump said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It figures, NZ has more kooks than Australia.
> 
> At least Australia carries some weight in the world, whereas NZ is a leach hiding down in the south Pacific knowing the USA will protect your asses from China.
> 
> You'd better hope Obamination doesn't get his way gutting the US military because China might take a look at NZ's natural resources for themselves in 5-10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in Australia...;o)
> 
> China couldn't give two fucks about NZ
> The US has just opened a base in Darwin, now  there's a message to China..
> 
> ANd you don't protect us from squat after we told you to stick your nukes where the sun don't shine....
Click to expand...


----------



## salem.hills

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation did not move into worldwide prominence until FDR. He did it by abandoning small, parochial government.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you smoking, s0n?
> 
> It was the Industrial Revolution that moved America into worldwide prominence, not one of the 20th century's biggest warmongers and tyrants.
Click to expand...


Good post exactly right oddball. Good God as Reagan stated in his 1961 speech....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs]Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## P@triot

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." - Alexis de Tocqueville

Sadly, the Democrats are bribing liberals with the conservatives money...


----------



## P@triot

del said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am truely amazed by rightwingnutz physic abilities to know that all liberals are on the welfare dole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Physic ability" or psychic ability, you fucking uneducated liberal tool...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which relative did you leech off of the most?
> 
> was it before or after you went on the dole?
Click to expand...


I'm the one screaming for government to get the fuck out of our lives and adhere to the Constitution. You're the asshole leech trying to live off of us hard working conservatives.


----------



## Cecilie1200

del said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you speak english, assrabbit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do YOU?  If they were "soon to be ABORTED", then they've been aborted by now.  That's what the phrase MEANS, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *soon to be* would imply, to a rational, intelligent person familiar with standard english, that they had not yet been aborted, assrabbit.
> 
> i can see why a person of your obvious limitations would have trouble with it.
> 
> why don't you go back to testing butt plugs and ball gags, dearie, and leave the more difficult tasks, like basic english comprehension, to those equipped to handle it.
> 
> run along now
Click to expand...


Would have been a lot faster for you to just come out and say, "I lost.  I have no argument."

Probably not as funny, though.


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you smoking, s0n?
> 
> It was the Industrial Revolution that moved America into worldwide prominence, not one of the 20th century's biggest warmongers and tyrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you read any american history?
> 
> s0n?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of it, Corky.
Click to expand...


i meant non-fiction.


----------



## del

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do YOU?  If they were "soon to be ABORTED", then they've been aborted by now.  That's what the phrase MEANS, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *soon to be* would imply, to a rational, intelligent person familiar with standard english, that they had not yet been aborted, assrabbit.
> 
> i can see why a person of your obvious limitations would have trouble with it.
> 
> why don't you go back to testing butt plugs and ball gags, dearie, and leave the more difficult tasks, like basic english comprehension, to those equipped to handle it.
> 
> run along now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would have been a lot faster for you to just come out and say, "I lost.  I have no argument."
> 
> Probably not as funny, though.
Click to expand...


nor as true


----------



## sitarro

Lakhota said:


> Elizabeth Warren on The Myth of Class Warfare: Nobody Got Rich on His Own... - YouTube



What a bullshitting, pandering dumb ass, figures you would be into her. It doesn't even offend you that she claimed to be an American Indian to get ahead.......says a lot about you.


----------



## Dr Grump

GoneBezerk said:


> All of you in the Pacific Rim hide behind us, even if you deny it out of stupidity.
> 
> But of course, you're an idiot that doesn't even know about the China threat yet you're here talking about "jobs" in the USA.....fucking insane. Just shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It figures, NZ has more kooks than Australia.
> 
> At least Australia carries some weight in the world, whereas NZ is a leach hiding down in the south Pacific knowing the USA will protect your asses from China.
> 
> You'd better hope Obamination doesn't get his way gutting the US military because China might take a look at NZ's natural resources for themselves in 5-10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Australia...;o)
> 
> China couldn't give two fucks about NZ
> The US has just opened a base in Darwin, now  there's a message to China..
> 
> ANd you don't protect us from squat after we told you to stick your nukes where the sun don't shine....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


China is more of a threat economically than militarily.....

We don't hide behind you. Never have. No need to either


----------



## Oldstyle

If you're a small business owner in this country, working your ass off to keep that business afloat...what Barry just said in his latest stump speech has GOT to have you shaking your head in disbelief.

This is a man who is SO disconnected from the reality of what it takes to start up a business that he honestly can't give those who worked countless hours to get theirs going the credit that they deserve.  Oh, no...they couldn't have done it on their OWN...they HAD to have had help!!!!  Why does Barry think that?  Because HE'S had help his whole life to get where he is.  He can't quite understand that they are people out there that DID do it on their own...just as he can't quite seem to understand why they won't just hand over more of their profits to him so he can spend that money on things HE thinks are important.  Barry doesn't think those profits "belong" to the people who worked so hard to make them...no in his progressive mind set those profits belong to the government to dole out as IT see's fit.  To Barry and his ilk...THAT is what is called "paying your fair share."


----------



## Mac1958

Oldstyle said:


> If you're a small business owner in this country, working your ass off to keep that business afloat...what Barry just said in his latest stump speech has GOT to have you shaking your head in disbelief.




As an Independent, I try to give both silly parties some latitude and a reasonable chance to govern.  I agree with Obama on some things, disagree with him on others, but a couple of things he's saying really piss me off.  

Mr President, I don't know if you really believe the mockery you've made of my efforts as a business owner, or whether that's just campaign rhetoric.  But until you've walked a few miles in my shoes, you may want to lay off the crap.

One thing that's not being said - and the GOP won't say this - is the fact that there are MORE than a FEW times that a business owner is DAMAGED by their employees' actions and behaviors, and has to expend even MORE money and effort and sacrifice FIXING that damage.  Obama wants to paint all workers as helpful little victims, when they are often quite the opposite.

But you wouldn't KNOW anything about that, WOULD you, Mr President?

.


----------



## bripat9643

ConzHateUSA said:


> Obama is sending tax dollars overseas?
> 
> Wait, I am as pissed off as the next guy that we dont initiate some level of protectionism like we did the entire time we built the greatest middle class in history (which just happened to be at the same time of 90% top tax rates), but to blame Obama as if he is the one that is the problem in all this and not ALL american politicians, ESPECIALLY rightwingers who enact tax law that REWARDS sending jobs overseas...wow



Which tax laws are those?  Be specific.


----------



## jillian

Mac1958 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're a small business owner in this country, working your ass off to keep that business afloat...what Barry just said in his latest stump speech has GOT to have you shaking your head in disbelief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an Independent, I try to give both silly parties some latitude and a reasonable chance to govern.  I agree with Obama on some things, disagree with him on others, but a couple of things he's saying really piss me off.
> 
> Mr President, I don't know if you really believe the mockery you've made of my efforts as a business owner, or whether that's just campaign rhetoric.  But until you've walked a few miles in my shoes, you may want to lay off the crap.
> 
> One thing that's not being said - and the GOP won't say this - is the fact that there are MORE than a FEW times that a business owner is DAMAGED by their employees' actions and behaviors, and has to expend even MORE money and effort and sacrifice FIXING that damage.  Obama wants to paint all workers as helpful little victims, when they are often quite the opposite.
> 
> But you wouldn't KNOW anything about that, WOULD you, Mr President?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


what are you talking about?


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## Mac1958

jillian said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're a small business owner in this country, working your ass off to keep that business afloat...what Barry just said in his latest stump speech has GOT to have you shaking your head in disbelief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an Independent, I try to give both silly parties some latitude and a reasonable chance to govern.  I agree with Obama on some things, disagree with him on others, but a couple of things he's saying really piss me off.
> 
> Mr President, I don't know if you really believe the mockery you've made of my efforts as a business owner, or whether that's just campaign rhetoric.  But until you've walked a few miles in my shoes, you may want to lay off the crap.
> 
> One thing that's not being said - and the GOP won't say this - is the fact that there are MORE than a FEW times that a business owner is DAMAGED by their employees' actions and behaviors, and has to expend even MORE money and effort and sacrifice FIXING that damage.  Obama wants to paint all workers as helpful little victims, when they are often quite the opposite.
> 
> But you wouldn't KNOW anything about that, WOULD you, Mr President?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what are you talking about?
Click to expand...



Well, based on the topic of the thread, and based on the Obama comments on which it is based, I have to admit I don't understand why you would ask that.  

.


----------



## Inthemiddle

Wiseacre said:


> You don't think that is Obama's meaning, what he really thinks?



No, I don't, because I'm capable of disapproving of him without having to resort to absurd over exaggerations and twisting things out of context.  It's funny, if this were Romney saying something that the Dems were complaining about, you all would be insisting that they are intentionally reading too much into it, to invent something outrageous that just isn't there.  But when it's Obama saying something, anyone not reading into it to extract the pebble from the quarry has got it all wrong.


----------



## jillian

Mac1958 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an Independent, I try to give both silly parties some latitude and a reasonable chance to govern.  I agree with Obama on some things, disagree with him on others, but a couple of things he's saying really piss me off.
> 
> Mr President, I don't know if you really believe the mockery you've made of my efforts as a business owner, or whether that's just campaign rhetoric.  But until you've walked a few miles in my shoes, you may want to lay off the crap.
> 
> One thing that's not being said - and the GOP won't say this - is the fact that there are MORE than a FEW times that a business owner is DAMAGED by their employees' actions and behaviors, and has to expend even MORE money and effort and sacrifice FIXING that damage.  Obama wants to paint all workers as helpful little victims, when they are often quite the opposite.
> 
> But you wouldn't KNOW anything about that, WOULD you, Mr President?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, based on the topic of the thread, and based on the Obama comments on which it is based, I have to admit I don't understand why you would ask that.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


you're railing about business being damaged by employees. i asked what you're talking about.


----------



## Mac1958

jillian said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> what are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, based on the topic of the thread, and based on the Obama comments on which it is based, I have to admit I don't understand why you would ask that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're railing about business being damaged by employees. i asked what you're talking about.
Click to expand...



My "railing about business being damaged by employees" is one part of the post, so I'll assume you agree with the rest of it.

Anyone who has either owned a business or has been in management will know precisely what I'm talking about.  How difficult it is to find good, dependable people (even in this economy), the attitudes, the drama, the theft, the dishonesty, the entitlement - no, not every employee is like that, but enough are to create a significant drag on virtually any business.  And when a business is still in its developmental stages, such issues can destroy it.  Literally.

A business owner has experienced this, and would not be able to deny it.

.


----------



## jillian

Mac1958 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, based on the topic of the thread, and based on the Obama comments on which it is based, I have to admit I don't understand why you would ask that.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're railing about business being damaged by employees. i asked what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My "railing about business being damaged by employees" is one part of the post, so I'll assume you agree with the rest of it.
> 
> Anyone who has either owned a business or has been in management will know precisely what I'm talking about.  How difficult it is to find good, dependable people (even in this economy), the attitudes, the drama, the theft, the dishonesty, the entitlement - no, not every employee is like that, but enough are to create a significant drag on virtually any business.  And when a business is still in its developmental stages, such issues can literally destroy it.
> 
> A business owner has experienced this, and would not be able to deny it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


don't do that. i found the rest of your post fairly rambling. i'll tell you whether i agree or not. thanks. 

my _curiousity_ was tweaked by your comment so i asked. it sounded out of kilter with the subject and childish.

i ran a law practice for more than a decade. the people who worked for me never "damaged" me. they either did a good job or a bad job. if they did a bad job, they didn't stay working for me.

given that anyone can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all, so long as it's not an illegal reason, i'm not sure what the issue is.

and the reason i asked what you're talking about is that it was irrelevant to any political discussion which occurred in this thread.


----------



## 007

Stephanie said:


> I'm sure all the BUSINESS people in the country LOVE hearing this shit from Obama
> 
> UnFrikenbelievable
> 
> *please vote this Progressive idiot out*



Rest assured... he's gone. He's beating himself in this election with the mind numbing stupid shit he's talking.


----------



## Mac1958

jillian said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're railing about business being damaged by employees. i asked what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My "railing about business being damaged by employees" is one part of the post, so I'll assume you agree with the rest of it.
> 
> Anyone who has either owned a business or has been in management will know precisely what I'm talking about.  How difficult it is to find good, dependable people (even in this economy), the attitudes, the drama, the theft, the dishonesty, the entitlement - no, not every employee is like that, but enough are to create a significant drag on virtually any business.  And when a business is still in its developmental stages, such issues can literally destroy it.
> 
> A business owner has experienced this, and would not be able to deny it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't do that. i found the rest of your post fairly rambling. i'll tell you whether i agree or not. thanks.
> 
> my _curiousity_ was tweaked by your comment so i asked. it sounded out of kilter with the subject and childish.
> 
> i ran a law practice for more than a decade. the people who worked for me never "damaged" me. they either did a good job or a bad job. if they did a bad job, they didn't stay working for me.
> 
> given that anyone can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all, so long as it's not an illegal reason, i'm not sure what the issue is.
> 
> and the reason i asked what you're talking about is that it was irrelevant to any political discussion which occurred in this thread.
Click to expand...



Based on your experience in a law practice, I guess I'm wrong, since a law firm is so acutely indicative of the overall business environment in terms of the people it hires.  I'm a partner in a CPA/Law/Financial Services firm, and these folks are like any other you'd find on the street or in an unemployment office.  And the notion that "anyone can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all" took my breath away for a few moments, I'm glad I was sitting down for that one.

Well, your experience has certainly shown me the error of my ways.  You're right, business owners are lucky indeed to have the "workers" they do.  "Workers" sacrifice far more than their employers, no shit.

.


----------



## jillian

the election is only over in rightwingnutworld

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map


----------



## LoneLaugher

What did Obama say that Made a mockery of your efforts as a business owner? 

Regarding your employee problems.....I suggest that you establish an effective orientation program and develop strategies that give your hires ownership of their occupations. 

http://www.noellenelson.com/docs/American Venture Magazine - 10-3-06.pdf


----------



## jillian

Mac1958 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My "railing about business being damaged by employees" is one part of the post, so I'll assume you agree with the rest of it.
> 
> Anyone who has either owned a business or has been in management will know precisely what I'm talking about.  How difficult it is to find good, dependable people (even in this economy), the attitudes, the drama, the theft, the dishonesty, the entitlement - no, not every employee is like that, but enough are to create a significant drag on virtually any business.  And when a business is still in its developmental stages, such issues can literally destroy it.
> 
> A business owner has experienced this, and would not be able to deny it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't do that. i found the rest of your post fairly rambling. i'll tell you whether i agree or not. thanks.
> 
> my _curiousity_ was tweaked by your comment so i asked. it sounded out of kilter with the subject and childish.
> 
> i ran a law practice for more than a decade. the people who worked for me never "damaged" me. they either did a good job or a bad job. if they did a bad job, they didn't stay working for me.
> 
> given that anyone can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all, so long as it's not an illegal reason, i'm not sure what the issue is.
> 
> and the reason i asked what you're talking about is that it was irrelevant to any political discussion which occurred in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your experience in a law practice, I guess I'm wrong, since a law firm is so acutely indicative of the overall business environment in terms of the people it hires.  I'm a partner in a CPA/Law/Financial Services firm, and these folks are like any other you'd find on the street or in an unemployment office.  And the notion that "anyone can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all" took my breath away for a few moments, I'm glad I was sitting down for that one.
> 
> Well, your experience has certainly shown me the error of my ways.  You're right, business owners are lucky indeed to have the "workers" they do.  "Workers" sacrifice far more than their employers, no shit.
Click to expand...


again, you're railing about things which occurred in your personal experience.  and i was asking why you think that personal experience should cause public policy to be biased against workers --- which apparently is what you want.

and you can fire people for no reason or any reason at all.

in right to work states, good luck finding an 'illegal' reason.

so it can take your breath away. but i reiterate....

what are you talking about as it relates to policy discussion.


----------



## 007

They said that President Reagan was going to lose by a landslide too... that oh so accurate, liberal, pom pom squad called "the main stream media."

Pfft, and we all know how that turned out.

Yes, the kenyan should start packing now. His ass is getting kicked to the curb in November.


----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## Mac1958

jillian said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't do that. i found the rest of your post fairly rambling. i'll tell you whether i agree or not. thanks.
> 
> my _curiousity_ was tweaked by your comment so i asked. it sounded out of kilter with the subject and childish.
> 
> i ran a law practice for more than a decade. the people who worked for me never "damaged" me. they either did a good job or a bad job. if they did a bad job, they didn't stay working for me.
> 
> given that anyone can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all, so long as it's not an illegal reason, i'm not sure what the issue is.
> 
> and the reason i asked what you're talking about is that it was irrelevant to any political discussion which occurred in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your experience in a law practice, I guess I'm wrong, since a law firm is so acutely indicative of the overall business environment in terms of the people it hires.  I'm a partner in a CPA/Law/Financial Services firm, and these folks are like any other you'd find on the street or in an unemployment office.  And the notion that "anyone can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all" took my breath away for a few moments, I'm glad I was sitting down for that one.
> 
> Well, your experience has certainly shown me the error of my ways.  You're right, business owners are lucky indeed to have the "workers" they do.  "Workers" sacrifice far more than their employers, no shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, you're railing about things which occurred in your personal experience.  and i was asking why you think that personal experience should cause public policy to be biased against workers --- which apparently is what you want.
> 
> and you can fire people for no reason or any reason at all.
> 
> in right to work states, good luck finding an 'illegal' reason.
> 
> so it can take your breath away. but i reiterate....
> 
> what are you talking about as it relates to policy discussion.
Click to expand...




"Why I think that personal experience should cause public policy to be biased against workers."  Oy.  Straw man arguments give me gas.  I didn't say that, so I won't defend it.  Moving on...

Indeed, you can fire any person for any reason or no reason.  Just dump their butts with zero warning.  And then wait for your HR department (if you work for a larger company) or the employee's attorney (if you don't) to give you a friendly phone call.  Having consulted for manufacturing, home health care, insurance, retail and blue-collar service businesses many years ago, I can tell you some delightful stories about that.  If the pile of documentation about "warnings" and "coachings" for a lousy employee doesn't stand about an inch an a half off your desk, you may want to give that person another chance.  But yes, you're right, fire 'em at will.  Correct.

But that's not the point of my post.  The point is that Obama either (a) is playing to the crowd as politicians do, calculating that the votes he'll gain from "workers" will outweigh the votes he loses from business owners - probably true - or (b) he really does have a low opinion of business owners based on zero experience of what it's like.  In either case, I was very disappointed in the comments.  Just little 'ol me.  Not trying to force public policy.

I don't expect you to agree, because I think I know that you'll be voting for him, and that's that.  But as a person who has grown businesses from nothing to something (with some definite failures sprinkled in for fun), I was insulted by his comments.  Just little 'ol me.

And my apologies for "rambling".

.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Mac.....

Can you tell us what comments you are disappointed in or insulted by and why?


----------



## Mac1958

LoneLaugher said:


> What did Obama say that Made a mockery of your efforts as a business owner? Are you butthurt that he has announced the fact that you are not as self-made as you like to think you are?
> 
> Regarding your employee problems.....I suggest that you establish an effective orientation program and develop strategies that give your hires ownership of their occupations.
> 
> http://www.noellenelson.com/docs/American Venture Magazine - 10-3-06.pdf





I have no idea how to respond to a comment such as this from a person who knows absolutely nothing about my background or experience.

But whatever it is, I'm sure you're right.  Thank you for your input.

.


----------



## Mac1958

LoneLaugher said:


> Mac.....
> 
> Can you tell us what comments you are disappointed in or insulted by and why?





I already have.


.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

President Obama unwittingly defined himself as clueless about business in Roanoke late last week:
If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

And of course, since you did nothing to build your business, it belongs to "the people" -- along with any wealth or profit derived from it.  Pretty much what Lenin had to say about the matter, if you recall.

The president is obviously clueless about what it takes to start a business from scratch, having never done anything remotely like that, since his career has consisted entirely of suckling at the government teat.... 



Read more: Articles: Nobody Else Made It Happen, Mr. President


----------



## mudwhistle

LogikAndReazon said:


> President Obama unwittingly defined himself as clueless about business in Roanoke late last week:
> If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> And of course, since you did nothing to build your business, it belongs to "the people" -- along with any wealth or profit derived from it.  Pretty much what Lenin had to say about the matter, if you recall.
> 
> The president is obviously clueless about what it takes to start a business from scratch, having never done anything remotely like that, since his career has consisted entirely of suckling at the government teat....
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Articles: Nobody Else Made It Happen, Mr. President



Obama has been raised as a communist and a muslim all his life. 

He doesn't think like we do. 

We can't expect him to be something that he isn't.

That's the problem with his supporters. They think he's a liberal. They think he has their best interests at heart. Anything he does to help anyone is a bribe just to get him through the next election. He's buying votes by ignoring immigration laws and by changing welfare work requirements. 

His goal is to take away our freedoms. One of them he's getting ready to spring on us after the election is gun ownership. He's going to take away our right to bare arms if he's re-elected. At the University of Chicago he made it clear he didn't think anyone had the right to own guns. It's why he said red-necks cling to their guns and their religion. He's anti-gun and anti-Christian.

Wake the fuck up.


----------



## zeke

> He's going to take away our right to bare arms





Oh muddy muddy muddy. Obama will still let you wear your wife beater tank tops and bare all the arm you want. You lucky fuk you.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Mac1958 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mac.....
> 
> Can you tell us what comments you are disappointed in or insulted by and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Forgive me. I missed them. All I read was you saying that you are disappointed and insulted. Did you cite the specific comments that made you feel that way?

Maybe you can point me to the post. I went back as far as page 47. Was it further back?


----------



## zeke

Hey muddy. Am I making fun of you? Fuking eh I am. What else is there to do with the bull shit you post?


----------



## Mac1958

LoneLaugher said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mac.....
> 
> Can you tell us what comments you are disappointed in or insulted by and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forgive me. I missed them. All I read was you saying that you are disappointed and insulted. Did you cite the specific comments that made you feel that way?
> 
> Maybe you can point me to the post. I went back as far as page 47. Was it further back?
Click to expand...



I have no idea, nor do I care enough to wade through pages 47 and before.

But whatever it is, I'm sure you know far, far, far more about what it's like starting, building and maintaining a business than I do.  As does Obama.

There.  Simple.  You win.

.


----------



## zeke

For





> give me. I missed them. All I read was you saying that you are disappointed and insulted. Did you cite the specific comments that made you feel that way?
> 
> Maybe you can point me to the post. I went back as far as page 47. Was it further back?



You may need to break out the "way back" machine. As in "way back" in 2008 Obama was elected.
And a certain group of nameless politicians decided that Obama had to go. And from that point on, everything was bad BAD BAD. And hating the POTUS became the single most important activity that this group of punk politicians could do. And then they recruited the mental midgets that make up the Repub side of this board and here we are.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Mac1958 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me. I missed them. All I read was you saying that you are disappointed and insulted. Did you cite the specific comments that made you feel that way?
> 
> Maybe you can point me to the post. I went back as far as page 47. Was it further back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, nor do I care enough to wade through pages 47 and before.
> 
> But whatever it is, I'm sure you know far, far, far more about what it's like starting, building and maintaining a business than I do.  As does Obama.
> 
> There.  Simple.  You win.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You have no idea about what comments Obama made that disapoiinted you and insulted you? I am sincerely asking you to elaborate on your complaint. You have NOT made yourself clear. 

And....I know a little bit about that stuff.  I have started two, built three and still maintain one.  Simple.


----------



## jillian

Mac1958 said:


> "Why I think that personal experience should cause public policy to be biased against workers."  Oy.  Straw man arguments give me gas.  I didn't say that, so I won't defend it.  Moving on...
> 
> Indeed, you can fire any person for any reason or no reason.  Just dump their butts with zero warning.  And then wait for your HR department (if you work for a larger company) or the employee's attorney (if you don't) to give you a friendly phone call.  Having consulted for manufacturing, home health care, insurance, retail and blue-collar service businesses many years ago, I can tell you some delightful stories about that.  If the pile of documentation about "warnings" and "coachings" for a lousy employee doesn't stand about an inch an a half off your desk, you may want to give that person another chance.  But yes, you're right, fire 'em at will.  Correct.
> 
> But that's not the point of my post.  The point is that Obama either (a) is playing to the crowd as politicians do, calculating that the votes he'll gain from "workers" will outweigh the votes he loses from business owners - probably true - or (b) he really does have a low opinion of business owners based on zero experience of what it's like.  In either case, I was very disappointed in the comments.  Just little 'ol me.  Not trying to force public policy.
> 
> I don't expect you to agree, because I think I know that you'll be voting for him, and that's that.  But as a person who has grown businesses from nothing to something (with some definite failures sprinkled in for fun), I was insulted by his comments.  Just little 'ol me.
> 
> And my apologies for "rambling".



I wasn't looking for agreement.  I was looking for explanation. I think, perhaps, my initial question colored our debate because it was probably disrespectful. Apologies for that. Your responses deserved better. 

So to backtrack... our personal experience always colors our politics... and everything else, no doubt. But your comment about the president acting like workers are all good and victimized seems beside the point. I doubt all of any group are good.But in the greater scheme of things, the middle class doesn't exist in a natural state. The natural state of being is great wealth for the few... subsistence for the balance. If you doubt that, look at any country that has no such protections. The reason laws protecting workers were put in place in the first instance was exactly those types of inhuman and inhumane societal issues. I say that as a the grand-daughter of immigrants whose grandmother worked in a sweatshop at 12... 

we've come a long way, baby.... and no thanks to the right which has opposed anything that benefits society as a whole since the days of FDR.

Again, I apologize for my initial disrespect. Sometimes, in the din, its easy to forget that some people can actually carry on a discussion here.


----------



## zeke

What is it you want Mac? Big tears because you started a business? Wasn't it your choice? Did you not reap the rewards that you thought were yours because you started a business?

Damn man. If you are a successful business man, quit whining.

Oh and btw, you need a better HR department. I read where your employees were ripping you off. Fire the HR manager and start over. Or is the HR manager YOU?


----------



## GuyPinestra

Mac1958 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me. I missed them. All I read was you saying that you are disappointed and insulted. Did you cite the specific comments that made you feel that way?
> 
> Maybe you can point me to the post. I went back as far as page 47. Was it further back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, nor do I care enough to wade through pages 47 and before.
> 
> But whatever it is, I'm sure you know far, far, far more about what it's like starting, building and maintaining a business than I do.  As does Obama.
> 
> There.  Simple.  You win.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I recognize sarcasm mixed with resignation when I see it. Frustrating, isn't it?


----------



## copsnrobbers

This "IF YOU ARGUE WITH SUCCESS YOU ARE UNSUCCESSFUL"


----------



## peach174

Without the business helping to pay the taxes, there would be no roads and highways.
The businesses came before the highways.
With the business sector of this nation who invented the automobile, we would not have had the rise of our highways.
So it's the other way around Mr. President, it's businesses and entrepreneurs who support the need of government.
The web was from the military of which this administration is wanting to cut. 
I'm sick of this attitude that government is the answer to everything, it is so anti American.


----------



## naturegirl

Well 749 posts and we're still talking about this.  Obama has never owned a business, Obama has never had a "real" job, Obama was raised and mentored by a Communist, spent formative years in a different country.  Had a mom that was more absent than present in his life, yet he knows no one got there on their own.  Doesn't matter how hard you work, how much risk you take, how smart you are....................


So, I'm thinking he's using his personal experiences, he didn't get where he is on his own, no matter how smart he was, he had a lot of help along the way.  So he doesn't believe anyone can do it on their own, Lord knows if he couldn't do it, no one can.  

Yea, he's p*ssed off enough small business owners to get them to the voting booth.  Good job energizing your opposition.   Thanks Barry!!


----------



## jillian

^^^^^^^^

and the above is a prime example of why it's easy enough to forget there are people here who can have a discussion.


----------



## Mac1958

jillian said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why I think that personal experience should cause public policy to be biased against workers."  Oy.  Straw man arguments give me gas.  I didn't say that, so I won't defend it.  Moving on...
> 
> Indeed, you can fire any person for any reason or no reason.  Just dump their butts with zero warning.  And then wait for your HR department (if you work for a larger company) or the employee's attorney (if you don't) to give you a friendly phone call.  Having consulted for manufacturing, home health care, insurance, retail and blue-collar service businesses many years ago, I can tell you some delightful stories about that.  If the pile of documentation about "warnings" and "coachings" for a lousy employee doesn't stand about an inch an a half off your desk, you may want to give that person another chance.  But yes, you're right, fire 'em at will.  Correct.
> 
> But that's not the point of my post.  The point is that Obama either (a) is playing to the crowd as politicians do, calculating that the votes he'll gain from "workers" will outweigh the votes he loses from business owners - probably true - or (b) he really does have a low opinion of business owners based on zero experience of what it's like.  In either case, I was very disappointed in the comments.  Just little 'ol me.  Not trying to force public policy.
> 
> I don't expect you to agree, because I think I know that you'll be voting for him, and that's that.  But as a person who has grown businesses from nothing to something (with some definite failures sprinkled in for fun), I was insulted by his comments.  Just little 'ol me.
> 
> And my apologies for "rambling".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't looking for agreement.  I was looking for explanation. I think, perhaps, my initial question colored our debate because it was probably disrespectful. Apologies for that. Your responses deserved better.
> 
> So to backtrack... our personal experience always colors our politics... and everything else, no doubt. But your comment about the president acting like workers are all good and victimized seems beside the point. I doubt all of any group are good.But in the greater scheme of things, the middle class doesn't exist in a natural state. The natural state of being is great wealth for the few... subsistence for the balance. If you doubt that, look at any country that has no such protections. The reason laws protecting workers were put in place in the first instance was exactly those types of inhuman and inhumane societal issues. I say that as a the grand-daughter of immigrants whose grandmother worked in a sweatshop at 12...
> 
> we've come a long way, baby.... and no thanks to the right which has opposed anything that benefits society as a whole since the days of FDR.
> 
> Again, I apologize for my initial disrespect. Sometimes, in the din, its easy to forget that some people can actually carry on a discussion here.
Click to expand...



First of all, thanks, and my apologies too for fanning the flames.

I brought up workers because part of what bothered me about his comments was the way he painted both business owners and employees with such an incredibly broad brush.  That's the way politics is, I know, but I was still insulted, and if I want to be insulted I'll just call my mother in law.  

At least walk a mile in my shoes before you insult me in that specific way, that's my only request.  Then fire away.

.


----------



## jillian

Mac1958 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why I think that personal experience should cause public policy to be biased against workers."  Oy.  Straw man arguments give me gas.  I didn't say that, so I won't defend it.  Moving on...
> 
> Indeed, you can fire any person for any reason or no reason.  Just dump their butts with zero warning.  And then wait for your HR department (if you work for a larger company) or the employee's attorney (if you don't) to give you a friendly phone call.  Having consulted for manufacturing, home health care, insurance, retail and blue-collar service businesses many years ago, I can tell you some delightful stories about that.  If the pile of documentation about "warnings" and "coachings" for a lousy employee doesn't stand about an inch an a half off your desk, you may want to give that person another chance.  But yes, you're right, fire 'em at will.  Correct.
> 
> But that's not the point of my post.  The point is that Obama either (a) is playing to the crowd as politicians do, calculating that the votes he'll gain from "workers" will outweigh the votes he loses from business owners - probably true - or (b) he really does have a low opinion of business owners based on zero experience of what it's like.  In either case, I was very disappointed in the comments.  Just little 'ol me.  Not trying to force public policy.
> 
> I don't expect you to agree, because I think I know that you'll be voting for him, and that's that.  But as a person who has grown businesses from nothing to something (with some definite failures sprinkled in for fun), I was insulted by his comments.  Just little 'ol me.
> 
> And my apologies for "rambling".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't looking for agreement.  I was looking for explanation. I think, perhaps, my initial question colored our debate because it was probably disrespectful. Apologies for that. Your responses deserved better.
> 
> So to backtrack... our personal experience always colors our politics... and everything else, no doubt. But your comment about the president acting like workers are all good and victimized seems beside the point. I doubt all of any group are good.But in the greater scheme of things, the middle class doesn't exist in a natural state. The natural state of being is great wealth for the few... subsistence for the balance. If you doubt that, look at any country that has no such protections. The reason laws protecting workers were put in place in the first instance was exactly those types of inhuman and inhumane societal issues. I say that as a the grand-daughter of immigrants whose grandmother worked in a sweatshop at 12...
> 
> we've come a long way, baby.... and no thanks to the right which has opposed anything that benefits society as a whole since the days of FDR.
> 
> Again, I apologize for my initial disrespect. Sometimes, in the din, its easy to forget that some people can actually carry on a discussion here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, thanks, and my apologies too for fanning the flames.
> 
> I brought up workers because part of what bothered me about his comments was the way he painted both business owners and employees with such an incredibly broad brush.  That's the way politics is, I know, but I was still insulted, and if I want to be insulted I'll just call my mother in law.
> 
> At least walk a mile in my shoes before you insult me in that specific way, that's my only request.  Then fire away.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


no worries. 

i think politicians generally operate with a broad brush. they have to. it's how they get elected, for better or worse. and basically, it comes down to which guy offends your sensibilities less, in most instances.

my family has operated a business for the last 25 years. and, as i said, i had a law practice for more than a decade before i decided i wanted a job that allowed me more time with my son (i kept hearing the song, cat's in the cradle, running through my brain). haven't looked back since, btw... 

i know there are employees who suck. but i never had one 'hurt' my practice. i never heard my dad or brother say an employee hurt there's.... though they have done more than their share of hiring and firing. and trust me, when they get to the voting booth, they vote their pocketbooks... not their consciences.

i've always felt that a strong middle class is a societal necessity. I tend to vote that way. That doesn't mean I always vote for a democrat (I voted for guiliani twice, fwiw) but right now on a federal level, it does.


----------



## UKRider

This Obama will flush the US down the crapper if he gets another 4 years.


----------



## Mac1958

jillian said:


> i know there are employees who suck. but i never had one 'hurt' my practice. i never heard my dad or brother say an employee hurt there's.... though they have done more than their share of hiring and firing. and trust me, when they get to the voting booth, they vote their pocketbooks... not their consciences.




I've seen three lawsuits so far either from or about employees.  Fortunately I wasn't involved directly in any of them, but here's my favorite story:

Many years ago I ran a large home health care company.  The owners of the company were sued by a client and damn near lost the business.  Why?  Because one of their male caregivers was caught giving his male client a service that was not usually offered by the company.

If you know what I mean.



.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

naturegirl said:


> Well 749 posts and we're still talking about this.  Obama has never owned a business, Obama has never had a "real" job, Obama was raised and mentored by a Communist, spent formative years in a different country.  Had a mom that was more absent than present in his life, yet he knows no one got there on their own.  Doesn't matter how hard you work, how much risk you take, how smart you are....................
> 
> 
> So, I'm thinking he's using his personal experiences, he didn't get where he is on his own, no matter how smart he was, he had a lot of help along the way.  So he doesn't believe anyone can do it on their own, Lord knows if he couldn't do it, no one can.
> 
> Yea, he's p*ssed off enough small business owners to get them to the voting booth.  Good job energizing your opposition.   Thanks Barry!!



Obama's a liar. He needs to release his records

He probably got help by pretending to be a foreign born student.

There's too big a cloud over him now, he needs to release his records


----------



## Harry Dresden

rdean said:


> These white wingers are so far gone, they think the truth is "mocking" them.



your pretty far gone yourself Dean......thats why you get mocked.....


----------



## mudwhistle

jillian said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't looking for agreement.  I was looking for explanation. I think, perhaps, my initial question colored our debate because it was probably disrespectful. Apologies for that. Your responses deserved better.
> 
> So to backtrack... our personal experience always colors our politics... and everything else, no doubt. But your comment about the president acting like workers are all good and victimized seems beside the point. I doubt all of any group are good.But in the greater scheme of things, the middle class doesn't exist in a natural state. The natural state of being is great wealth for the few... subsistence for the balance. If you doubt that, look at any country that has no such protections. The reason laws protecting workers were put in place in the first instance was exactly those types of inhuman and inhumane societal issues. I say that as a the grand-daughter of immigrants whose grandmother worked in a sweatshop at 12...
> 
> we've come a long way, baby.... and no thanks to the right which has opposed anything that benefits society as a whole since the days of FDR.
> 
> Again, I apologize for my initial disrespect. Sometimes, in the din, its easy to forget that some people can actually carry on a discussion here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, thanks, and my apologies too for fanning the flames.
> 
> I brought up workers because part of what bothered me about his comments was the way he painted both business owners and employees with such an incredibly broad brush.  That's the way politics is, I know, but I was still insulted, and if I want to be insulted I'll just call my mother in law.
> 
> At least walk a mile in my shoes before you insult me in that specific way, that's my only request.  Then fire away.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no worries.
> 
> i think politicians generally operate with a broad brush. they have to. it's how they get elected, for better or worse. and basically, it comes down to which guy offends your sensibilities less, in most instances.
> 
> my family has operated a business for the last 25 years. and, as i said, i had a law practice for more than a decade before i decided i wanted a job that allowed me more time with my son (i kept hearing the song, cat's in the cradle, running through my brain). haven't looked back since, btw...
> 
> i know there are employees who suck. but i never had one 'hurt' my practice. i never heard my dad or brother say an employee hurt there's.... though they have done more than their share of hiring and firing. and trust me, when they get to the voting booth, they vote their pocketbooks... not their consciences.
> 
> i've always felt that a strong middle class is a societal necessity. I tend to vote that way. That doesn't mean I always vote for a democrat (I voted for guiliani twice, fwiw) but right now on a federal level, it does.
Click to expand...


Voting Democrat assures that more and more in America will be "taken care of" rather than allowed to succeed. 

Democrats have no incentive to support policies that strengthen the middle-class. Their support comes from the poor, blacks, latinos, and the Hollywood elitists. If you're not one of the last 3 guess what Democrats want to do to you? 

Do they want to make you independant?
Do they want to make you rich?
Do they want you to have to rely on them?

Democrats don't really like a happy middle-class. They want loyal voters that feel they need help. Only way to do that is set up conditions that takes away your options thus your freedom to choose. After all, we need help in everything we do, according to Obama. We're stupid.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do customers, supplies and employees get to your business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on the roads his taxes paid for....next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
Click to expand...


Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.

So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?

And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> 
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
Click to expand...


A toll or a tax what's the difference.

I'd bet that privately run roads would be in better shape.  It's government roads and bridges that collapse and kill people.


----------



## rightwinger

Pale Rider said:


> They said that President Reagan was going to lose by a landslide too... that oh so accurate, liberal, pom pom squad called "the main stream media."
> 
> Pfft, and we all know how that turned out.
> 
> Yes, the kenyan should start packing now. His ass is getting kicked to the curb in November.



Carter had the Iran Hostage crisis at the end of his term. Any hope of being elected went out the window as news networks gave a daily countdown of the days it had been going on.
Romney is also no Reagan. He lacks the charisma and ability to generate enthusiasm within his voting base
Barring a major game changing event in the next three months, it is unlikely Romney can swing enough votes


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said that President Reagan was going to lose by a landslide too... that oh so accurate, liberal, pom pom squad called "the main stream media."
> 
> Pfft, and we all know how that turned out.
> 
> Yes, the kenyan should start packing now. His ass is getting kicked to the curb in November.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter had the Iran Hostage crisis at the end of his term. Any hope of being elected went out the window as news networks gave a daily countdown of the days it had been going on.
> Romney is also no Reagan. He lacks the charisma and ability to generate enthusiasm within his voting base
> Barring a major game changing event in the next three months, it is unlikely Romney can swing enough votes
Click to expand...


Obama already has his "Iranian crisis" X 2. 

Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian nuke program. 

Both have been allowed to fester and grow into real threats, yet he's worried about when Romney left Bain Capital.


----------



## clevergirl

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meager taxes?...You obviously have NFI how much commercial trucking pays in tolls, registration, apportionment and fuel taxes.
> 
> Meager taxes indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meager when you compare the costs of building your own roads instead of using the ones that the GUBMINT built for you
> 
> How about we go back to roads, bridges and ferries like our founding fathers envisioned?  All built by private entrepreneurs and you paid a toll for every one you used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A toll or a tax what's the difference.
> 
> I'd bet that privately run roads would be in better shape.  It's government roads and bridges that collapse and kill people.
Click to expand...


And in addition to that concept why the fuck has no one called Obama on the fact that "the government" is the people! TAXES from "the people" build our infrastructure. Unfortunately we have been putting incompetent boobs in office to manage OUR money. This means that businesses invest in the infrastructure that they use to build their own success...Obama is an ideological idiot!

The pure hubris of this president disgusts me.


----------



## Skull Pilot

What you people don't get is that businesses and business owners are the source for ALL tax dollars that pay for your beloved "society"

 100% of the funding for infrastructure comes from business owners and businesses via the money they pay their employees.

No businesses, no jobs.

No jobs, no tax revenue.

No tax revenue, no government.

To say that businesses don't contribute more to "society" than the average American is incredibly moronic.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

You know, when I heard this comment by Barry, all it did was cement what I already KNEW about him BEFORE he was elected.  The man is absolutely as CLUELESS about capatalism and free enterprise and is a student of socialism at its worst.

The simple fact is that if a small business man makes it, if he works HARD enough and LONG enough, he might (if he is really lucky) make a go of it DESPITE the federal government.  Because I am here to tell you that from the beginning of my business to the day that I shut the doors, the federal government was the BIGGEST roadblock to success.  For 20 years, from the moment I started, the nightmare that I had to deal with was "Hello, I'm from the federal government."  The second worst nightmare?  "Hello, I'm from the state government."

I have NOT met a small businessman who for an instant believes the crap that this man is dishing...


----------



## SayMyName

He is speaking for himself, no doubt, as his past is as nefarious as one can be. He has no clue, and thus remains envious to the core, for those who do work against all challenges to become successful.


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said that President Reagan was going to lose by a landslide too... that oh so accurate, liberal, pom pom squad called "the main stream media."
> 
> Pfft, and we all know how that turned out.
> 
> Yes, the kenyan should start packing now. His ass is getting kicked to the curb in November.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter had the Iran Hostage crisis at the end of his term. Any hope of being elected went out the window as news networks gave a daily countdown of the days it had been going on.
> Romney is also no Reagan. He lacks the charisma and ability to generate enthusiasm within his voting base
> Barring a major game changing event in the next three months, it is unlikely Romney can swing enough votes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama already has his "Iranian crisis" X 2.
> 
> Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian nuke program.
> 
> Both have been allowed to fester and grow into real threats, yet he's worried about when Romney left Bain Capital.
Click to expand...


If that is the best you have....Good luck


----------



## teapartysamurai

Murf76 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business. Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it. He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street. People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more. Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it. He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business. Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too. Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands. He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof. He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles. People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family. He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey. Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs. Just to feed his family. His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability. But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been. Is Jose supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits? Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't? According to Obama he is. Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people. His bicycle salesmen made him what he is. What horse shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't sell tamales on the street anymore. You need licensing and inspectors and insurance. So now, you've got to go to the bank and borrow some money in order to cover your "start-up" costs. But the bank won't give you any money because you don't have collateral. So, you sell your tamales illegally and end up in jail with a stack of fines and court costs to pay. THAT's the New America... the one that statist Democrats prefer.
> 
> But they're just helping "the little guy", doncha know?
Click to expand...


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business. Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it. He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street. People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more. Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it. He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business. Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too. Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands. He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof. He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles. People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family. He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey. Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs. Just to feed his family. His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability. But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been. Is Jose supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits? Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't? According to Obama he is. Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people. His bicycle salesmen made him what he is. What horse shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met. Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers. Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
Click to expand...

 
You libs make it sound like those things are there SOLELY for Jose and his tamale cart!

They are there for everyone else!

Are you libs saying YOU DON'T MAKE YOUR PAY CHECKS without everyone else?

If so, I now demand you hand your pay checks over to me and everyone else.

Because you couldn't have made them without us!


----------



## Jarhead

The fact that he implied that the beleif of those that are successful is that "being smart" was the sole ingredient for their success, speaks volumes about how little he knows about personal financial success.

One must be innovative, willing to learn, willing to take risks.....strong work ethic (disciplined)...

Heck....being "smart" is by no means the key ingredient to being financially suicessful.

Our CiC is clueless.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Mr.Nick said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TRUTH is that jobs are a byproduct of a successful business. Jose wants to clothe and feed his family, so he finds an old bicycle and fits a box on it. He starts selling tamales his wife makes on the street. People really like his tamales and he sells out each day with people wanting more. Jose finds another bicycle and fits a box on it. He finds a relative to start selling his tamales so he is doing twice the business. Of course, his wife can't make twice the tamales she was, so they have another relative making tamales too. Eventually, he needs to add additional bikes and workers to keep up with demands. He also has to find a commercial kitchen and centralize his tamale making with all the staff under one roof. He realizes that he can cover more territory with trucks selling tamales than with bicycles. People buying his tamales ask about tacos and burritos, so he expands his menu and on it goes.
> 
> Jose had an idea and took the initiative to act on it to make enough money to support his immediate family. He made the decisions and took the risk at each point of his journey. Because he had a good product that people desired, he was successful and with his success came growth and with growth came jobs........but he never started the company to provide others with jobs. Just to feed his family. His employees work hard and are paid for their time and ability. But if Jose hadn't decided to sell tamales, look how many less jobs there would have been. Is Jose supposed to give each employee an equal share of his profits? Is he being an evil rich greedy bastard if he doesn't? According to Obama he is. Jose doesn't deserve any praise for starting a tamale company that employees a lot of people. His bicycle salesmen made him what he is. What horse shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe progressives have enough brain power to understand the simplicities of supply and demand which is the root of capitalism (or economics in general)...
> 
> No, their economic model is "people should share." The simple fact that progressives are pretty much nothing more than beggars shows how inept they are....
Click to expand...

 
What they don't get is, suppy and demand IS sharing.  And it shares wealth AND MORE IMPORTANTLY MAKES WEALTH far more efficiently than the liberal way of wealth distribution.

Wealth distribution doesn't make wealth for anyone but the leaders like Obama.

It doesn't put a dime in the pockets of the morons who believe in it.  They just have the satisfactin of "getting even" with those rich people.

They never get that the rich people are NOW their leaders they stupidly believed in.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Skull Pilot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Is "society " responsible for the loss caused by my employee that "society" supposedly "trained"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Don't be stupid. Please. Stop being stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no more stupid than the statement made by "The Smartest President Ever"
> 
> If you believe Bam Bam to be speaking the truth then the question is valid.
Click to expand...

 
Carbiner translation "Don't be stupid,"  = "Don't ask me questions I can't answer."


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met. Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers. Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
Click to expand...

 
PROVIDED????????????

Like the entrepeneur didn't pay for those government services?

I don't pay for those services?

You don't pay for those services?

The government just "provides" those services out of the "goodness" of their bureacratic little hearts?  

By your own non-logic I now demand you hand your pay checks over because you couldn't have made that check without all of us.

It's makes about as much sense.


----------



## Sallow

SayMyName said:


> He is speaking for himself, no doubt, as his past is as nefarious as one can be. He has no clue, and thus remains envious to the core, for those who do work against all challenges to become successful.



Actually..no.

He was speaking for every American Capitalist.

Unless of course..you know one that did make it entirely on his or her own?

Fill us in.


----------



## salem.hills

Jarhead said:


> The fact that he implied that the beleif of those that are successful is that "being smart" was the sole ingredient for their success, speaks volumes about how little he knows about personal financial success.
> 
> One must be innovative, willing to learn, willing to take risks.....strong work ethic (disciplined)...
> 
> Heck....being "smart" is by no means the key ingredient to being financially suicessful.
> 
> Our CiC is clueless.


Well put so I missed this but heard and saw late last night and this morning. Now we have a president who denies the successful people's success? And says someone else did it for them? That's par for the course I guess for a guy that still blames Bush. Sheesh


----------



## Sallow

teapartysamurai said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PROVIDED????????????
> 
> Like the entrepeneur didn't pay for those government services?
> 
> I don't pay for those services?
> 
> You don't pay for those services?
> 
> The government just "provides" those services out of the "goodness" of their bureacratic little hearts?
> 
> By your own non-logic I now demand you hand your pay checks over because you couldn't have made that check without all of us.
> 
> It's makes about as much sense.
Click to expand...


Ah so..now you are saying we live in a collective society.

Interesting.


----------



## Murf76

mudwhistle said:


> Voting Democrat assures that more and more in America will be "taken care of" rather than allowed to succeed.
> 
> Democrats have no incentive to support policies that strengthen the middle-class. Their support comes from the poor, blacks, latinos, and the Hollywood elitists. If you're not one of the last 3 guess what Democrats want to do to you?
> 
> Do they want to make you independant?
> Do they want to make you rich?
> Do they want you to have to rely on them?
> 
> Democrats don't really like a happy middle-class. They want loyal voters that feel they need help. Only way to do that is set up conditions that takes away your options thus your freedom to choose. After all, we need help in everything we do, according to Obama. We're stupid.



And this really is the salient point.  We're looking at "the politics of division".  Taxing "the rich" doesn't BEGIN to solve the problem.  All it does is take more capital out of the economy.  Obama KNOWS that.  He knows that he could take every dime from the so-called "rich" and maybe, and I mean _maybe_, fund this dog and pony show for a single year.  Of course, that leaves nothing for any subsequent year, but then again, it's NOT really a serious proposal.

Take a look at Bill Whittle's _Eat The Rich_:
Bill Whittle On Eating "The Rich" | RealClearPolitics

Clearly, this isn't about balancing the budget.  Because there's simply not enough money available to do it consistently.  It's about the politics of division.  It's about getting voters to blindly "take sides".

But while we're talking about "balancing the budget"... how about the NERVE of that guy?!  We haven't had a budget in well over THREE YEARS!  They've made no attempt whatsoever to reform entitlements, which are clearly unsustainable in their current form.  In fact, what they've done instead is ADD another enormous one, three-times the cost of what they told us it would be.  

These people have behaved with complete disregard and any semblance of responsibility, and yet they have PLENTY of time for political games, all the while the country is going to hell in a handbasket.  And they've got the unmitigated GALL to ask for more money?!

I don't understand why Obama's supporters can't see that they're being used, sent out like miniature, virtual gladiators to fight for his political ambitions.  He doesn't DESERVE anyone's devotion.  What he's doing is destructive and pointless.  Worse, it's putting our young into a position where their futures are unlikely to be as bright as generations previous to them.  These bills he's racking up have THEIR NAMES on them.  The very guy who famously said we're gonna have to "eat our peas" has passed the plate down the table.


----------



## Sallow

salem.hills said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that he implied that the beleif of those that are successful is that "being smart" was the sole ingredient for their success, speaks volumes about how little he knows about personal financial success.
> 
> One must be innovative, willing to learn, willing to take risks.....strong work ethic (disciplined)...
> 
> Heck....being "smart" is by no means the key ingredient to being financially suicessful.
> 
> Our CiC is clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> Well put so I missed this but heard and saw late last night and this morning. Now we have a president who denies the successful people's success? And says someone else did it for them? That's par for the course I guess for a guy that still blames Bush. Sheesh
Click to expand...


He didn't deny anyone's success.


----------



## Moonglow

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said that President Reagan was going to lose by a landslide too... that oh so accurate, liberal, pom pom squad called "the main stream media."
> 
> Pfft, and we all know how that turned out.
> 
> Yes, the kenyan should start packing now. His ass is getting kicked to the curb in November.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter had the Iran Hostage crisis at the end of his term. Any hope of being elected went out the window as news networks gave a daily countdown of the days it had been going on.
> Romney is also no Reagan. He lacks the charisma and ability to generate enthusiasm within his voting base
> Barring a major game changing event in the next three months, it is unlikely Romney can swing enough votes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama already has his "Iranian crisis" X 2.
> 
> Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian nuke program.
> 
> Both have been allowed to fester and grow into real threats, yet he's worried about when Romney left Bain Capital.
Click to expand...


I am sure that if you were president you would have marched into Iran and stopped them?
The Muslim brotherhood was elected by the people of Egypt, hate democracy do ya?
You have all the answers all the time, but you have no power. Ahhhh, you missed your chance to be world leader and do it ;"My waaayyyyy"!


----------



## Moonglow

Sallow said:


> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that he implied that the beleif of those that are successful is that "being smart" was the sole ingredient for their success, speaks volumes about how little he knows about personal financial success.
> 
> One must be innovative, willing to learn, willing to take risks.....strong work ethic (disciplined)...
> 
> Heck....being "smart" is by no means the key ingredient to being financially suicessful.
> 
> Our CiC is clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> Well put so I missed this but heard and saw late last night and this morning. Now we have a president who denies the successful people's success? And says someone else did it for them? That's par for the course I guess for a guy that still blames Bush. Sheesh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't deny anyone's success.
Click to expand...


republicans are so independent that they do not need a mother to carry them during fetal stage. They do it all their own.


----------



## Sallow

Moonglow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carter had the Iran Hostage crisis at the end of his term. Any hope of being elected went out the window as news networks gave a daily countdown of the days it had been going on.
> Romney is also no Reagan. He lacks the charisma and ability to generate enthusiasm within his voting base
> Barring a major game changing event in the next three months, it is unlikely Romney can swing enough votes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama already has his "Iranian crisis" X 2.
> 
> Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian nuke program.
> 
> Both have been allowed to fester and grow into real threats, yet he's worried about when Romney left Bain Capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that if you were president you would have marched into Iran and stopped them?
> The Muslim brotherhood was elected by the people of Egypt, hate democracy do ya?
> You have all the answers all the time, but you have no power. Ahhhh, you missed your chance to be world leader and do it ;"My waaayyyyy"!
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDyb_alTkMQ]Sid Vicious - My Way (Original and Complete Version) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeNormal

Inthemiddle said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's implied in the message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how.  I think Obama's "message" was summed up pretty well with this:  "The point is, when we succeed we do it because of our individual initiative, but also because we do it together."
Click to expand...


There are two thoughts in that sentence.  That'll blow most conservative minds.  A thing can only be one thing or another.  And the one thing or another come from a very small subset of the spectrum of possibilities out there.


----------



## teapartysamurai

regent said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't! The prosperity everyone eqautes with FDR didn't happen until the Eisenhower admin (and ooops! He was a Republican)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Deal was a fucking failure.....
> 
> It's funny how democrats fuck everything up and make a mess and republicans clean it up...
> 
> Wilson, FDR, Carter, Obama.....
> 
> Democrats are economically retarded....
> 
> What works in theory doesn't necessarily work in practice...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well for a failure, FDR seems to have done pretty well, the people voted for him four times, a record that will stand for some years, maybe forever, America's historians have always rated FDR in the top three greatest American presidents and recently rated him the greatest. So it seems the people thought he was great and the historians the greatest.
> So how did the Republicans do with the Great Depression? Republicans had a country that that was booming along in the greatest period of prosperity and bingo under Republican leadership it entered the greatest depression the nation has ever had.
> To add to the problem, Republicans keep bringing up evidence that FDR didn't spend enough money on the New Deal, it took war time spending. Hope we remember that.
Click to expand...

 
Republicans keep bringing up evidence that FDR didn't spend enough?

Oh LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!  That one is a howler.

Name the Republican saying that.  I have heard that charge made BUT BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA AND ONLY THE LIBERAL MEDIA.

I hate to break it to you but FDR had nothing to do with the unemployment rate coming down.

Look at it here:  United States Unemployment Rate 1920&ndash;2010 &mdash; Infoplease.com

When did the unemployment rate come starkly down.  IN THE YEAR 1942!

Now what event might have precipitated that?  Oooooo Let me think.

WORLD WAR II YOU MORONS!

The DRAFT put men to work IN THE MILITARY.  It put women to work in the factories.

FDR had nothing to do with it.

But the great prosperity only took effect under Truman and Eisenhower.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Moonglow said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well put so I missed this but heard and saw late last night and this morning. Now we have a president who denies the successful people's success? And says someone else did it for them? That's par for the course I guess for a guy that still blames Bush. Sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't deny anyone's success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> republicans are so independent that they do not need a mother to carry them during fetal stage. They do it all their own.
Click to expand...


And Liberals are so dependent that they never advance BEYOND the fetal stage...


----------



## Jarhead

Sallow said:


> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that he implied that the beleif of those that are successful is that "being smart" was the sole ingredient for their success, speaks volumes about how little he knows about personal financial success.
> 
> One must be innovative, willing to learn, willing to take risks.....strong work ethic (disciplined)...
> 
> Heck....being "smart" is by no means the key ingredient to being financially suicessful.
> 
> Our CiC is clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> Well put so I missed this but heard and saw late last night and this morning. Now we have a president who denies the successful people's success? And says someone else did it for them? That's par for the course I guess for a guy that still blames Bush. Sheesh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't deny anyone's success.
Click to expand...


he denied it was a result of their own harde work and energy.

I started my first coimpany without a loan.
I had to pay to use the postal service
I had to pay to use the interstate (tolls)
I had to pay to use the bridges (tolls)
I had to pay to use phones
I had to pay to rent my space
I had to pay for my employees
I had to pay for their insurance
I had to pay for paper, staples, pens...

Does he want to take the stance that the government is a "vendor" like all other vendors?

I am fine with that.

But to claim the government is responsible for my success?

Bullshit.


----------



## teapartysamurai

LordBrownTrout said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It was our tax dollars that provided that infrastructure AND a private company that built that highway.
Click to expand...

 
Oh no!  Our "benevolent government" just gave us all these goodies.  We are just helpless children that should be enternally grateful to the government. 

We should be grateful and just hand over any amount of money the government demands in appreciation for all they do for us.

THAT IS THE NONSENSE liberals think we should believe.


----------



## Jarhead

JoeNormal said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's implied in the message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how.  I think Obama's "message" was summed up pretty well with this:  "The point is, when we succeed we do it because of our individual initiative, but also because we do it together."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two thoughts in that sentence.  That'll blow most conservative minds.  A thing can only be one thing or another.  And the one thing or another come from a very small subset of the spectrum of possibilities out there.
Click to expand...


That sentence is crap.

We dont do it together.

When a business owner fails....no one shares the losses with him/her.

But when he succeeds? We all did it together.

BULLSHIT.


----------



## Murf76

teapartysamurai said:


> You libs make it sound like those things are there SOLELY for Jose and his tamale cart!
> 
> They are there for everyone else!
> 
> Are you libs saying YOU DON'T MAKE YOUR PAY CHECKS without everyone else?
> 
> If so, I now demand you hand your pay checks over to me and everyone else.
> 
> Because you couldn't have made them without us!



What's so frustrating is that there are so many people who can't see the logic of Hugo Chavez in Obama's comments.  They don't see the implied _public ownership_.  But when one stops to consider the reasoning behind Venezuelan nationalization of various industries, this is the reasoning behind it... that the collective has a vested interest.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> Ok, all you big time entrepreneurs. You want a challenge? See if you can start a successful business in Somalia.


 
You know what's sad?  This idiot really thinks that's some great challenge that proves his point.  

OUR CONSTITUTION gives people the opportunity to be free enough to start business if they choos.

That doesn't mean YOU or Obama, or anyone else, had anything to do with it.

Those roads and bridges you mention are used by ALL, not just the entrepreneur.


----------



## jillian

Mac1958 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know there are employees who suck. but i never had one 'hurt' my practice. i never heard my dad or brother say an employee hurt there's.... though they have done more than their share of hiring and firing. and trust me, when they get to the voting booth, they vote their pocketbooks... not their consciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen three lawsuits so far either from or about employees.  Fortunately I wasn't involved directly in any of them, but here's my favorite story:
> 
> Many years ago I ran a large home health care company.  The owners of the company were sued by a client and damn near lost the business.  Why?  Because one of their male caregivers was caught giving his male client a service that was not usually offered by the company.
> 
> If you know what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're talking about respondeat superior. Yes, companies are responsible for the bad acts of their employees. But only if the employees are acting in heir professional capacities. Just how it is. That's why companies carry insurance.

So who should an injured person seek compensation from?


----------



## salem.hills

Jarhead said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well put so I missed this but heard and saw late last night and this morning. Now we have a president who denies the successful people's success? And says someone else did it for them? That's par for the course I guess for a guy that still blames Bush. Sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't deny anyone's success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he denied it was a result of their own harde work and energy.
> 
> I started my first coimpany without a loan.
> I had to pay to use the postal service
> I had to pay to use the interstate (tolls)
> I had to pay to use the bridges (tolls)
> I had to pay to use phones
> I had to pay to rent my space
> I had to pay for my employees
> I had to pay for their insurance
> I had to pay for paper, staples, pens...
> 
> Does he want to take the stance that the government is a "vendor" like all other vendors?
> 
> I am fine with that.
> 
> But to claim the government is responsible for my success?
> 
> Bullshit.
Click to expand...


He denied their accomplishments suggesting someone else did it the government or the hourly employee? Either way that's just false and lame of POTUS, but predictable


----------



## JoeNormal

teapartysamurai said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PROVIDED????????????
> 
> Like the entrepeneur didn't pay for those government services?
> 
> I don't pay for those services?
> 
> You don't pay for those services?
> 
> The government just "provides" those services out of the "goodness" of their bureacratic little hearts?
> 
> By your own non-logic I now demand you hand your pay checks over because you couldn't have made that check without all of us.
> 
> It's makes about as much sense.
Click to expand...


Explaining things to a conservative is a lot like trying to point the moon out to a dog.  They just keep staring at your finger.

Oh, and BTW, maybe you could use more smileys.  They hit me just like bullets.


----------



## teapartysamurai

The T said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really dumbass - you obviously never owned a business in your life...
> 
> You progressive retards just sit here and attempt to tell other people how it works, because you believe in your own fucked up minds you know how economy works, or how businesses work - yet you don't know jack shit Jack....
> 
> Government doesn't do anything but MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULTY TO KEEP A BUSINESS OPERATING DICKHEAD....
> 
> My family had to close our family store because of the shitty economy and government demands....
> 
> Just shut your fingers up already.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy. Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem. What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be that YOU didn't work hard enough? From your postings? I'd say that was so...SO YOU have thrown in the towel and given up to mommy Government to save you.
Click to expand...

 
He's just angry and resentful to people who DID make a success of their business and now he thinks it's time to "get even" with them by taking part of their profits.

That's what class envy is all about.


----------



## Jarhead

jillian said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know there are employees who suck. but i never had one 'hurt' my practice. i never heard my dad or brother say an employee hurt there's.... though they have done more than their share of hiring and firing. and trust me, when they get to the voting booth, they vote their pocketbooks... not their consciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen three lawsuits so far either from or about employees.  Fortunately I wasn't involved directly in any of them, but here's my favorite story:
> 
> Many years ago I ran a large home health care company.  The owners of the company were sued by a client and damn near lost the business.  Why?  Because one of their male caregivers was caught giving his male client a service that was not usually offered by the company.
> 
> If you know what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking about respondeat superior. Yes, companies are responsible for the bad acts of their employees. But only if the employees are acting in heir professional capacities. Just how it is. That's why companies carry insurance.
> 
> So who should an injured person seek compensation from?
Click to expand...


yes...thus why they carry insurance..

AT THEIR COST.

As for an injured person.....they seek compensation from the business owner...

But according to the left and the way they see it.....maybe ALL should chip in a compensate the injured person?

Maybe all employees should chip in?

How about the government that supplies all of the services?

Is there a reason you dont see how it seems ALL are responsible BUT ONLY when there is success?

What about all being responsible when there is failure?

Noooo......THAT is the business owners fault.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy. Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem. What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could be that YOU didn't work hard enough? From your postings? I'd say that was so...SO YOU have thrown in the towel and given up to mommy Government to save you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract. Working hard enough wasn't the issue. It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors. I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.
Click to expand...

 
In other words you were a quitter and now you think everyone else owes you.


----------



## Jarhead

JoeNormal said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PROVIDED????????????
> 
> Like the entrepeneur didn't pay for those government services?
> 
> I don't pay for those services?
> 
> You don't pay for those services?
> 
> The government just "provides" those services out of the "goodness" of their bureacratic little hearts?
> 
> By your own non-logic I now demand you hand your pay checks over because you couldn't have made that check without all of us.
> 
> It's makes about as much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explaining things to a conservative is a lot like trying to point the moon out to a dog.  They just keep staring at your finger.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, maybe you could use more smileys.  They hit me just like bullets.
Click to expand...


way to respond to a point well made...

In other words...you had no valid response....so criticize the smily faces.


----------



## Moonglow

teapartysamurai said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Deal was a fucking failure.....
> 
> It's funny how democrats fuck everything up and make a mess and republicans clean it up...
> 
> Wilson, FDR, Carter, Obama.....
> 
> Democrats are economically retarded....
> 
> What works in theory doesn't necessarily work in practice...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well for a failure, FDR seems to have done pretty well, the people voted for him four times, a record that will stand for some years, maybe forever, America's historians have always rated FDR in the top three greatest American presidents and recently rated him the greatest. So it seems the people thought he was great and the historians the greatest.
> So how did the Republicans do with the Great Depression? Republicans had a country that that was booming along in the greatest period of prosperity and bingo under Republican leadership it entered the greatest depression the nation has ever had.
> To add to the problem, Republicans keep bringing up evidence that FDR didn't spend enough money on the New Deal, it took war time spending. Hope we remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans keep bringing up evidence that FDR didn't spend enough?
> 
> Oh LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!  That one is a howler.
> 
> Name the Republican saying that.  I have heard that charge made BUT BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA AND ONLY THE LIBERAL MEDIA.
> 
> I hate to break it to you but FDR had nothing to do with the unemployment rate coming down.
> 
> Look at it here:  United States Unemployment Rate 1920&ndash;2010 &mdash; Infoplease.com
> 
> When did the unemployment rate come starkly down.  IN THE YEAR 1942!
> 
> Now what event might have precipitated that?  Oooooo Let me think.
> 
> WORLD WAR II YOU MORONS!
> 
> The DRAFT put men to work IN THE MILITARY.  It put women to work in the factories.
> 
> FDR had nothing to do with it.
> 
> But the great prosperity only took effect under Truman and Eisenhower.
Click to expand...


Considering the way that FDR's hands were tied by Congress he did a good job of secretly and openly increasing military aid to England.
So yes FDR was responsible for reviving the war industry well before war broke out in '41.
If the repubs had their way,, The rising sun and swastika  flags would still be waving.


----------



## Moonglow

teapartysamurai said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be that YOU didn't work hard enough? From your postings? I'd say that was so...SO YOU have thrown in the towel and given up to mommy Government to save you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract. Working hard enough wasn't the issue. It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors. I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you were a quitter and now you think everyone else owes you.
Click to expand...


Is being hateful all you know?


----------



## JoeNormal

Jarhead said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> PROVIDED????????????
> 
> Like the entrepeneur didn't pay for those government services?
> 
> I don't pay for those services?
> 
> You don't pay for those services?
> 
> The government just "provides" those services out of the "goodness" of their bureacratic little hearts?
> 
> By your own non-logic I now demand you hand your pay checks over because you couldn't have made that check without all of us.
> 
> It's makes about as much sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explaining things to a conservative is a lot like trying to point the moon out to a dog.  They just keep staring at your finger.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, maybe you could use more smileys.  They hit me just like bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> way to respond to a point well made...
> 
> In other words...you had no valid response....so criticize the smily faces.
Click to expand...


The answer to his question was in several other posts.  I'm just running out of different ways of saying the same thing and he'll probably never get it anyway.


----------



## JoeNormal

teapartysamurai said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be that YOU didn't work hard enough? From your postings? I'd say that was so...SO YOU have thrown in the towel and given up to mommy Government to save you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract. Working hard enough wasn't the issue. It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors. I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you were a quitter and now you think everyone else owes you.
Click to expand...


Quitting...  You mean kind of like you and school?


----------



## Claudette

Jarhead said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well put so I missed this but heard and saw late last night and this morning. Now we have a president who denies the successful people's success? And says someone else did it for them? That's par for the course I guess for a guy that still blames Bush. Sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't deny anyone's success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he denied it was a result of their own harde work and energy.
> 
> I started my first coimpany without a loan.
> I had to pay to use the postal service
> I had to pay to use the interstate (tolls)
> I had to pay to use the bridges (tolls)
> I had to pay to use phones
> I had to pay to rent my space
> I had to pay for my employees
> I had to pay for their insurance
> I had to pay for paper, staples, pens...
> 
> Does he want to take the stance that the government is a "vendor" like all other vendors?
> 
> I am fine with that.
> 
> But to claim the government is responsible for my success?
> 
> Bullshit.
Click to expand...


Bullshit is right. 

My Mom and Dad had a small business. We kids all worked in it. It was successfull because the whole family worked at it. Seven days a week. No holidays. We busted our asses making that business successfull. 

The Govt had absolutely zero to do with our successs. The success came with hard work and our sacrifices. Our sweat, labor and smarts equaled the success.  

Small business owners are succesfull because of the govt?? What a crock of shit. 

Its more like small business is successfull INSPITE of the Govt.


----------



## Katzndogz

obama got the idea for this brilliant piece of fol de rol from none other than a comment made by Elizabeth Warren.  That's why it sounds so stupid.   Can we expect to hear about his Cherokee background next.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned a business and I didn't have any trouble at all keeping the government happy. Finding enough customers to make it worthwhile was a problem. What was this family store of which you speak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items... For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government? Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
Click to expand...

 
So, the answer is to fail at whatever you try?


----------



## teapartysamurai

chanel said:


> Is this how desperate they've gotten? "Republicans hate roads" or some shit?
> 
> Holy cow. Fatal, fatal error. They should've stuck with the "War on Women and Puppies".


 
Oh, they are moving onto Romney is a felon.

Which I think will fall as flat as their attack on Romney and his dog.

Turns out from "Dreams of my father" Obama was doing weed and cocaine and probably distributing it.  So, WHO is the real felon?


----------



## Jarhead

JoeNormal said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract. Working hard enough wasn't the issue. It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors. I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you were a quitter and now you think everyone else owes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quitting...  You mean kind of like you and school?
Click to expand...


By choice, you decided the situation wasnt right for you. And that was your perogative. But bear in mind, by choice, you opted to take a position with a company that had very well established competition. Maybe it was the salary that lured you; or the challange; or the benefits; or the education you got from it; or the commute......but whatever was the reason, it was your choice to take on such a challange.

Just as it was your choice to NOT take the risk of starting your own at the time.

One must sit back and realize that every decision you make as itr pertains to a career...IS YOUR DECISION ALONE...and you reap the rewards and suffer the consequences.

The day the federal government and the employees share the losses with an entrepeneur is the day I will agree with Obamas sentiments.

And please dont tell me the employees share the losses if a company fails becuase they lose their jobs.....for if the owner didnt start the company with his or her own money at risk, those jobs never would have existed.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Lonestar_logic said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items... For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government? Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if my company doesn't make a profit, I don't have to pay any taxes?
> 
> 
> What world are you living in?
Click to expand...


----------



## naturegirl

teapartysamurai said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are businesses and then there are REAL businesses... Selling candy bars from a goddamn wheel barrel isn't a business... An S-Corp is....
> 
> If you don't have a tax number then you're really not a business....
> 
> We had a store that sold toys, games, puzzles, magic tricks, gags, cool looking lights, lava lamps etc... We sold "odd" items... For example I have a case in the corner of solar activated cockroaches (when you put them in the sun they start running around) stuff like that...
> 
> Now I have 3 garages of shit from product to display cases..
> 
> I'd love to get rid of all this random shit..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government? Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the answer is to fail at whatever you try?
Click to expand...


Well, kind of.............the government doesn't have much success lately at stuff they've tried.  Look at Obama's green energy investments.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract. Working hard enough wasn't the issue. It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors. I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you pick up and do something else. Makes sense? no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I'm doing now.
Click to expand...

 
He's now got a gig posting BS in forums by the looks of it!  

How's that working out for you?


----------



## Katzndogz

If a company does not make money, it is not true that you don't have to pay the government anything.  If you say that, you just have never been in business of any size or income.   If you have never heard of the Alternative Minimum Tax, you just don't have business experience.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government? Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if my company doesn't make a profit, I don't have to pay any taxes?
> 
> 
> What world are you living in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably have to pay some minor shit like property taxes, water, sewer maybe some additional police and fire protection depending on your locale and industry. Maybe hazardous waste? I didn't have to deal with anything major. Why don't you tell me what the big, bad government is doing to you?
Click to expand...

 
And you claim you ran a business?

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!


----------



## teapartysamurai

Full-Auto said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if my company doesn't make a profit, I don't have to pay any taxes?
> 
> 
> What world are you living in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably have to pay some minor shit like property taxes, water, sewer maybe some additional police and fire protection depending on your locale and industry. Maybe hazardous waste? I didn't have to deal with anything major. Why don't you tell me what the big, bad government is doing to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of the subject is overwhelming................
Click to expand...

 
Which means he's lying about running a business.


----------



## naturegirl

Katzndogz said:


> If a company does not make money, it is not true that you don't have to pay the government anything.  If you say that, you just have never been in business of any size or income.   If you have never heard of the Alternative Minimum Tax, you just don't have business experience.



Not to mention SS, medicare and unemployment tax.  1/2 of SS and Medicare is paid by the employer if they make money or not.  Unemployment is paid 100% by the employer.  They don't care if you made a profit, if you pay employees you still have to pay the tax.


----------



## Pho_King

Claudette said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't deny anyone's success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he denied it was a result of their own harde work and energy.
> 
> I started my first coimpany without a loan.
> I had to pay to use the postal service
> I had to pay to use the interstate (tolls)
> I had to pay to use the bridges (tolls)
> I had to pay to use phones
> I had to pay to rent my space
> I had to pay for my employees
> I had to pay for their insurance
> I had to pay for paper, staples, pens...
> 
> Does he want to take the stance that the government is a "vendor" like all other vendors?
> 
> I am fine with that.
> 
> But to claim the government is responsible for my success?
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit is right.
> 
> My Mom and Dad had a small business. We kids all worked in it. It was successfull because the whole family worked at it. Seven days a week. No holidays. We busted our asses making that business successfull.
> 
> The Govt had absolutely zero to do with our successs. The success came with hard work and our sacrifices. Our sweat, labor and smarts equaled the success.
> 
> Small business owners are succesfull because of the govt?? What a crock of shit.
> 
> Its more like small business is successfull INSPITE of the Govt.
Click to expand...


I suspect one would have to look longhand hard to find a business owner that agreed with Obama that the parasite class shares credit for their business success.  Joe should take his shtick on the road and try out my theory.  Find the next small business you find, joe, and walk in and demand due recognition for your contributions to that business' success.....


----------



## Some Guy

I get what Obama is trying to say, he's just way off.  Sure, if big companies didn't have employees, they wouldn't be able to operate.  But without someone with the know how, the drive and the capital to create and grow a company, the employees would be a flock without a shepherd.

And great points about employees not sharing in the losses.  If someone wants to start a small business and puts up their home to finance it and it goes belly-up, those employees still collected their paychecks and banked that money...while the small business owner loses his/her house.


----------



## Pho_King

JoeNormal said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's implied in the message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how.  I think Obama's "message" was summed up pretty well with this:  "The point is, when we succeed we do it because of our individual initiative, but also because we do it together."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two thoughts in that sentence.  That'll blow most conservative minds.  A thing can only be one thing or another.  And the one thing or another come from a very small subset of the spectrum of possibilities out there.
Click to expand...


So then, how much does a whiner like you owe to the government for your success?   You use the infrastructure to, although I can guarantee you pay a hell of a lot less for it.


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hire trained employess that our society has paid for. If you don't like the quality of their training, by all means train them yourself. They are your employees
> 
> That entire communications infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayer. You hook into that network for a marginal cost to yourself. What you pay for communications in no way compenstes for the benefit you receive
> 
> International trade affects all businesses whether you know it or not
> 
> Your society is paying for that police and fire department. If your business is invaded or on fire, it is your community that will protect you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice libs act like YOU, the small busines owners pays no TAXES that pay for fire or police.
> 
> It's just everybody else that supposedly pays for those taxes.
> 
> I would love to see a comparison of how much the small business owner pays AND COLLECTS IN SALES TAXES, compared to how much those customers pay in taxes.
> 
> Yet the customers are owed the profits of the business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit..
> 
> The topic is that businesses did not get where they are alone. Nobody gets ahead in business without the benefits of society, so it is reasonable to expect business to contribute
Click to expand...

 
As IF they DON'T?

You look at the tax load for a small business compared to the 49 percent in this country that PAYS NO FEDERAL TAXES and you libs have the nerve to claim business DOES'T CONTRIBUTE ENOUGH???????


----------



## JoeNormal

naturegirl said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a company does not make money, it is not true that you don't have to pay the government anything.  If you say that, you just have never been in business of any size or income.   If you have never heard of the Alternative Minimum Tax, you just don't have business experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention SS, medicare and unemployment tax.  1/2 of SS and Medicare is paid by the employer if they make money or not.  Unemployment is paid 100% by the employer.  They don't care if you made a profit, if you pay employees you still have to pay the tax.
Click to expand...


See, now we're getting somewhere.  How is it that 55 pages into this discussion, you were the first person to actually list the tax grievances?  

Ok, so you tax woes are because of your employees.  I had a sole proprietorship.  If I didn't make money, I didn't get paid and except for minor things, neither did the government.  Still, who gets a bunch of employees until a business reaches a level where they're needed?


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not one the one arguing for a "mixed" economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't know, we HAVE a mixed economy. That's what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And BTW, you still haven't been honest enough to admit MIXED WITH WHAT???????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't been honest enough to admit what? I'm sorry, did you have a question to ask me?
> 
> 
> 
> No. A mixed economy is not about mixing capitalism with socialism. The quintessential quality of socialism is production for use. Considering the fact that just over 80% of the US economy is services driven, it's absurdity to even suggest that the US is "mixed" with socialism to any significant or meaningful degree.
> 
> A mixed economy, like ours, leaves the open market to establish things like production rates, the costs of purchasing goods, ect, while the government the ability to regulate the market, and exert influence to mitigate the undesirable consequences that are inherent in a capitalist market (such as recessions).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now you have gone from hiding behind the handicapped to hiding behind small business.
> 
> You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot claim YOU do all these things with YOUR business while arguing everyone else dosn't make it without government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw man.
Click to expand...

 
"Straw man"  That's liberal for "I can't refute."

You are double talking.  You won't answer the direct question, MIXED WITH WHAT?

There is capitalism and then it's mixed with WHAT????????

You won't answer that.  And it's OBVIOUS WHY!

So, simply answer the direct question, MIXED WITH WHAT????????

I'm still waiting for you to answer.


----------



## Pho_King

Moonglow said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well put so I missed this but heard and saw late last night and this morning. Now we have a president who denies the successful people's success? And says someone else did it for them? That's par for the course I guess for a guy that still blames Bush. Sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't deny anyone's success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> republicans are so independent that they do not need a mother to carry them during fetal stage. They do it all their own.
Click to expand...


The problem with you lefties is that you never get out of the fetal stage.  You always need mothers comfort.


----------



## naturegirl

JoeNormal said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a company does not make money, it is not true that you don't have to pay the government anything.  If you say that, you just have never been in business of any size or income.   If you have never heard of the Alternative Minimum Tax, you just don't have business experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention SS, medicare and unemployment tax.  1/2 of SS and Medicare is paid by the employer if they make money or not.  Unemployment is paid 100% by the employer.  They don't care if you made a profit, if you pay employees you still have to pay the tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, now we're getting somewhere.  How is it that 55 pages into this discussion, you were the first person to actually list the tax grievances?
> 
> Ok, so you tax woes are because of your employees.  I had a sole proprietorship.  If I didn't make money, I didn't get paid and except for minor things, neither did the government.  Still, who gets a bunch of employees until a business reaches a level where they're needed?
Click to expand...


Yea, I said the same thing about 100 posts back, whatever.  

I have two employees I really don't need, we've lost our asses the last couple of years...........but they are still getting a paycheck because after November when things turn around, I'll need them.  Training someone new will cost more than keeping them on the payroll.  But we're still paying their taxes.


----------



## JoeNormal

Pho_King said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how.  I think Obama's "message" was summed up pretty well with this:  "The point is, when we succeed we do it because of our individual initiative, but also because we do it together."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two thoughts in that sentence.  That'll blow most conservative minds.  A thing can only be one thing or another.  And the one thing or another come from a very small subset of the spectrum of possibilities out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, how much does a whiner like you owe to the government for your success?   You use the infrastructure to, although I can guarantee you pay a hell of a lot less for it.
Click to expand...


I received a public education as I assume most people on here have.  I have two college degrees and even though I received no scholarship, colleges are subsidized by the government.  I deal with high tech stuff that was largely developed at universities and national laboratories that are funded by the government.  So I can admit that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing without government assistance.  But unless you run a low tech sweatshop, neither can you.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Inthemiddle said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, show me where in the Constitutin it says the USSC is the last word on what IS Constitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article III. Now stop being an idiot.
Click to expand...

 
Who's the IDIOT?

It was MARBURY VS. MADISON that established the USSC as the last word, NOT THE CONSTITUTION.

Marbury v. Madison &#8211; Case Brief Summary


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people made it in LIFE with no "schooling"..they used hard work and common sense..
> something many of you liberals seem to think doesn't exist in people just like your dear leader does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where are the good jobs nowadays for people without a high school diploma?
Click to expand...

 
You think the government should make businesses hire people without even a high school diploma?

You morons ever heard of a GED?


----------



## JoeNormal

naturegirl said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention SS, medicare and unemployment tax.  1/2 of SS and Medicare is paid by the employer if they make money or not.  Unemployment is paid 100% by the employer.  They don't care if you made a profit, if you pay employees you still have to pay the tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, now we're getting somewhere.  How is it that 55 pages into this discussion, you were the first person to actually list the tax grievances?
> 
> Ok, so you tax woes are because of your employees.  I had a sole proprietorship.  If I didn't make money, I didn't get paid and except for minor things, neither did the government.  Still, who gets a bunch of employees until a business reaches a level where they're needed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, I said the same thing about 100 posts back, whatever.
> 
> I have two employees I really don't need, we've lost our asses the last couple of years...........but they are still getting a paycheck because after November when things turn around, I'll need them.  Training someone new will cost more than keeping them on the payroll.  But we're still paying their taxes.
Click to expand...


Sorry I missed your original post.  Keeping track of all the going on on this forum could be a full time job and I have one of those that pays.


----------



## Jarhead

JoeNormal said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two thoughts in that sentence.  That'll blow most conservative minds.  A thing can only be one thing or another.  And the one thing or another come from a very small subset of the spectrum of possibilities out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how much does a whiner like you owe to the government for your success?   You use the infrastructure to, although I can guarantee you pay a hell of a lot less for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I received a public education as I assume most people on here have.  I have two college degrees and even though I received no scholarship, colleges are subsidized by the government.  I deal with high tech stuff that was largely developed at universities and national laboratories that are funded by the government.  So I can admit that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing without government assistance.  But unless you run a low tech sweatshop, neither can you.
Click to expand...


Dont you get it?

Thats EXACTLY what the government wants you to believe....and thus why they give out subsidies...which were nothing more than political favors returned.

Frankilin needed government to invent the stove?
To discvover the power of electricity?

Was it the government that assisted the Wright brothers?

Do you really believe the internet had no shot without the government?

No one would have done it oin their own?

Come on man....you need to see what you are saying.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Zoom-boing said:


> More leftist-think:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That those who have received much must be obligated to paynot to give, not to cut a check and shut up, in Governor Christies words, but to payin the same proportion. Thats called stepping up and not whining about it. Thats called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesnt cost their beloved rich folks any money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&
> 
> 
> "That those who have received much must be obligated to pay in the same proportion". Somehow I don't think King is talking about a flat tax, do you?
> 
> "Received". That, in a nutshell, is the basis of leftist thinking. One "receives" welfare, one "receives" benefits, one "receives" wealth; "earning" never enters their tiny minds.
Click to expand...

 
And notice they think the person who sits on his butt and takes money from the rest of us, is no different than someone who works hard, provides jobs, and moves the economy in his area (aka a small business owner).

It reveals a lot about their NON thinking.


----------



## Pho_King

Oldstyle said:


> If you're a small business owner in this country, working your ass off to keep that business afloat...what Barry just said in his latest stump speech has GOT to have you shaking your head in disbelief.
> 
> This is a man who is SO disconnected from the reality of what it takes to start up a business that he honestly can't give those who worked countless hours to get theirs going the credit that they deserve.  Oh, no...they couldn't have done it on their OWN...they HAD to have had help!!!!  Why does Barry think that?  Because HE'S had help his whole life to get where he is.  He can't quite understand that they are people out there that DID do it on their own...just as he can't quite seem to understand why they won't just hand over more of their profits to him so he can spend that money on things HE thinks are important.  Barry doesn't think those profits "belong" to the people who worked so hard to make them...no in his progressive mind set those profits belong to the government to dole out as IT see's fit.  To Barry and his ilk...THAT is what is called "paying your fair share."



Yes.  The small business owner that mortgaged his house, maxed out his credit cards, and has lived for months without any income in order to get a business off the ground really should take a little time out of their eighty hour work weeks to give a long and drawn out thanks to Obama, Jillian, joe, and the rest of the parasite class for their lofty contributions for his success.


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've just admitted the supremacy of the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU saying medical marijuana is illegal despite the laws in the State of California?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California medical marijuana operation targeted by feds - Los Angeles Times
> 
> You should spend less time yapping about things you don't know about.
> 
> Now you tell me, based on your argument, can any state that wants to legalize partial birth abortion,
> 
> ignoring the federal law against it,
> 
> because of the 10th amendment?
Click to expand...

 
That didn't answer the question.  Do you think California should have medical marijuna despite the actions of the feds.

If you hadn't noticed, despite the noise of the feds, California is still selling medical marijuana.


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> on the roads his taxes paid for....next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.
> 
> So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?
> 
> And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.
Click to expand...


The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"

Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide


----------



## Mac1958

jillian said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know there are employees who suck. but i never had one 'hurt' my practice. i never heard my dad or brother say an employee hurt there's.... though they have done more than their share of hiring and firing. and trust me, when they get to the voting booth, they vote their pocketbooks... not their consciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen three lawsuits so far either from or about employees.  Fortunately I wasn't involved directly in any of them, but here's my favorite story:
> 
> Many years ago I ran a large home health care company.  The owners of the company were sued by a client and damn near lost the business.  Why?  Because one of their male caregivers was caught giving his male client a service that was not usually offered by the company.
> 
> If you know what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking about respondeat superior. Yes, companies are responsible for the bad acts of their employees. But only if the employees are acting in heir professional capacities. Just how it is. That's why companies carry insurance.
> 
> So who should an injured person seek compensation from?
Click to expand...



The injured person needs to do what they need to do.

The point is that the business owner is paying for insurance and, far more importantly, running the risk of significant damage to their business reputation in a situation over which they had no control.  I knew the guy, I would never have expected this.

That's the point - the employee was fired for good reason.  The business owner suffered financial loss due to nothing they did.  If the business owner had lost their business over this, too bad, everything for which they had invested and worked and sacrificed for, for years, would be gone.  A business owner takes massive risks.  That's part of growing a business, something that some don't seem to understand when they make offhanded comments about how a business owner has some kind of inflated impression of their value to their company.

.


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> This thread is a perfect example of why conservatives aren't generally considered to be as crazy as they really are...
> 
> ...there have never been enough of them to actually DO what they actually believe. Their craziness gets concealed by the fact that America has generally had the common sense not to put them in power.


 
Another libs who has deluded himself into believing most Americans think like him, that he's the "mainstream" and that anyone else that disagrees must be "on the fringe."

I guess that explains 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 200, 2002, 2004, and 2010 (all big wins for Republicans)

And every time Democrats have won, they did so by ADOPTING the conservative message.

Example:  Bill Clinton promising a "middle class tax cut" which he lied about.

Obama promised a "middle class tax cut" and obviously HE lied about that.  We are still waiting.


----------



## Jarhead

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.
> 
> So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?
> 
> And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
Click to expand...


of course they benefit from those taxes....thus why they pay them.

Now...if the government paid ME to take a risk with MY money to start a business....I would understand the comment Obama made.

But the government wasnt there to help me start...they charged me for use of their roads and postal services.....and if I failed they wouldnt pay me a dime....

But they want me and you to believe that my success was due to them?

Really?


----------



## Pho_King

JoeNormal said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two thoughts in that sentence.  That'll blow most conservative minds.  A thing can only be one thing or another.  And the one thing or another come from a very small subset of the spectrum of possibilities out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how much does a whiner like you owe to the government for your success?   You use the infrastructure to, although I can guarantee you pay a hell of a lot less for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I received a public education as I assume most people on here have.  I have two college degrees and even though I received no scholarship, colleges are subsidized by the government.  I deal with high tech stuff that was largely developed at universities and national laboratories that are funded by the government.  So I can admit that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing without government assistance.  But unless you run a low tech sweatshop, neither can you.
Click to expand...


So how do you go about thanking Obama for all these gifts?    Do you sing the mmmm mmmmm mmmm song?

You are a product of government.   Congratulations.


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Don't be stupid. Please. Stop being stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's no more stupid than the statement made by "The Smartest President Ever"
> 
> If you believe Bam Bam to be speaking the truth then the question is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question now answer mine. How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
Click to expand...

 
HOw many of them SHOULD have had no schooling.

Don't you believe in personal responsibility?


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of your employees had no schooling before you hired them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people made it in LIFE with no "schooling"..they used hard work and common sense..
> something many of you liberals seem to think doesn't exist in people just like your dear leader does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you working 2 jobs to keep your head above water? Are you lacking schooling, or lacking common sense?
Click to expand...

 
He isn't working for a think tank that pays people to do nothing but sit on the internet all day and spew out bald faced lies for the Democrats.

He actually WORKS for a living.  You wouldn't know anything about that, would you?


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit..
> 
> The topic is that businesses did not get where they are alone. Nobody gets ahead in business without the benefits of society, so it is reasonable to expect business to contribute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do contribute, they just won't contribute it all.
> 
> Los Angeles learned this lesson by over taxing car dealerships. All those luxury cars being sold to very rich people and car dealerships paying only the same taxes everyone else pays. Don't car dealerships benefit from roads? Now that the dealerships have left, they pay no taxes at all. Los Angeles is trying to lure them back by promising they won't have to pay any taxes, just come back, hire someone, take up empty space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is asking them to contribute it all. However, there are conservatives who do not want them to contribute at all
Click to expand...

 

Damn right!  Can you imagine how many Jobs they could make if that were the case!

And all those employees would pay, what?  OH YEAH, TAXES!!!!!!!

Which is why business is moving to states with no state taxes.


----------



## teapartysamurai

geauxtohell said:


> It's funny to watch conservative draft dodgers like Limbaugh heap praise on the military, and then flip out when someone suggests that, because of people that keep this nation safe, businessmen are free to make a profit.


 
It's funny to watch liberals move all over the board to try and make a logical statement.

The above is a great example.

What does the military have to do with small busienss?

Does the small business owner not pay taxes to support the military?

Does LIMBAUGH not pay taxes to support the military?

(and I bet you have no evidence for Limbaugh being a draft dodger other than some kook fringe website, which will be as reliable as Dan Rather talking about George Bush's National Guard records)


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met. Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers. Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a point to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that whether he realizes it or not, his business depends on the society
Click to expand...

 
Bullshit, SOCIETY DEPENDS ON THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER!

The small business owner provides JOBS, Services/goods, moves the economy in the area, and creates people who also pay taxes (via jobs).

It is the other way around.


----------



## Pho_King

Mr.Nick said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet anything you live in your moms basement - that or you're somehow on the government dole....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd bet anything you haven't moved out of your original bedroom yet, nicky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kinda funny considering how much moving I have actually done over the last 5-6 years.
> 
> I own a home now - no mortgage...
> 
> If it matters - my grandma died and left enough for everyone. We chose to use our share to invest in real estate... I bought a house that sold in 2007/08 at 160,000k for 45k.
> 
> Once the housing bullshit gets better I'm going to sell it and move to Wisconsin.... I hate it here, progressives are assholes with their authoritarianism and I can no longer support such insanity...
Click to expand...

This is why we need to tax inheritance at 100%.  This advantage you got was just not fair.  And our beloved government could have put that money to better use for all of us.  Right lefties?


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met. Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers. Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure follows busniess. Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is the infrastructure back east falling apart? Did they stop doing business?
Click to expand...

 
Infrastructure is?

Because Obama says so?  Like when he stood at a bridge in Ohio that was in perfectly find working order and claimed it was falling apart?


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The business owner is still the principle party who takes the risks, funds the start up, and always works the most hours and deals with the stress of failing or succeeding.
> 
> You however would never know that listening to today's Democrat party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wage earner takes a greater risk.
Click to expand...

 
The WAGE EARNER?????????  

HOW do they take a greater risk?  

Do they put up capital?  Get a loan from the bank?  Find a location?

Take the risk?

HOW can you justify that assinine statement you just made?


----------



## JoeNormal

Jarhead said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how much does a whiner like you owe to the government for your success?   You use the infrastructure to, although I can guarantee you pay a hell of a lot less for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I received a public education as I assume most people on here have.  I have two college degrees and even though I received no scholarship, colleges are subsidized by the government.  I deal with high tech stuff that was largely developed at universities and national laboratories that are funded by the government.  So I can admit that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing without government assistance.  But unless you run a low tech sweatshop, neither can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont you get it?
> 
> Thats EXACTLY what the government wants you to believe....and thus why they give out subsidies...which were nothing more than political favors returned.
> 
> Frankilin needed government to invent the stove?
> To discvover the power of electricity?
> 
> Was it the government that assisted the Wright brothers?
> 
> Do you really believe the internet had no shot without the government?
> 
> No one would have done it oin their own?
> 
> Come on man....you need to see what you are saying.
Click to expand...


Dude, look technology has moved way beyond the point where a couple of craftsmen can come up with a groundbreaking invention.  A single chip can cost millions of dollars to develop and you need a billion dollar fab to manufacture it.

Companies like the quick payoff these days.  When government labs were working on these technologies, there was no guarantee of success.  Yet in some cases, pure research with no clear commercial application eventually led to the high tech wonders we have today.  

Years ago, companies like Bell Labs and IBM were strongly focused on creating a technological path to follow.  The beancounters have mostly put an end to that.  If government funded research stops too, don't count on anything new coming down the pipe.


----------



## Katzndogz

My employees received a benefit from all the training I gave them.  How much do they owe ME?   I gave them a desk to work at, a chair to sit on.  I gave them a floor to walk on.  Surely they owe ME some payment.


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to watch conservative draft dodgers like Limbaugh heap praise on the military, and then flip out when someone suggests that, because of people that keep this nation safe, businessmen are free to make a profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sector of private business is more dependent on the government than the defense sector.
Click to expand...

 
THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

The government is dependent ON THE PRIVATE BUSINESS, BECAUSE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO IT THEMSELVES!

I KNOW what I'm talking about here.  My dad made his living in government contracting.  

Apollo 11, Atomic Submarines, B-1A, B-1B.  My dad did it all.

Do you know why the government contracts with private business to do these things?

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DO IT THEMSELVES!  Name ONE THING government has run successfully outside of the military and maybe the park service?

Everything else they do is full of waste, fraud, and graft.  It's always a failure.

These businesses do not depend on government because there are plenty of contracts in the private sector, and those companies did those private sector contracts as well.


----------



## JoeNormal

Pho_King said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how much does a whiner like you owe to the government for your success?   You use the infrastructure to, although I can guarantee you pay a hell of a lot less for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I received a public education as I assume most people on here have.  I have two college degrees and even though I received no scholarship, colleges are subsidized by the government.  I deal with high tech stuff that was largely developed at universities and national laboratories that are funded by the government.  So I can admit that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing without government assistance.  But unless you run a low tech sweatshop, neither can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how do you go about thanking Obama for all these gifts?    Do you sing the mmmm mmmmm mmmm song?
> 
> You are a product of government.   Congratulations.
Click to expand...


Why are you so obsessed with Obama?  He wasn't in charge for very much of that time.  Is your business in trouble and you think it's all his fault?


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success. He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of the wealthy in this country stole what they have, by virtue of fixing the rules to benefit them while making it doubly hard for everyone else.
> 
> Sure there is a lot of new wealth due to mature sciency types i.e. silicon valley, but overall the real wealth of this country was obtained by owning the politicians, fixing the rules, etc.
> 
> If they had to compete for real? If they had to start at zero and NOT have everything in their corner?
> 
> stupid idiot bagger racists...wouldnt stand a chance
Click to expand...

 
And this is a great example of the greed and hate coming from the left.

They rationalize their hatred into some delusion of why the rich got there by "stealing it" from others.

And as usual the left always projects onto others what they really want to do.

THE LEFT WANTS TO STEAL FROM OTHERS!  They have to rationalize some justification for why those they steal from "deserve" it.

Keep this up lefties.  Keep talking like this.  I want you to!

The more voters hear what you lefties REALLY BELIEVE, the more will be beating a hot trail to the voting booth to vote for Romney.


----------



## flacaltenn

"You didn't Get there on your own"

You know that phrase also applies to the "hard workers" who are breaking up asphalt day after day. One could ask 'how they got there'.. Or the Millions of teens dropping out of High School every year. "how did THEY get there"?

The part of the Prez rant that irritates me the most is this concept of "everybody is working hard". 

We don't measure contribution to society by sweat. Leftists probably haven't noticed, but we don't NEED 70% of the population standing behind a mule to clear fields for crops anymore. Farmers are now CEOs of agribusiness. Not menial labor. 

If you're a Socialist -- you can whine and blame Venture Capitalists for all of that -- but the amount that a talented heart surgeon or airline pilot or NBA makes WILL ALWAYS be higher than a janitor. (unless of course -- you buy the crap that "You didn't get there by yourself" and you're working "no harder than others". 

Pure unadulterated deflection and pandering. And PROOF that the left doesn't understand risk and contribution. Hard physical and menial jobs are an endangered species. We need leadership that understands that and prepares this country to continue to prosper and lead the World.


----------



## teapartysamurai

chanel said:


> we need to bump this thread every day until the election.
> 
> Who's in?


 
me!


----------



## Pho_King

JoeNormal said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I received a public education as I assume most people on here have.  I have two college degrees and even though I received no scholarship, colleges are subsidized by the government.  I deal with high tech stuff that was largely developed at universities and national laboratories that are funded by the government.  So I can admit that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing without government assistance.  But unless you run a low tech sweatshop, neither can you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you go about thanking Obama for all these gifts?    Do you sing the mmmm mmmmm mmmm song?
> 
> You are a product of government.   Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so obsessed with Obama?  He wasn't in charge for very much of that time.  Is your business in trouble and you think it's all his fault?
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering how you give thanks to the uncounted millions that have made you the man you are today.     How does one properly worship government without reserving some piety for the head?


----------



## teapartysamurai

Sallow said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PROVIDED????????????
> 
> Like the entrepeneur didn't pay for those government services?
> 
> I don't pay for those services?
> 
> You don't pay for those services?
> 
> The government just "provides" those services out of the "goodness" of their bureacratic little hearts?
> 
> By your own non-logic I now demand you hand your pay checks over because you couldn't have made that check without all of us.
> 
> It's makes about as much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah so..now you are saying we live in a collective society.
> 
> Interesting.
Click to expand...

 
This is what liberals do when they are losing.  Claim you said something NOT IN EVIDENCE.

When you can prove that claim, let me know.  

YOU are the ones claiming we are living a collectivist society. 

I'm saying we all pay taxes.  But you libs make it sound as if everyone else pays taxes and the small business owner does not!

How can you libs claim, they aren't paying their "faire share" when 70% of the taxes in this country come from those making $250K and UP!

But 48% of this country pays no federal taxes whatsoever and I don't see a demand from you libs that THEY PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE (which obviously they are not, by YOUR own non-logic)


----------



## teapartysamurai

Sallow said:


> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that he implied that the beleif of those that are successful is that "being smart" was the sole ingredient for their success, speaks volumes about how little he knows about personal financial success.
> 
> One must be innovative, willing to learn, willing to take risks.....strong work ethic (disciplined)...
> 
> Heck....being "smart" is by no means the key ingredient to being financially suicessful.
> 
> Our CiC is clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> Well put so I missed this but heard and saw late last night and this morning. Now we have a president who denies the successful people's success? And says someone else did it for them? That's par for the course I guess for a guy that still blames Bush. Sheesh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't deny anyone's success.
Click to expand...

 
Oh yes he did!  He made it out like Obama is just as responsible for their success!


----------



## LogikAndReazon

No you "didnt get there on your own "

So you must share every evil penny earned with every person who ever "helped" you, and then give the rest to the govt so that they can help whomever they decide needs more helping.............

It takes a village..........IMBECILES


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carter had the Iran Hostage crisis at the end of his term. Any hope of being elected went out the window as news networks gave a daily countdown of the days it had been going on.
> Romney is also no Reagan. He lacks the charisma and ability to generate enthusiasm within his voting base
> Barring a major game changing event in the next three months, it is unlikely Romney can swing enough votes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama already has his "Iranian crisis" X 2.
> 
> Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian nuke program.
> 
> Both have been allowed to fester and grow into real threats, yet he's worried about when Romney left Bain Capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that if you were president you would have marched into Iran and stopped them?
> The Muslim brotherhood was elected by the people of Egypt, hate democracy do ya?
> You have all the answers all the time, but you have no power. Ahhhh, you missed your chance to be world leader and do it ;"My waaayyyyy"!
Click to expand...

 
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was "elected" like the Mullahs in Iran.

Because an incompetent president pulled support from a more reasonable leader and allowed absolute zealots to take over.

You libs can scream about the evils of the Shah, but does anyone believe the people are better off under the Mullahs?


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well put so I missed this but heard and saw late last night and this morning. Now we have a president who denies the successful people's success? And says someone else did it for them? That's par for the course I guess for a guy that still blames Bush. Sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't deny anyone's success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> republicans are so independent that they do not need a mother to carry them during fetal stage. They do it all their own.
Click to expand...

 
Are you now suggesting Obama should tax mothers that have babies???????????


----------



## jillian

teapartysamurai said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama already has his "Iranian crisis" X 2.
> 
> Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian nuke program.
> 
> Both have been allowed to fester and grow into real threats, yet he's worried about when Romney left Bain Capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that if you were president you would have marched into Iran and stopped them?
> The Muslim brotherhood was elected by the people of Egypt, hate democracy do ya?
> You have all the answers all the time, but you have no power. Ahhhh, you missed your chance to be world leader and do it ;"My waaayyyyy"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was "elected" like the Mullahs in Iran.
> 
> Because an incompetent president pulled support from a more reasonable leader and allowed absolute zealots to take over.
> 
> You libs can scream about the evils of the Shah, but does anyone believe the people are better off under the Mullahs?
Click to expand...


your own personal beliefs about what's better in another country in that regard don't really matter.

what if iraq had decided the appointment of bush to the presidency endangered it (which it did)... did it have the right to send troops here and depose the leader of a sovereign nation... even though he was only appointed.


----------



## BDBoop

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.
> 
> So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?
> 
> And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
Click to expand...


O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.

Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.



> Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficientlyWe can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  Thats how we funded the GI Bill.  Thats how we created the middle class.  Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet.  Thats how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea.  Youre not on your own, were in this together.



Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.

You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's implied in the message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how. I think Obama's "message" was summed up pretty well with this: "The point is, when we succeed we do it because of our individual initiative, but also because we do it together."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two thoughts in that sentence. That'll blow most conservative minds. A thing can only be one thing or another. And the one thing or another come from a very small subset of the spectrum of possibilities out there.
Click to expand...

 
The only thing that blows my mind is how stupid you libs are.  Okay, I lied.  It doesn't blow my mind.  I EXPECT IT!  

THAT STATEMENT FROM IN THE MIDDLE IS CALLED DOUBLE TALK!  He's trying to have it both ways!

"Sure I'll say you did it on your effort, but I'll also say you really did it because you 'stole' resources from the rest of us, thus YOU OWE US!"

That's exactly what Obama is saying, so he has a cover no matter what group he's talking to!

"No Mr. small business owner, I didn't exactly say, you did it all because of us, I also said you did it by your own effort!"

"No, Mr. lefty I didn't exactly say, small business owners did it with their own effort, because I also said, they did it because of us and therefore they owe us!"


----------



## teapartysamurai

GuyPinestra said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't deny anyone's success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> republicans are so independent that they do not need a mother to carry them during fetal stage. They do it all their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Liberals are so dependent that they never advance BEYOND the fetal stage...
Click to expand...

 
Good one!


----------



## Katzndogz

teapartysamurai said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama already has his "Iranian crisis" X 2.
> 
> Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian nuke program.
> 
> Both have been allowed to fester and grow into real threats, yet he's worried about when Romney left Bain Capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that if you were president you would have marched into Iran and stopped them?
> The Muslim brotherhood was elected by the people of Egypt, hate democracy do ya?
> You have all the answers all the time, but you have no power. Ahhhh, you missed your chance to be world leader and do it ;"My waaayyyyy"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was "elected" like the Mullahs in Iran.
> 
> Because an incompetent president pulled support from a more reasonable leader and allowed absolute zealots to take over.
> 
> You libs can scream about the evils of the Shah, but does anyone believe the people are better off under the Mullahs?
Click to expand...


Many Iranians still blame Carter for what he did and the way he destroyed Iran.  More than that, they blame obama for ignoring them in 2009.


----------



## regent

I wonder how many of us actually think we did this life-thing on our own? If that were true it means we had to deliver ourselves at birth, feed ourselves, change our diapers, and where did we get the diapers? Man is a dependent creature. But the amzaing part is that some actually see themselves as getting there on their own. They fail to see how dependent we are throughout our lives, so dependent many of can't even bury ourselves when it's over. We got there on our own is some sort of self-delusion. One thing is certain in this life we don't get there on our own. We do, however, use all sorts things, ideas, and other man-made stuff about us to survive. Perhaps one of the best things some select, is wealthy parents.


----------



## BDBoop

Oh, and by the way.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PROVIDED????????????
> 
> Like the entrepeneur didn't pay for those government services?
> 
> I don't pay for those services?
> 
> You don't pay for those services?
> 
> The government just "provides" those services out of the "goodness" of their bureacratic little hearts?
> 
> By your own non-logic I now demand you hand your pay checks over because you couldn't have made that check without all of us.
> 
> It's makes about as much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explaining things to a conservative is a lot like trying to point the moon out to a dog. They just keep staring at your finger.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, maybe you could use more smileys. They hit me just like bullets.
Click to expand...

 
This is what liberals do when they lose.  Just call names and claim they won and were "intelligent" anyway.

But you notice they stop talking about the subject completely and just call names.


----------



## BDBoop

jillian said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that if you were president you would have marched into Iran and stopped them?
> The Muslim brotherhood was elected by the people of Egypt, hate democracy do ya?
> You have all the answers all the time, but you have no power. Ahhhh, you missed your chance to be world leader and do it ;"My waaayyyyy"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was "elected" like the Mullahs in Iran.
> 
> Because an incompetent president pulled support from a more reasonable leader and allowed absolute zealots to take over.
> 
> You libs can scream about the evils of the Shah, but does anyone believe the people are better off under the Mullahs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your own personal beliefs about what's better in another country in that regard don't really matter.
> 
> what if iraq had decided the appointment of bush to the presidency endangered it (which it did)... did it have the right to send troops here and depose the leader of a sovereign nation... even though he was only appointed.
Click to expand...


AHA!! Simultaneous posting, I am NOT your sock!! BooYAH!!


----------



## JoeNormal

Pho_King said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you go about thanking Obama for all these gifts?    Do you sing the mmmm mmmmm mmmm song?
> 
> You are a product of government.   Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so obsessed with Obama?  He wasn't in charge for very much of that time.  Is your business in trouble and you think it's all his fault?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just wondering how you give thanks to the uncounted millions that have made you the man you are today.     How does one properly worship government without reserving some piety for the head?
Click to expand...


It's official.  Your hatred of this man has consumed you.


----------



## jillian

Katzndogz said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that if you were president you would have marched into Iran and stopped them?
> The Muslim brotherhood was elected by the people of Egypt, hate democracy do ya?
> You have all the answers all the time, but you have no power. Ahhhh, you missed your chance to be world leader and do it ;"My waaayyyyy"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was "elected" like the Mullahs in Iran.
> 
> Because an incompetent president pulled support from a more reasonable leader and allowed absolute zealots to take over.
> 
> You libs can scream about the evils of the Shah, but does anyone believe the people are better off under the Mullahs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many Iranians still blame Carter for what he did and the way he destroyed Iran.  More than that, they blame obama for ignoring them in 2009.
Click to expand...


carter destroyed iran? that's interesting.

as for anyone blaming the president for "ignoring them", i think that's a lie... they wanted the U.S. not to interfere b/c then achmadinejad and the boys would have said the protesters were shills of the U.S.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Jarhead said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> PROVIDED????????????
> 
> Like the entrepeneur didn't pay for those government services?
> 
> I don't pay for those services?
> 
> You don't pay for those services?
> 
> The government just "provides" those services out of the "goodness" of their bureacratic little hearts?
> 
> By your own non-logic I now demand you hand your pay checks over because you couldn't have made that check without all of us.
> 
> It's makes about as much sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explaining things to a conservative is a lot like trying to point the moon out to a dog. They just keep staring at your finger.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, maybe you could use more smileys. They hit me just like bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> way to respond to a point well made...
> 
> In other words...you had no valid response....so criticize the smily faces.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly!   

That's exactly what Joe is doing!

And now some smilies to irritate Joe even more!


----------



## BDBoop

JoeNormal said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so obsessed with Obama?  He wasn't in charge for very much of that time.  Is your business in trouble and you think it's all his fault?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how you give thanks to the uncounted millions that have made you the man you are today.     How does one properly worship government without reserving some piety for the head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's official.  Your hatred of this man has consumed you.
Click to expand...


I would have said 'unhinged' rather than 'consumed', but to each their own.


----------



## jillian

BDBoop said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.
> 
> So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?
> 
> And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficientlyWe can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  Thats how we funded the GI Bill.  Thats how we created the middle class.  Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet.  Thats how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea.  Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
Click to expand...


imagine that... fauxnews misrepresenting what the president said.

who'd a figured? *shrug*


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for a failure, FDR seems to have done pretty well, the people voted for him four times, a record that will stand for some years, maybe forever, America's historians have always rated FDR in the top three greatest American presidents and recently rated him the greatest. So it seems the people thought he was great and the historians the greatest.
> So how did the Republicans do with the Great Depression? Republicans had a country that that was booming along in the greatest period of prosperity and bingo under Republican leadership it entered the greatest depression the nation has ever had.
> To add to the problem, Republicans keep bringing up evidence that FDR didn't spend enough money on the New Deal, it took war time spending. Hope we remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans keep bringing up evidence that FDR didn't spend enough?
> 
> Oh LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! That one is a howler.
> 
> Name the Republican saying that. I have heard that charge made BUT BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA AND ONLY THE LIBERAL MEDIA.
> 
> I hate to break it to you but FDR had nothing to do with the unemployment rate coming down.
> 
> Look at it here: United States Unemployment Rate 1920&ndash;2010 &mdash; Infoplease.com
> 
> When did the unemployment rate come starkly down. IN THE YEAR 1942!
> 
> Now what event might have precipitated that? Oooooo Let me think.
> 
> WORLD WAR II YOU MORONS!
> 
> The DRAFT put men to work IN THE MILITARY. It put women to work in the factories.
> 
> FDR had nothing to do with it.
> 
> But the great prosperity only took effect under Truman and Eisenhower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering the way that FDR's hands were tied by Congress he did a good job of secretly and openly increasing military aid to England.
> So yes FDR was responsible for reviving the war industry well before war broke out in '41.
> If the repubs had their way,, The rising sun and swastika flags would still be waving.
Click to expand...

 
If FDR had his way, he would have packed the court.

And what are you talking about reviving the industry?  The US was in woeful STRAIGHTS when they entered the war, because they were unprepared!

They were terribly unprepared for WWII!

That's why Pearl Harbor happened you moron!  

My grandfather was over the production of the B-25 for North American in Columbus, Ohio.  

If he were still alive he could tell you.  FDR didn't do jack!  Not until the war broke out.  

FDR PROMISED THE COUNTRY WHEN HE RAN AGAIN TO KEEP US OUT OF THE WAR!

Good grief what history books did you read?

Some leftist revisionism, obviously!


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract. Working hard enough wasn't the issue. It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors. I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you were a quitter and now you think everyone else owes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is being hateful all you know?
Click to expand...

 
BWAHAHAHA!

This is typical of leftists.

There is nothing more "hateful" than telling the TRUTH about a liberal!

And when you do, AND THEY CAN'T DENY IT, they just drop the subject and start calling you names.

NOTICE IT WASN'T "HATEFUL" OF MOONGLOW THE HYPOCRITE to call US names, or the Tea Party names.

NOOOOOOOOO, it's ONLY HATEFUL if you tell the truth about a liberal!

Typical hypocrisy!


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explaining things to a conservative is a lot like trying to point the moon out to a dog. They just keep staring at your finger.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, maybe you could use more smileys. They hit me just like bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> way to respond to a point well made...
> 
> In other words...you had no valid response....so criticize the smily faces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer to his question was in several other posts. I'm just running out of different ways of saying the same thing and he'll probably never get it anyway.
Click to expand...

 
No you didn't!

You just made excuses for why you lost your business, but one line made it clear, YOU JUST QUIT AND BLAMED EVERYBODY ELSE!

And BTW, I'm NOT a HE.  You are getting your ass kicked by a woman.

How's that for your "war on women?"


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explaining things to a conservative is a lot like trying to point the moon out to a dog. They just keep staring at your finger.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, maybe you could use more smileys. They hit me just like bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> way to respond to a point well made...
> 
> In other words...you had no valid response....so criticize the smily faces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer to his question was in several other posts. I'm just running out of different ways of saying the same thing and he'll probably never get it anyway.
Click to expand...

 
No you didn't!

You just made excuses for why you lost your business, but one line made it clear, YOU JUST QUIT AND BLAMED EVERYBODY ELSE!

And BTW, I'm NOT a HE. You are getting your ass kicked by a woman.

How's that for your "war on women?"


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I once worked for 40 hours without sleep in order to complete a contract. Working hard enough wasn't the issue. It was a bleeding edge company in a field where there were some pretty well established competitors. I probably could have made it work if I'd have stuck with it longer - I have a friend who's doing what I started - but it lost it's appeal and I felt like I'd been there and done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you were a quitter and now you think everyone else owes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quitting... You mean kind of like you and school?
Click to expand...

 
Another attack because he knows I have his number!

He did!  He just quit and is blaming everybody else!


----------



## teapartysamurai

Katzndogz said:


> obama got the idea for this brilliant piece of fol de rol from none other than a comment made by Elizabeth Warren. That's why it sounds so stupid. Can we expect to hear about his Cherokee background next.


 




100+!


----------



## jillian

teapartysamurai said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you were a quitter and now you think everyone else owes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is being hateful all you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHA!
> 
> This is typical of leftists.
> 
> There is nothing more "hateful" than telling the TRUTH about a liberal!
> 
> And when you do, AND THEY CAN'T DENY IT, they just drop the subject and start calling you names.
> 
> NOTICE IT WASN'T "HATEFUL" OF MOONGLOW THE HYPOCRITE to call US names, or the Tea Party names.
> 
> NOOOOOOOOO, it's ONLY HATEFUL if you tell the truth about a liberal!
> 
> Typical hypocrisy!
Click to expand...


wow... was that supposed to pass for discussion.

kinda pathetic there, tps... trolling even by your standards.


----------



## teapartysamurai

naturegirl said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the issue with the government? Generally, if a company doesn't make money, it doesn't have to pay the government anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the answer is to fail at whatever you try?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, kind of.............the government doesn't have much success lately at stuff they've tried. Look at Obama's green energy investments.
Click to expand...

 
Damn!  You guys are blowing me out of the water today with your posts!





Oh!  I wish I could give you all a thousand rep points!


----------



## Skull Pilot

BDBoop said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.
> 
> So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?
> 
> And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We&#8217;ve already made a trillion dollars&#8217; worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don&#8217;t work, and make government work more efficiently&#8230;We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more &#8230;
> 
> 
> There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.  They know they didn&#8217;t -look, if you&#8217;ve been successful, you didn&#8217;t get there on your own.  You didn&#8217;t get there on your own.  I&#8217;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 &#8211; there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
> 
> 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&#8217;ve got a business. you didn&#8217;t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn&#8217;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&#8217;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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That&#8217;s how we funded the GI Bill.  That&#8217;s how we created the middle class.  That&#8217;s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That&#8217;s how we invented the Internet.  That&#8217;s how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that&#8217;s the reason I&#8217;m running for president &#8211; because I still believe in that idea.  You&#8217;re not on your own, we&#8217;re in this together.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
Click to expand...


If I have a business I didn't build that?

What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?

If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?

Let me ask you sheep this?

Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.

Which of you did any of that for me?

Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?

Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?

What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?

None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.

Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.


----------



## jillian

GuyPinestra said:


> And Liberals are so dependent that they never advance BEYOND the fetal stage...



you know, oh braindead toon, you keep making comments like that. yet i know i've been working since i was 15. 

and now we all look forward to you telling us what you do in order to be a productive member of society.

besides play the troll, of course.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a company does not make money, it is not true that you don't have to pay the government anything. If you say that, you just have never been in business of any size or income. If you have never heard of the Alternative Minimum Tax, you just don't have business experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention SS, medicare and unemployment tax. 1/2 of SS and Medicare is paid by the employer if they make money or not. Unemployment is paid 100% by the employer. They don't care if you made a profit, if you pay employees you still have to pay the tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, now we're getting somewhere. How is it that 55 pages into this discussion, you were the first person to actually list the tax grievances?
> 
> Ok, so you tax woes are because of your employees. I had a sole proprietorship. If I didn't make money, I didn't get paid and except for minor things, neither did the government. Still, who gets a bunch of employees until a business reaches a level where they're needed?
Click to expand...

 
In other word, he never was successful enough to have employees and he quit and blamed everyone else.

AKA he has NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Expect another round of whining from Joe about my smilies because he sure won't be able to refute that!


----------



## JoeNormal

teapartysamurai said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> way to respond to a point well made...
> 
> In other words...you had no valid response....so criticize the smily faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to his question was in several other posts. I'm just running out of different ways of saying the same thing and he'll probably never get it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you didn't!
> 
> You just made excuses for why you lost your business, but one line made it clear, YOU JUST QUIT AND BLAMED EVERYBODY ELSE!
> 
> And BTW, I'm NOT a HE.  You are getting your ass kicked by a woman.
> 
> How's that for your "war on women?"
Click to expand...


I'll be darned.  I kind of pictured you as a male, loser, high school dropout, wanna be internet tough guy posting from mom and dads basement.  Most women are smarter.


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.
> 
> So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?
> 
> And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
Click to expand...

 
WHAT??????????????

Would you explain how a business enjoys more of a benefit from the sidewalks or the police?

I'd dare say that any small business owner would tell you, they are more like TO GET ROBBED than you or me, AND MOST OF THE TIME, THEY HAVE TO FIGHT OFF THE ROBBER THEMSELVES.

Just watch one show of "MOST DARING" and see how many owners of small convenience stores end up fighting off the robber themselves!

So, how do they enjoy the police more?

That's just stupid!


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...his meager taxes paid for every road bridge and tunnel that is used to support hos business.
> 
> Fact is......Everyone has contributed to provide infrastructure that Rozman needs to support his business. It is one of the benefits of belonging to a society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.
> 
> So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?
> 
> And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
Click to expand...


They benefit no more than any other person could.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I received a public education as I assume most people on here have. I have two college degrees and even though I received no scholarship, colleges are subsidized by the government. I deal with high tech stuff that was largely developed at universities and national laboratories that are funded by the government. So I can admit that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing without government assistance. But unless you run a low tech sweatshop, neither can you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont you get it?
> 
> Thats EXACTLY what the government wants you to believe....and thus why they give out subsidies...which were nothing more than political favors returned.
> 
> Frankilin needed government to invent the stove?
> To discvover the power of electricity?
> 
> Was it the government that assisted the Wright brothers?
> 
> Do you really believe the internet had no shot without the government?
> 
> No one would have done it oin their own?
> 
> Come on man....you need to see what you are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, look technology has moved way beyond the point where a couple of craftsmen can come up with a groundbreaking invention. A single chip can cost millions of dollars to develop and you need a billion dollar fab to manufacture it.
> 
> Companies like the quick payoff these days. When government labs were working on these technologies, there was no guarantee of success. Yet in some cases, pure research with no clear commercial application eventually led to the high tech wonders we have today.
> 
> Years ago, companies like Bell Labs and IBM were strongly focused on creating a technological path to follow. The beancounters have mostly put an end to that. If government funded research stops too, don't count on anything new coming down the pipe.
Click to expand...

 
Are you telling me no products come to market today without GOVERNMENT RESEARCH????????



I used to work for Ohio State where they depended a LOT on government research.

Do you see OSU producing any new technologies?  Not from government research.

Those new drugs used at the James Cancer Center that comes from PRIVATE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

But you don't see new drugs coming from the government.  You don't see new Ipods, or smart phones coming from government.

You don't see new medical treatments coming from the government.

IN SHORT, YOU HAVE NO FREAKING IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You are just a loser, who quit, blaming everybody else but himself, and deluding himelf into believing he knows what he's talking about.

The more you talk, the more your ignorance becomes apparent.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I received a public education as I assume most people on here have. I have two college degrees and even though I received no scholarship, colleges are subsidized by the government. I deal with high tech stuff that was largely developed at universities and national laboratories that are funded by the government. So I can admit that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing without government assistance. But unless you run a low tech sweatshop, neither can you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you go about thanking Obama for all these gifts? Do you sing the mmmm mmmmm mmmm song?
> 
> You are a product of government. Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so obsessed with Obama? He wasn't in charge for very much of that time. Is your business in trouble and you think it's all his fault?
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, we have no right to conclude Obama is at fault!!!!!

Why it's all Bush's fault, right?


----------



## rightwinger

Jarhead said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how much does a whiner like you owe to the government for your success?   You use the infrastructure to, although I can guarantee you pay a hell of a lot less for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I received a public education as I assume most people on here have.  I have two college degrees and even though I received no scholarship, colleges are subsidized by the government.  I deal with high tech stuff that was largely developed at universities and national laboratories that are funded by the government.  So I can admit that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing without government assistance.  But unless you run a low tech sweatshop, neither can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont you get it?
> 
> Thats EXACTLY what the government wants you to believe....and thus why they give out subsidies...which were nothing more than political favors returned.
> 
> Frankilin needed government to invent the stove?
> To discvover the power of electricity?
> 
> Was it the government that assisted the Wright brothers?
> 
> Do you really believe the internet had no shot without the government?
> 
> No one would have done it oin their own?
> 
> Come on man....you need to see what you are saying.
Click to expand...


Frankilin needed government to invent the stove?
To discvover the power of electricity?

*Franklin worked for the Government for a good part of his life*

Was it the government that assisted the Wright brothers?

*The Wright Brothers got their first contract with the Army Signal Corps*


Do you really believe the internet had no shot without the government?

* The Government invented the internet, Army ARPANET*

In fact, the Government now finances a good portion of the R&D on energy, communications and medical research


----------



## BDBoop

Skull Pilot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficientlyWe can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  Thats how we funded the GI Bill.  Thats how we created the middle class.  Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet.  Thats how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea.  Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.
> 
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
Click to expand...


How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads?  etc.

No. You are NOT an island.


----------



## BDBoop

JoeNormal said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to his question was in several other posts. I'm just running out of different ways of saying the same thing and he'll probably never get it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't!
> 
> You just made excuses for why you lost your business, but one line made it clear, YOU JUST QUIT AND BLAMED EVERYBODY ELSE!
> 
> And BTW, I'm NOT a HE.  You are getting your ass kicked by a woman.
> 
> How's that for your "war on women?"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll be darned.  I kind of pictured you as a male, loser, high school dropout, wanna be internet tough guy posting from mom and dads basement.  Most women are smarter.
Click to expand...


And s/h/it thinks you're getting your ass kicked by s/h/it. Even funnier.


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.
> 
> So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?
> 
> And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They benefit no more than any other person could.
Click to expand...


In spite of what Mitt Romney says, companies are not people. A company benefits significantly more than Joe Taxpayer does. Roads, bridges, tunnels, snow removal enable your employees to get to work, your customers to reach your facility, supplies to come in and finished product to get out. A company profits much more than an individual from public services


----------



## Skull Pilot

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.
> 
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads?  etc.
> 
> No. You are NOT an island.
Click to expand...


FYI I did more than 90% of the code upgrades myself.  I worked 18 hours a day for 3 months just to open the doors.

I did that without a paycheck did any of you help me pay my bills, buy materials etc?

No.

No one but my wife and I risked anything. "society" was not sleeping on the floor with us during construction now was it?

I don't see why you sheep are so fixated on roads.  Businesses pay more for the use of roads than you do.  The roads are there and there is nothing stopping any of you people from getting the same benefit that a business does from them.

To say a person's business success was due to a road is just plain dumb.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

I heard one of the paid Oligarch callers on Mark Thompson call in yesterday and the new talking point is "worked my butt off"  these paid callers who say they own businesses, dont, of course.

They are feigning offense at Obama pointing out the obvious about the people they work for...

Most of the rightwing posters here that all of a sudden own their own business, dont...

for those few who do, shame on you for using our awesome infrastructure to make your profit and then claim you did it all on your own...shame shame shame


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They benefit no more than any other person could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of what Mitt Romney says, companies are not people. A company benefits significantly more than Joe Taxpayer does. Roads, bridges, tunnels, snow removal enable your employees to get to work, your customers to reach your facility, supplies to come in and finished product to get out. A company profits much more than an individual from public services
Click to expand...


And businesses pay much much more for those services than so employees.  Seems to me employees benefit more from business than from the fucking government.

And again any person could benefit to the same extent from roads as a business.


----------



## peach174

JoeNormal said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without roads, Jose's tamales and the customers would have never met.  Without a safe food supply, Jose probably would have tainted his customers.  Without police protection, some thug would have stolen Jose's money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
Click to expand...


Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.


----------



## BDBoop

Skull Pilot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.
> 
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads?  etc.
> 
> No. You are NOT an island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI I did more than 90% of the code upgrades myself.  I worked 18 hours a day for 3 months just to open the doors.
> 
> I did that without a paycheck did any of you help me pay my bills, buy materials etc?
> 
> No.
> 
> No one but my wife and I risked anything. "society" was not sleeping on the floor with us during construction now was it?
> 
> I don't see why you sheep are so fixated on roads.  Businesses pay more for the use of roads than you do.  The roads are there and there is nothing stopping any of you people from getting the same benefit that a business does from them.
> 
> To say a person's business success was due to a road is just plain dumb.
Click to expand...


You bought materials. From where. And how did they get to the store they were purchased at.

The. Roads. Need. Upgrading.

I'm sorry this upsets you, but unfortunately, use = wear & tear = need for repairs. Why does that anger you so badly!?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

BD, you are witnessing the power of propaganda on someone who isnt very bright to begin with, welcome to the entire republiklan party circa 2012...


----------



## Some Guy

rightwinger said:


> A company benefits significantly more than Joe Taxpayer does. Roads, bridges, tunnels, snow removal enable your employees to get to work, your customers to reach your facility, supplies to come in and finished product to get out. *A company profits much more than an individual from public services*



If you look at total volume.  But on a percentage basis, if an employee is required to be at the company location in order to hold and perform the job, isn't 100% of their own personal revenue based on that road being there?  If it isn't, not only could the company not perform what they do but the employee couldn't either.


----------



## rightwinger

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They benefit no more than any other person could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of what Mitt Romney says, companies are not people. A company benefits significantly more than Joe Taxpayer does. Roads, bridges, tunnels, snow removal enable your employees to get to work, your customers to reach your facility, supplies to come in and finished product to get out. A company profits much more than an individual from public services
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And businesses pay much much more for those services than so employees.  Seems to me employees benefit more from business than from the fucking government.
> 
> And again any person could benefit to the same extent from roads as a business.
Click to expand...


Its a two way street

Businesses make money off of every employee. A job is not charity. An employer receives labor which he makes a profit off of


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carter had the Iran Hostage crisis at the end of his term. Any hope of being elected went out the window as news networks gave a daily countdown of the days it had been going on.
> Romney is also no Reagan. He lacks the charisma and ability to generate enthusiasm within his voting base
> Barring a major game changing event in the next three months, it is unlikely Romney can swing enough votes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama already has his "Iranian crisis" X 2.
> 
> Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian nuke program.
> 
> Both have been allowed to fester and grow into real threats, yet he's worried about when Romney left Bain Capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is the best you have....Good luck
Click to expand...


The best I have?

Seems to me you've become complacent. 

What would it take.....mushroom clouds over Israel?

Another jet crashing into another skyscraper?

Libs threatening to drive our government of the preferbial cliff just cuz they want tax increases. 

Fucken asshole.


----------



## Wiseacre

The implied point that Obama is trying to make is that successful people owe the gov't more money.   To spin it any other way is dishonest, he wants to raise taxes on the top 1% and he is trying to use this nonsense as a reason to justify it.   

It is nonsense because while every successful person did get help along the way from somebody, they do not owe the gov't more taxes for whatever assistance the gov't may have provided, directly or otherwise.   It is the gov'ts job to provide roads and bridges, airposts and schools, national security and a state dept, for everyone's benefit.   Almost every person, successful or otherwise, already pays for that one way or another;  to suggest that they owe more is incoherent because all of us got the same benefit from gov't projects and programs.   A successful person made more out of it than did others, for a variety of reasons.   But it is illogical nonsense to say that for that reason the successful person owes more.

And BTW, they are already paying more than their fair share.   Who do you think gives the most to charities and public works?   Tell you what, when gov't stops wasting so much money, when they stop picking winners and losers, when they stop rewarding their benefactors, when they become a lot more efficient and effective with our money THEN we can talk about raising taxes.   Oh, and BTW, that'll be after those buttfucks close all the loopholes, tax breaks, subsidies, and rewrite the tax code.


----------



## Full-Auto

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads?  etc.
> 
> No. You are NOT an island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I did more than 90% of the code upgrades myself.  I worked 18 hours a day for 3 months just to open the doors.
> 
> I did that without a paycheck did any of you help me pay my bills, buy materials etc?
> 
> No.
> 
> No one but my wife and I risked anything. "society" was not sleeping on the floor with us during construction now was it?
> 
> I don't see why you sheep are so fixated on roads.  Businesses pay more for the use of roads than you do.  The roads are there and there is nothing stopping any of you people from getting the same benefit that a business does from them.
> 
> To say a person's business success was due to a road is just plain dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bought materials. From where. And how did they get to the store they were purchased at.
> 
> The. Roads. Need. Upgrading.
> 
> I'm sorry this upsets you, but unfortunately, use = wear & tear = need for repairs. Why does that anger you so badly!?
Click to expand...


Thats why we pay federal and state taxes on fuel.

Why does your side insist on pissing it away?


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, AND?
> WE THE PEOPLE pay for those things..what the hell don't you idiots get and KEEP regurgitating this bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.
Click to expand...


 With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama already has his "Iranian crisis" X 2.
> 
> Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian nuke program.
> 
> Both have been allowed to fester and grow into real threats, yet he's worried about when Romney left Bain Capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is the best you have....Good luck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best I have?
> 
> Seems to me you've become complacent.
> 
> *What would it take.....mushroom clouds over Israel?*
> Another jet crashing into another skyscraper?
> 
> GD liberal assholes.
Click to expand...


"The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud"

You guys used that one already


----------



## Skull Pilot

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads?  etc.
> 
> No. You are NOT an island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I did more than 90% of the code upgrades myself.  I worked 18 hours a day for 3 months just to open the doors.
> 
> I did that without a paycheck did any of you help me pay my bills, buy materials etc?
> 
> No.
> 
> No one but my wife and I risked anything. "society" was not sleeping on the floor with us during construction now was it?
> 
> I don't see why you sheep are so fixated on roads.  Businesses pay more for the use of roads than you do.  The roads are there and there is nothing stopping any of you people from getting the same benefit that a business does from them.
> 
> To say a person's business success was due to a road is just plain dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bought materials. From where. And how did they get to the store they were purchased at.
> 
> The. Roads. Need. Upgrading.
> 
> I'm sorry this upsets you, but unfortunately, use = wear & tear = need for repairs. Why does that anger you so badly!?
Click to expand...




I bought them no one else so it doesn't matter where I bought them from.

I don't take credit for the success of Home Depot just because I bought some fucking Sheetrock from them.  The fact is I paid for the materials no one in "society" did.

No one from "society" worked with me to open my business.  I paid people do do stuff or I did it myself. No one from "society" would have" worked with me" if I didn't pay them.

So in no way does "society" have any claim on the success of my business.

Roads are not responsible for the success of a business.  The fucking roads were there before i opened they will be there when I sell or close shop.  Anyone can use roads.  Anyone can open a business that is accessed by a road it is a non issue today.

It might have been an issue 200 years ago when there actually were no roads.


----------



## Some Guy

rightwinger said:


> Businesses make money off of every employee. A job is not charity. An employer receives labor which he makes a profit off of



And employees make money off every employer.


----------



## BDBoop

Wiseacre said:


> The implied point that Obama is trying to make is that successful people owe the gov't more money.   To spin it any other way is dishonest, he wants to raise taxes on the top 1% and he is trying to use this nonsense as a reason to justify it.
> 
> It is nonsense because while every successful person did get help along the way from somebody, they do not owe the gov't more taxes for whatever assistance the gov't may have provided, directly or otherwise.   It is the gov'ts job to provide roads and bridges, airposts and schools, national security and a state dept, for everyone's benefit.   Almost every person, successful or otherwise, already pays for that one way or another;  to suggest that they owe more is incoherent because all of us got the same benefit from gov't projects and programs.   A successful person made more out of it than did others, for a variety of reasons.   But it is illogical nonsense to say that for that reason the successful person owes more.
> 
> And BTW, they are already paying more than their fair share.   Who do you think gives the most to charities and public works?   Tell you what, when gov't stops wasting so much money, when they stop picking winners and losers, when they stop rewarding their benefactors, when they become a lot more efficient and effective with our money THEN we can talk about raising taxes.   Oh, and BTW, that'll be after those buttfucks close all the loopholes, tax breaks, subsidies, and rewrite the tax code.



They are at the lowest rate they've ever been, and have been so for quite long enough. Maybe if we weren't losing so much money on tax havens the likes of which Mr. Romney is happily utilizing, taxes wouldn't need to be raised? It's RIDICULOUS that Romney pays less than 15%. Simply ridiculous.


----------



## Wiseacre

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
Click to expand...



Too stupid, dude.   Roads have been around for centuries, the Romans built some very nice ones.   In the US, we've been building roads since 1625;  the first macadam roads were around 200 years ago, well before the invention of the auto.


----------



## teapartysamurai

jillian said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that if you were president you would have marched into Iran and stopped them?
> The Muslim brotherhood was elected by the people of Egypt, hate democracy do ya?
> You have all the answers all the time, but you have no power. Ahhhh, you missed your chance to be world leader and do it ;"My waaayyyyy"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was "elected" like the Mullahs in Iran.
> 
> Because an incompetent president pulled support from a more reasonable leader and allowed absolute zealots to take over.
> 
> You libs can scream about the evils of the Shah, but does anyone believe the people are better off under the Mullahs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your own personal beliefs about what's better in another country in that regard don't really matter.
> 
> what if iraq had decided the appointment of bush to the presidency endangered it (which it did)... did it have the right to send troops here and depose the leader of a sovereign nation... even though he was only appointed.
Click to expand...

 
What are you talking about?

No one sent troops to Iran OR Egypt!

Jimmy Carter pulled our support of the Shah which allowed the radical Mullahs to take over!

No one is saying the Shah was a good guy, but who do you think the people of Iran prospered under, the Shah or the Mullahs?

Why are there so many Iranians who want to get rid of the Mullahs if they are so much more preferable than the Shah?

Same goes with Mubarik.  NO ONE is aying Mubarik was a good guy.  But he kept things stable with Israel.

Does ANYONE have the belief that will be the case with Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood?

THINK!  Stop reacting emotionally an employ that brain God gave you!


----------



## Lovebears65

Guess what people .. The government would not have any money if it wasnt for the TAXPAYERs. and since over 50 percent dont pay for federal taxes , unlike the small business owners. They need to shut the f up  period ...


----------



## asaratis

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of what Mitt Romney says, companies are not people. A company benefits significantly more than Joe Taxpayer does. Roads, bridges, tunnels, snow removal enable your employees to get to work, your customers to reach your facility, supplies to come in and finished product to get out. A company profits much more than an individual from public services
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And businesses pay much much more for those services than so employees.  Seems to me employees benefit more from business than from the fucking government.
> 
> And again any person could benefit to the same extent from roads as a business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a two way street
> *
> Businesses make money off of every employee.* A job is not charity. An employer receives labor which he makes a profit off of
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.  There are certain maintenance jobs that do not create company profits.  The janitor, the maintenance man and others like that do not make a profit for the company.  They are a necessary cost to maintaining a business environment.

The Owner does (as he should) earn a profit off the labor and talents of his employees.  This (after paying taxes from) he either keeps or invests back into the business by purchasing goods and equipment or providing more jobs.


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.
> 
> So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?
> 
> And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficientlyWe can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
Click to expand...

 
Truncated MY ASS!  Rush Limbaugh played all this yesterday.  The Internet has had the ENTIRE TRASCRIPT FOR DAYS!

You morons on the left think WE ONLY GET OUR NEWS FROM FOX!  And that's because YOU are obsessed with Fox.  

(the truth is, I hardly ever watch Fox)

And what you posted IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SAYING.

He's saying business owners didn't do it themselves so they OWE THE GOVERNMENT.

Owe it to a teacher?  AKA THE TEACHER'S UNION!

It didn't change ANYTHING, it just made it more clear that Obama means we should take the money away from those who made the money to give to people who think they are OWED the money.


----------



## Claudette

Skull Pilot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I did more than 90% of the code upgrades myself.  I worked 18 hours a day for 3 months just to open the doors.
> 
> I did that without a paycheck did any of you help me pay my bills, buy materials etc?
> 
> No.
> 
> No one but my wife and I risked anything. "society" was not sleeping on the floor with us during construction now was it?
> 
> I don't see why you sheep are so fixated on roads.  Businesses pay more for the use of roads than you do.  The roads are there and there is nothing stopping any of you people from getting the same benefit that a business does from them.
> 
> To say a person's business success was due to a road is just plain dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You bought materials. From where. And how did they get to the store they were purchased at.
> 
> The. Roads. Need. Upgrading.
> 
> I'm sorry this upsets you, but unfortunately, use = wear & tear = need for repairs. Why does that anger you so badly!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bought them no one else so it doesn't matter where I bought them from.
> 
> I don't take credit for the success of Home Depot just because I bought some fucking Sheetrock from them.  The fact is I paid for the materials no one in "society" did.
> 
> No one from "society" worked with me to open my business.  I paid people do do stuff or I did it myself. No one from "society" would have" worked with me" if I didn't pay them.
> 
> So in no way does "society" have any claim on the success of my business.
> 
> Roads are not responsible for the success of a business.  The fucking roads were there before i opened they will be there when I sell or close shop.  Anyone can use roads.  Anyone can open a business that is accessed by a road it is a non issue today.
> 
> It might have been an issue 200 years ago when there actually were no roads.
Click to expand...


LOL Skull you bought material from ANOTHER BUSINESS which the Govt had no hand in establishing. 

As for the roads. Those are payed for with tax dollars. State, local or Fed dollars. You pay taxes therefore you, me and every other taxpayer built the roads. 


Those dollars come from Business and citizens.  Therefore we, the taxpayer, are the direct funders for everything the Govt does.  Roads, Bridges you name it. If we weren't there to provide the taxdollars the Govt couldn't do shit. 

The people and other businesses also buy the products business produces. Again, the Govt has no hand in any of it. 

Without our money the Govt is a big fat nothing.


----------



## BDBoop

Wiseacre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid, dude.   Roads have been around for centuries, the Romans built some very nice ones.   In the US, we've been building roads since 1625;  the first macadam roads were around 200 years ago, well before the invention of the auto.
Click to expand...


We didn't have interstates.


----------



## teapartysamurai

regent said:


> I wonder how many of us actually think we did this life-thing on our own? If that were true it means we had to deliver ourselves at birth, feed ourselves, change our diapers, and where did we get the diapers? Man is a dependent creature. But the amzaing part is that some actually see themselves as getting there on their own. They fail to see how dependent we are throughout our lives, so dependent many of can't even bury ourselves when it's over. We got there on our own is some sort of self-delusion. One thing is certain in this life we don't get there on our own. We do, however, use all sorts things, ideas, and other man-made stuff about us to survive. Perhaps one of the best things some select, is wealthy parents.


 
Did you come up with that bullshit all by yourself?


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is the best you have....Good luck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best I have?
> 
> Seems to me you've become complacent.
> 
> *What would it take.....mushroom clouds over Israel?*
> Another jet crashing into another skyscraper?
> 
> GD liberal assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud"
> 
> You guys used that one already
Click to expand...


You pasty faced rimjobbers have been using tax the rich since Jimmy Carter. 

We're seeing history repeat itself. You never change your rhetoric. It just gets more absurd.


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> Oh, and by the way.


 
Hellooooooooooooooooooooo!

That's is what YOU ARE CLAIMING!

Classic!

Liberals always condemn in others WHAT THEY ARROGANTLY CANNOT SEE IN THEMSELVES!

Just Classic!


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was "elected" like the Mullahs in Iran.
> 
> Because an incompetent president pulled support from a more reasonable leader and allowed absolute zealots to take over.
> 
> You libs can scream about the evils of the Shah, but does anyone believe the people are better off under the Mullahs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your own personal beliefs about what's better in another country in that regard don't really matter.
> 
> what if iraq had decided the appointment of bush to the presidency endangered it (which it did)... did it have the right to send troops here and depose the leader of a sovereign nation... even though he was only appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AHA!! Simultaneous posting, I am NOT your sock!! BooYAH!!
Click to expand...

 

Oh, I never said you guys were socks of each other.

I just confused you both with each other because you had similar avatars.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so obsessed with Obama? He wasn't in charge for very much of that time. Is your business in trouble and you think it's all his fault?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how you give thanks to the uncounted millions that have made you the man you are today. How does one properly worship government without reserving some piety for the head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's official. Your hatred of this man has consumed you.
Click to expand...

 
Liberal speak - "Hate" = A conservative that's speaking clearly, logically, and the liberal cannot refute them.


----------



## rightwinger

Wiseacre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid, dude.   Roads have been around for centuries, the Romans built some very nice ones.   In the US, we've been building roads since 1625;  the first macadam roads were around 200 years ago, well before the invention of the auto.
Click to expand...


Too stupid dude..

At the beginning of this country people covered large distances by boat across a network f rivers, lakes and canals. It was cheaper to ship goods to England than it was to ship goods 50 miles away across a shoddy network of roads
Once rails came, it opened up the country and made transportation around the United States relatively fast and inexpensive

Early automobiles were just a novelty. There were not enough good roads around to justify the expenditure. In early contests between horses and automobiles, the horses won. The cars could not travel the muddy, potholed, dusty paths that passed for roads

It was the public investment in improving our highway and road system that made automobiles worth the investment


----------



## Wiseacre

BDBoop said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The implied point that Obama is trying to make is that successful people owe the gov't more money.   To spin it any other way is dishonest, he wants to raise taxes on the top 1% and he is trying to use this nonsense as a reason to justify it.
> 
> It is nonsense because while every successful person did get help along the way from somebody, they do not owe the gov't more taxes for whatever assistance the gov't may have provided, directly or otherwise.   It is the gov'ts job to provide roads and bridges, airposts and schools, national security and a state dept, for everyone's benefit.   Almost every person, successful or otherwise, already pays for that one way or another;  to suggest that they owe more is incoherent because all of us got the same benefit from gov't projects and programs.   A successful person made more out of it than did others, for a variety of reasons.   But it is illogical nonsense to say that for that reason the successful person owes more.
> 
> And BTW, they are already paying more than their fair share.   Who do you think gives the most to charities and public works?   Tell you what, when gov't stops wasting so much money, when they stop picking winners and losers, when they stop rewarding their benefactors, when they become a lot more efficient and effective with our money THEN we can talk about raising taxes.   Oh, and BTW, that'll be after those buttfucks close all the loopholes, tax breaks, subsidies, and rewrite the tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are at the lowest rate they've ever been, and have been so for quite long enough. Maybe if we weren't losing so much money on tax havens the likes of which Mr. Romney is happily utilizing, taxes wouldn't need to be raised? It's RIDICULOUS that Romney pays less than 15%. Simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...



C'mon now, you don't think rich democrats aren't doing the same?   Isn't it a bit disingenuous to point the finger just at Romney?   

How come no outrage at Warren Buffet for putting over a billion dollars into Bill Gates' Foundation last year, a tax haven?   He did with the specific req't that the money would not be taxed, wouldn't have made the contribution otherwise.   What are the ramifications of limiting or eliminating tax havens?   What'll be the unintended consequences?   

You say it's ridiculous that a rich guy like Romney pays only 15% or less.   after the first of the year, unless the Bush Tax Cuts are extended for the top 1%, the tax rate for dividends and cap gains goes up dramatically;   goes up even more if the ACA is not changed or repealed.   Do you really think this economy can withstand that?


----------



## teapartysamurai

jillian said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is being hateful all you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHA!
> 
> This is typical of leftists.
> 
> There is nothing more "hateful" than telling the TRUTH about a liberal!
> 
> And when you do, AND THEY CAN'T DENY IT, they just drop the subject and start calling you names.
> 
> NOTICE IT WASN'T "HATEFUL" OF MOONGLOW THE HYPOCRITE to call US names, or the Tea Party names.
> 
> NOOOOOOOOO, it's ONLY HATEFUL if you tell the truth about a liberal!
> 
> Typical hypocrisy!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow... was that supposed to pass for discussion.
> 
> kinda pathetic there, tps... trolling even by your standards.
Click to expand...

 
Aka you cannot deny, I nailed him on his own hypocrisy, so you will just attack.

What'd I tell you?  When libs are losing, they just attack!


----------



## teapartysamurai

jillian said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Liberals are so dependent that they never advance BEYOND the fetal stage...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you know, oh braindead toon, you keep making comments like that. yet i know i've been working since i was 15.
> 
> and now we all look forward to you telling us what you do in order to be a productive member of society.
> 
> besides play the troll, of course.
Click to expand...

 
Then what are you doing here this time of the day?


----------



## teapartysamurai

JoeNormal said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to his question was in several other posts. I'm just running out of different ways of saying the same thing and he'll probably never get it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't!
> 
> You just made excuses for why you lost your business, but one line made it clear, YOU JUST QUIT AND BLAMED EVERYBODY ELSE!
> 
> And BTW, I'm NOT a HE. You are getting your ass kicked by a woman.
> 
> How's that for your "war on women?"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll be darned. I kind of pictured you as a male, loser, high school dropout, wanna be internet tough guy posting from mom and dads basement. Most women are smarter.
Click to expand...

 
See what I told you?

When libs are losing, they claim they are winning anyway, and then just call names.

Notice he is no longer even discussing the topic of the thread?


----------



## mudwhistle

Wiseacre said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The implied point that Obama is trying to make is that successful people owe the gov't more money.   To spin it any other way is dishonest, he wants to raise taxes on the top 1% and he is trying to use this nonsense as a reason to justify it.
> 
> It is nonsense because while every successful person did get help along the way from somebody, they do not owe the gov't more taxes for whatever assistance the gov't may have provided, directly or otherwise.   It is the gov'ts job to provide roads and bridges, airposts and schools, national security and a state dept, for everyone's benefit.   Almost every person, successful or otherwise, already pays for that one way or another;  to suggest that they owe more is incoherent because all of us got the same benefit from gov't projects and programs.   A successful person made more out of it than did others, for a variety of reasons.   But it is illogical nonsense to say that for that reason the successful person owes more.
> 
> And BTW, they are already paying more than their fair share.   Who do you think gives the most to charities and public works?   Tell you what, when gov't stops wasting so much money, when they stop picking winners and losers, when they stop rewarding their benefactors, when they become a lot more efficient and effective with our money THEN we can talk about raising taxes.   Oh, and BTW, that'll be after those buttfucks close all the loopholes, tax breaks, subsidies, and rewrite the tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are at the lowest rate they've ever been, and have been so for quite long enough. Maybe if we weren't losing so much money on tax havens the likes of which Mr. Romney is happily utilizing, taxes wouldn't need to be raised? It's RIDICULOUS that Romney pays less than 15%. Simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon now, you don't think rich democrats aren't doing the same?   Isn't it a bit disingenuous to point the finger just at Romney?
> 
> How come no outrage at Warren Buffet for putting over a billion dollars into Bill Gates' Foundation last year, a tax haven?   He did with the specific req't that the money would not be taxed, wouldn't have made the contribution otherwise.   What are the ramifications of limiting or eliminating tax havens?   What'll be the unintended consequences?
> 
> You say it's ridiculous that a rich guy like Romney pays only 15% or less.   after the first of the year, unless the Bush Tax Cuts are extended for the top 1%, the tax rate for dividends and cap gains goes up dramatically;   goes up even more if the ACA is not changed or repealed.   Do you really think this economy can withstand that?
Click to expand...


Jeffery Fucken Immelt......Obama's jobs czar.....CEO of General Electric.....paid ZERO Motherfucken Taxes!!!!

Tax the Rich????

Gimme a fucken break.


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean? Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans. I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.
> 
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed? Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads? etc.
> 
> No. You are NOT an island.
Click to expand...

 
You act like they didn't pay for any of these goods, services, or employees!

Where do you think businesses get these things.  The government just gives them to businesses for free?

I swear, I think you believe that!


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't!
> 
> You just made excuses for why you lost your business, but one line made it clear, YOU JUST QUIT AND BLAMED EVERYBODY ELSE!
> 
> And BTW, I'm NOT a HE. You are getting your ass kicked by a woman.
> 
> How's that for your "war on women?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be darned. I kind of pictured you as a male, loser, high school dropout, wanna be internet tough guy posting from mom and dads basement. Most women are smarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And s/h/it thinks you're getting your ass kicked by s/h/it. Even funnier.
Click to expand...

 
No, the sad thing is, you think you are kicking ass!


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They benefit no more than any other person could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of what Mitt Romney says, companies are not people. A company benefits significantly more than Joe Taxpayer does. Roads, bridges, tunnels, snow removal enable your employees to get to work, your customers to reach your facility, supplies to come in and finished product to get out. A company profits much more than an individual from public services
Click to expand...

 
Hey dumbass!

By that argument, Unions are not people!

Governments are not people!

We living in this house are not people!

Why we are all not people, because we benefit from the same things!!!!!!!!!!!!

Idiot!


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> I heard one of the paid Oligarch callers on Mark Thompson call in yesterday and the new talking point is "worked my butt off" these paid callers who say they own businesses, dont, of course.
> 
> They are feigning offense at Obama pointing out the obvious about the people they work for...
> 
> Most of the rightwing posters here that all of a sudden own their own business, dont...
> 
> for those few who do, shame on you for using our awesome infrastructure to make your profit and then claim you did it all on your own...shame shame shame


 
Please keep posting!

I want every voter in America to read you.

You will guarrantee an Obama defeat!


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads? etc.
> 
> No. You are NOT an island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I did more than 90% of the code upgrades myself. I worked 18 hours a day for 3 months just to open the doors.
> 
> I did that without a paycheck did any of you help me pay my bills, buy materials etc?
> 
> No.
> 
> No one but my wife and I risked anything. "society" was not sleeping on the floor with us during construction now was it?
> 
> I don't see why you sheep are so fixated on roads. Businesses pay more for the use of roads than you do. The roads are there and there is nothing stopping any of you people from getting the same benefit that a business does from them.
> 
> To say a person's business success was due to a road is just plain dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bought materials. From where. And how did they get to the store they were purchased at.
> 
> The. Roads. Need. Upgrading.
> 
> I'm sorry this upsets you, but unfortunately, use = wear & tear = need for repairs. Why does that anger you so badly!?
Click to expand...

 

What came first genius?  The entenpreneur who invented the car, or the governmemnt who built the roads?

What came first?  The company that produced the cement, tar, and black top for roads, or the government needing them for roads?

and you idiots talk about what's obvious?


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> BD, you are witnessing the power of propaganda on someone who isnt very bright to begin with, welcome to the entire republiklan party circa 2012...


 
Another example.  Liberals condemn in others what they arrogantly (and in this case laughingly) refuse to see in themselves.


----------



## peach174

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. *Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on*
Click to expand...



Yes, they did.
It was Henry Ford who invented the assembly line and made the auto affordable that made the automotive industry take off.
People were driving without roads many got stuck in the mud. Most were dirt roads.
Watch this at 4:30 on and it explains about no roads to city streets and why the Model T had to be built to handle anything.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4KrIMZpwCY]Ford Model T - 100 Years Later - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mudwhistle

With this speech. 

"You didn't build anything"......Obama is showing us why nobody wants to invest in America the way they used to. 

He's not only telling the rich he doesn't repect their accomplishments, their success, he's telling the rest of us poor and middle-class that we can't succeed. Why even try anymore?


----------



## Sallow

Skull Pilot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.
> 
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads?  etc.
> 
> No. You are NOT an island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI I did more than 90% of the code upgrades myself.  I worked 18 hours a day for 3 months just to open the doors.
> 
> I did that without a paycheck did any of you help me pay my bills, buy materials etc?
> 
> No.
> 
> No one but my wife and I risked anything. "society" was not sleeping on the floor with us during construction now was it?
> 
> I* don't see why you sheep are so fixated on roads.  Businesses pay more for the use of roads than you do.  The roads are there and there is nothing stopping any of you people from getting the same benefit that a business does from them*.
> 
> To say a person's business success was due to a road is just plain dumb.
Click to expand...


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of what Mitt Romney says, companies are not people. A company benefits significantly more than Joe Taxpayer does. Roads, bridges, tunnels, snow removal enable your employees to get to work, your customers to reach your facility, supplies to come in and finished product to get out. A company profits much more than an individual from public services
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And businesses pay much much more for those services than so employees. Seems to me employees benefit more from business than from the fucking government.
> 
> And again any person could benefit to the same extent from roads as a business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a two way street
> 
> Businesses make money off of every employee. A job is not charity. An employer receives labor which he makes a profit off of
Click to expand...

 
And the employee doen't benefit from the job?

The government doesn't benefit from the taxes that guys pays from the job?

The economy doesn't benefit, thus the government benefit from the money this employee spends to fund other businesses, who create other jobs??

Did government create all this, or the entenpreneur?


----------



## DiamondDave

BDBoop said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The implied point that Obama is trying to make is that successful people owe the gov't more money.   To spin it any other way is dishonest, he wants to raise taxes on the top 1% and he is trying to use this nonsense as a reason to justify it.
> 
> It is nonsense because while every successful person did get help along the way from somebody, they do not owe the gov't more taxes for whatever assistance the gov't may have provided, directly or otherwise.   It is the gov'ts job to provide roads and bridges, airposts and schools, national security and a state dept, for everyone's benefit.   Almost every person, successful or otherwise, already pays for that one way or another;  to suggest that they owe more is incoherent because all of us got the same benefit from gov't projects and programs.   A successful person made more out of it than did others, for a variety of reasons.   But it is illogical nonsense to say that for that reason the successful person owes more.
> 
> And BTW, they are already paying more than their fair share.   Who do you think gives the most to charities and public works?   Tell you what, when gov't stops wasting so much money, when they stop picking winners and losers, when they stop rewarding their benefactors, when they become a lot more efficient and effective with our money THEN we can talk about raising taxes.   Oh, and BTW, that'll be after those buttfucks close all the loopholes, tax breaks, subsidies, and rewrite the tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are at the lowest rate they've ever been, and have been so for quite long enough. Maybe if we weren't losing so much money on tax havens the likes of which Mr. Romney is happily utilizing, taxes wouldn't need to be raised? It's RIDICULOUS that Romney pays less than 15%. Simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Do you actually know the laws with offshore accounts?

Probably not.. or you would not be blowing the amount of hot air that you are

Offshore banks do not prevent tax being paid on interest earned... the IRS is pretty much a stickler on this... in the US, if you are caught sneaking, it is a charge of perjury

What is ridiculous is that anyone pays over 15%... well.. that in combination with HUGE numbers of people paying ZERO%


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white. Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue. It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
Click to expand...

 
What?????????

The expressway wasn't even a reality until the 50s!

In both cases the car, and even the materials to BUILD ROADS, THE BUSINESS CAME FIRST, NOT THE GOVENMENT!


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is the best you have....Good luck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best I have?
> 
> Seems to me you've become complacent.
> 
> *What would it take.....mushroom clouds over Israel?*
> Another jet crashing into another skyscraper?
> 
> GD liberal assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud"
> 
> You guys used that one already
Click to expand...

 
And apparently, you still can't refute it.


----------



## Sallow

Skull Pilot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficientlyWe can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  Thats how we funded the GI Bill.  Thats how we created the middle class.  Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet.  Thats how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea.  Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> *Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.*
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute.

You borrowed money?

What the fuck.

You borrowed money?

Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.

Why didn't you have the cash on hand?

Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.

That's so freaking typical.

Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.

So disappointing.


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The implied point that Obama is trying to make is that successful people owe the gov't more money. To spin it any other way is dishonest, he wants to raise taxes on the top 1% and he is trying to use this nonsense as a reason to justify it.
> 
> It is nonsense because while every successful person did get help along the way from somebody, they do not owe the gov't more taxes for whatever assistance the gov't may have provided, directly or otherwise. It is the gov'ts job to provide roads and bridges, airposts and schools, national security and a state dept, for everyone's benefit. Almost every person, successful or otherwise, already pays for that one way or another; to suggest that they owe more is incoherent because all of us got the same benefit from gov't projects and programs. A successful person made more out of it than did others, for a variety of reasons. But it is illogical nonsense to say that for that reason the successful person owes more.
> 
> And BTW, they are already paying more than their fair share. Who do you think gives the most to charities and public works? Tell you what, when gov't stops wasting so much money, when they stop picking winners and losers, when they stop rewarding their benefactors, when they become a lot more efficient and effective with our money THEN we can talk about raising taxes. Oh, and BTW, that'll be after those buttfucks close all the loopholes, tax breaks, subsidies, and rewrite the tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are at the lowest rate they've ever been, and have been so for quite long enough. Maybe if we weren't losing so much money on tax havens the likes of which Mr. Romney is happily utilizing, taxes wouldn't need to be raised? It's RIDICULOUS that Romney pays less than 15%. Simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

 

Our corporate rate (for example) is one of the HIGHEST IN THE WORLD!

And if you want to complain about capital gains, it was Clinton that signed the reduction in capital gains into law.

Funny that after he did, Tax revenues into Washington, went WAY UP!


----------



## BDBoop

Wiseacre said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The implied point that Obama is trying to make is that successful people owe the gov't more money.   To spin it any other way is dishonest, he wants to raise taxes on the top 1% and he is trying to use this nonsense as a reason to justify it.
> 
> It is nonsense because while every successful person did get help along the way from somebody, they do not owe the gov't more taxes for whatever assistance the gov't may have provided, directly or otherwise.   It is the gov'ts job to provide roads and bridges, airposts and schools, national security and a state dept, for everyone's benefit.   Almost every person, successful or otherwise, already pays for that one way or another;  to suggest that they owe more is incoherent because all of us got the same benefit from gov't projects and programs.   A successful person made more out of it than did others, for a variety of reasons.   But it is illogical nonsense to say that for that reason the successful person owes more.
> 
> And BTW, they are already paying more than their fair share.   Who do you think gives the most to charities and public works?   Tell you what, when gov't stops wasting so much money, when they stop picking winners and losers, when they stop rewarding their benefactors, when they become a lot more efficient and effective with our money THEN we can talk about raising taxes.   Oh, and BTW, that'll be after those buttfucks close all the loopholes, tax breaks, subsidies, and rewrite the tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are at the lowest rate they've ever been, and have been so for quite long enough. Maybe if we weren't losing so much money on tax havens the likes of which Mr. Romney is happily utilizing, taxes wouldn't need to be raised? It's RIDICULOUS that Romney pays less than 15%. Simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon now, you don't think rich democrats aren't doing the same?   Isn't it a bit disingenuous to point the finger just at Romney?
> 
> How come no outrage at Warren Buffet for putting over a billion dollars into Bill Gates' Foundation last year, a tax haven?   He did with the specific req't that the money would not be taxed, wouldn't have made the contribution otherwise.   What are the ramifications of limiting or eliminating tax havens?   What'll be the unintended consequences?
> 
> You say it's ridiculous that a rich guy like Romney pays only 15% or less.   after the first of the year, unless the Bush Tax Cuts are extended for the top 1%, the tax rate for dividends and cap gains goes up dramatically;   goes up even more if the ACA is not changed or repealed.   Do you really think this economy can withstand that?
Click to expand...


Just at Romney - he who is RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid, dude. Roads have been around for centuries, the Romans built some very nice ones. In the US, we've been building roads since 1625; the first macadam roads were around 200 years ago, well before the invention of the auto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't have interstates.
Click to expand...

 
INTERSTATES DIDN'T COME ALONG UNTIL THE EISENHOWER ADMIN YOU MORON!

The car was invented in 1903!


----------



## BDBoop

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> *Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.*
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
Click to expand...


 Oh, the HUMANITY!!!


----------



## mudwhistle

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> *Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.*
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
Click to expand...


Nope, not just banks but venture-capitalist groups like Bain Capital made much of the wealth in America possible. The government had little to do with it. 

The only thing government did for my business was set up road-blocks for fuck's sake. 

Obama has his head up his ass cuz he walked right into that one....and so did you. Lol.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads? etc.
> 
> No. You are NOT an island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I did more than 90% of the code upgrades myself. I worked 18 hours a day for 3 months just to open the doors.
> 
> I did that without a paycheck did any of you help me pay my bills, buy materials etc?
> 
> No.
> 
> No one but my wife and I risked anything. "society" was not sleeping on the floor with us during construction now was it?
> 
> I* don't see why you sheep are so fixated on roads. Businesses pay more for the use of roads than you do. The roads are there and there is nothing stopping any of you people from getting the same benefit that a business does from them*.
> 
> To say a person's business success was due to a road is just plain dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
This is typical of libs.  He can't refute, but he will act like he can by laughing.

But are you claiming YOU (for example) pay as much in taxes for roads, as say Wonder Bread, who has thousands of delivery trucks using those roads and buying gasoline (thus paying road taxes)?

You libs wouldn't know logic or common sense if it ran over you like a Wonder Bread Truck.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> *Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.*
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not just banks but venture-capitalist groups like Bain Capital made much of the wealth in America possible. The government had little to do with it.
> 
> The only thing government did for my business was set up road-blocks for fuck's sake.
> 
> Obama has his head up his ass cuz he walked right into that one....and so did you. Lol.
Click to expand...


these are fast becoming not just the stupidest comments (not picking on you personally, pretty much all of you rightwingers have entirely and completely lost your minds) in history, but if we allowed these lower middle class white bagger bigots to run things, the country would be done very very quickly...

It is being dismantled now, and getting these dumb baggers to believe this garbage is why we are always fighting each other, well that and they hate people that dont look exactly like them...


----------



## teapartysamurai

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean? Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> *Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans. I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.*
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed? Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
Click to expand...

 
Hey!  Once upon a time, JACKASS, the banks weren't owned by the government!

Obama did that!

idiot!


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are at the lowest rate they've ever been, and have been so for quite long enough. Maybe if we weren't losing so much money on tax havens the likes of which Mr. Romney is happily utilizing, taxes wouldn't need to be raised? It's RIDICULOUS that Romney pays less than 15%. Simply ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon now, you don't think rich democrats aren't doing the same? Isn't it a bit disingenuous to point the finger just at Romney?
> 
> How come no outrage at Warren Buffet for putting over a billion dollars into Bill Gates' Foundation last year, a tax haven? He did with the specific req't that the money would not be taxed, wouldn't have made the contribution otherwise. What are the ramifications of limiting or eliminating tax havens? What'll be the unintended consequences?
> 
> You say it's ridiculous that a rich guy like Romney pays only 15% or less. after the first of the year, unless the Bush Tax Cuts are extended for the top 1%, the tax rate for dividends and cap gains goes up dramatically; goes up even more if the ACA is not changed or repealed. Do you really think this economy can withstand that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just at Romney - he who is RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
Click to expand...

 
Are you saying Obama isn't rich!

Hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooo brain of BDBOOP!  Are you in there?  

I kind of doubt it!


----------



## chikenwing

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> *Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.*
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
Click to expand...


?????  The bank is now the Gov??

Could you be more dense?


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean? Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> *Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans. I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.*
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed? Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the HUMANITY!!!
Click to expand...

 
Apparently, this is another idiot who thinks the government always owned banks!


----------



## ConzHateUSA

tea party

LOLOLOL

god, if they only knew why their agenda was the opposite of the actual history they think they are repeating


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not just banks but venture-capitalist groups like Bain Capital made much of the wealth in America possible. The government had little to do with it.
> 
> The only thing government did for my business was set up road-blocks for fuck's sake.
> 
> Obama has his head up his ass cuz he walked right into that one....and so did you. Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> these are fast becoming not just the stupidest comments (not picking on you personally, pretty much all of you rightwingers have entirely and completely lost your minds) in history, but if we allowed these lower middle class white bagger bigots to run things, the country would be done very very quickly...
> 
> It is being dismantled now, and getting these dumb baggers to believe this garbage is why we are always fighting each other, well that and they hate people that dont look exactly like them...
Click to expand...

 
I don't want anyone to even try and explain to this idiot how stupid he sounds.  

I want him to be heard loud and clear.  THIS IS YOUR OBAMA SUPPORTER!

This is what Obama wants in voters!

Remember this in November and vote!


----------



## Katzndogz

Skull Pilot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficientlyWe can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  Thats how we funded the GI Bill.  Thats how we created the middle class.  Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet.  Thats how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea.  Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.
> 
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
Click to expand...


What the vile little insect, obama is saying is that no matter how hard you work, no matter how smart you are, no matter what you invent or innovate, you OWE it to the government.   No matter what you have personally sacrificed, the government did it.


----------



## teapartysamurai

chikenwing said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean? Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> *Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans. I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.*
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed? Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????? The bank is now the Gov??
> 
> Could you be more dense?
Click to expand...

 
Well a few of them are (might as well say) owned by Obama, but that hardly makes it true for all banks OR was the reality prior to the Obama admin.

But I agree.  Pretty stupid!


----------



## teapartysamurai

Hey IDIOT LIBS.

You given up on the idea on talking abouit the interstate?

You learned the interstate came approximately 50 YEARS AFTER the car?

I knew this, and it happened before I was born.

What is your idiot excuse!


----------



## chikenwing

ConzHateUSA said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not just banks but venture-capitalist groups like Bain Capital made much of the wealth in America possible. The government had little to do with it.
> 
> The only thing government did for my business was set up road-blocks for fuck's sake.
> 
> Obama has his head up his ass cuz he walked right into that one....and so did you. Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> these are fast becoming not just the stupidest comments (not picking on you personally, pretty much all of you rightwingers have entirely and completely lost your minds) in history, but if we allowed these lower middle class white bagger bigots to run things, the country would be done very very quickly...
> 
> It is being dismantled now, and getting these dumb baggers to believe this garbage is why we are always fighting each other, well that and they hate people that dont look exactly like them...
Click to expand...


Not much of a bigot yourself?  and what does this blather have to do with topic??

This is the type that does just what they are pointing fingers at others for. Its like reading a cheap paperback,quick easy and rather empty in content.


----------



## teapartysamurai

teapartysamurai said:


> Hey IDIOT LIBS.
> 
> You given up on the idea on talking abouit the interstate?
> 
> You learned the interstate came approximately 50 YEARS AFTER the car?
> 
> I knew this, and it happened before I was born.
> 
> What is your idiot excuse!


 
BWAHAHAHAHAA!

I just got negged repped for this comment:




> Comment:
> you really shouldn\'t call anyone else an idiot



But If I'm the idiot.  How come you libs are the ones negging and runnning away.

Come on in and refute me, if you can.

You're just mad I'm right, and you can't do anything about it!


----------



## teapartysamurai

chikenwing said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not just banks but venture-capitalist groups like Bain Capital made much of the wealth in America possible. The government had little to do with it.
> 
> The only thing government did for my business was set up road-blocks for fuck's sake.
> 
> Obama has his head up his ass cuz he walked right into that one....and so did you. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> these are fast becoming not just the stupidest comments (not picking on you personally, pretty much all of you rightwingers have entirely and completely lost your minds) in history, but if we allowed these lower middle class white bagger bigots to run things, the country would be done very very quickly...
> 
> It is being dismantled now, and getting these dumb baggers to believe this garbage is why we are always fighting each other, well that and they hate people that dont look exactly like them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much of a bigot yourself? and what does this blather have to do with topic??
> 
> This is the type that does just what they are pointing fingers at others for. Its like reading a cheap paperback,quick easy and rather empty in content.
Click to expand...

 
He's an idiot.  He's one of those Occupy Wall Street types who sits in a park, defacting on himself and expecting everyone else to pay for him to live.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Oh god, this is great entertainment, reading these idiots.

I wonder if there is a reality tv show in this, maybe a camera crew follows an adult, i.e. liberal, as he or she goes to known bagger areas and asks them questions, the answers would be hysterical...

hmmm

I dont know if I have time, overseeing 52 employees does take a little bit of my time, but hell, I would rather be in show biz anyway!


----------



## mudwhistle

teapartysamurai said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not just banks but venture-capitalist groups like Bain Capital made much of the wealth in America possible. The government had little to do with it.
> 
> The only thing government did for my business was set up road-blocks for fuck's sake.
> 
> Obama has his head up his ass cuz he walked right into that one....and so did you. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> these are fast becoming not just the stupidest comments (not picking on you personally, pretty much all of you rightwingers have entirely and completely lost your minds) in history, but if we allowed these lower middle class white bagger bigots to run things, the country would be done very very quickly...
> 
> It is being dismantled now, and getting these dumb baggers to believe this garbage is why we are always fighting each other, well that and they hate people that dont look exactly like them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want anyone to even try and explain to this idiot how stupid he sounds.
> 
> I want him to be heard loud and clear.  THIS IS YOUR OBAMA SUPPORTER!
> 
> This is what Obama wants in voters!
> 
> Remember this in November and vote!
Click to expand...


Government is wasteful, bloated, a grade A clusterfuck. 

Government specializes in dumping billions and trillions down a rat hole. 

Venture Capitalists lend, invest, make the tough decisions, provide direction. Without them most of our economy wouldn't exist.


----------



## Skull Pilot

teapartysamurai said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean? Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans. I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.
> 
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed? Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads? etc.
> 
> No. You are NOT an island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You act like they didn't pay for any of these goods, services, or employees!
> 
> Where do you think businesses get these things.  The government just gives them to businesses for free?
> 
> I swear, I think you believe that!
Click to expand...


No they think "society" is responsible for everything.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> Oh god, this is great entertainment, reading these idiots.
> 
> I wonder if there is a reality tv show in this, maybe a camera crew follows an adult, i.e. liberal, as he or she goes to known bagger areas and asks them questions, the answers would be hysterical...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> I dont know if I have time, overseeing 52 employees does take a little bit of my time, but hell, I would rather be in show biz anyway!


 
Please don't feed the troll!


----------



## chikenwing

ConzHateUSA said:


> Oh god, this is great entertainment, reading these idiots.
> 
> I wonder if there is a reality tv show in this, maybe a camera crew follows an adult, i.e. liberal, as he or she goes to known bagger areas and asks them questions, the answers would be hysterical...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> I dont know if I have time, overseeing 52 employees does take a little bit of my time, but hell, I would rather be in show biz anyway!



Sure


----------



## teapartysamurai

mudwhistle said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> these are fast becoming not just the stupidest comments (not picking on you personally, pretty much all of you rightwingers have entirely and completely lost your minds) in history, but if we allowed these lower middle class white bagger bigots to run things, the country would be done very very quickly...
> 
> It is being dismantled now, and getting these dumb baggers to believe this garbage is why we are always fighting each other, well that and they hate people that dont look exactly like them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want anyone to even try and explain to this idiot how stupid he sounds.
> 
> I want him to be heard loud and clear. THIS IS YOUR OBAMA SUPPORTER!
> 
> This is what Obama wants in voters!
> 
> Remember this in November and vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is wasteful, bloated, a grade A clusterfuck.
> 
> Government specializes in dumping billions and trillions down a rat hole.
> 
> Venture Capitalists lend, invest, make the tough decisions, provide direction. Without them most of our economy wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

 

But Obama wants his supporters to think government is the reason for success.

It's sad, because control economies like we have in Western Europe, never work.

There is no government out there that can provide for everyone.  But business can, because if there is a market for it, and they know they can make money, they will go after that market.


----------



## BDBoop

I gather anarchy is the next step.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

teapartysamurai said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, this is great entertainment, reading these idiots.
> 
> I wonder if there is a reality tv show in this, maybe a camera crew follows an adult, i.e. liberal, as he or she goes to known bagger areas and asks them questions, the answers would be hysterical...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> I dont know if I have time, overseeing 52 employees does take a little bit of my time, but hell, I would rather be in show biz anyway!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't feed the troll!
Click to expand...


R E L A X

I can tell a nervous response when I read one, I have told you before, we have had a meeting, we are going to let the bagger racist haters stay here after we take over everything...so relax...its gonna be ok...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

teapartysamurai said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want anyone to even try and explain to this idiot how stupid he sounds.
> 
> I want him to be heard loud and clear. THIS IS YOUR OBAMA SUPPORTER!
> 
> This is what Obama wants in voters!
> 
> Remember this in November and vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is wasteful, bloated, a grade A clusterfuck.
> 
> Government specializes in dumping billions and trillions down a rat hole.
> 
> Venture Capitalists lend, invest, make the tough decisions, provide direction. Without them most of our economy wouldn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Obama wants his supporters to think government is the reason for success.
> 
> It's sad, because control economies like we have in Western Europe, never work.
> 
> There is no government out there that can provide for everyone.  But business can, because if there is a market for it, and they know they can make money, they will go after that market.
Click to expand...


I dont know for sure what Obama wants, but I want to TAX you out of existence


----------



## Skull Pilot

BDBoop said:


> I gather anarchy is the next step.



It was inevitable that the anarchy bullshit rears its ovine head.


----------



## signelect

Tell me the last time that a Union started a company and generated profits so they could hire workers, never happenede.  Tell me the last time Obama started a company that made a profit so he would hire workers.  Obama is a loser and has been and now that the truth is out he ain't doing so well.  By By Obama in 2012.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

signelect said:


> Tell me the last time that a Union started a company and generated profits so they could hire workers, never happenede.  Tell me the last time Obama started a company that made a profit so he would hire workers.  Obama is a loser and has been and now that the truth is out he ain't doing so well.  By By Obama in 2012.



another bigot racist moron....

well, thanks to liberal sciency types you can post on the internet too


----------



## Skull Pilot

signelect said:


> Tell me the last time that a Union started a company and generated profits so they could hire workers, never happenede.  Tell me the last time Obama started a company that made a profit so he would hire workers.  Obama is a loser and has been and now that the truth is out he ain't doing so well.  By By Obama in 2012.



Good point.  How come we never hear the sheep saying that unions profit off of the dues they force members to pay?


----------



## BDBoop

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giNYx8YN33M]Obama: Middle Class Tax Cuts Not A Game Of Chess - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## teapartysamurai

Skull Pilot said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the people get there to do the code upgrades? Pretty sure they drove on roads. Where did they get the education to qualify for the knowledge to do the upgrades? You couldn't just do it yourself, you had to hire someone. Where did the materials come from? Did they come on roads? etc.
> 
> No. You are NOT an island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You act like they didn't pay for any of these goods, services, or employees!
> 
> Where do you think businesses get these things. The government just gives them to businesses for free?
> 
> I swear, I think you believe that!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they think "society" is responsible for everything.
Click to expand...

 
I don't think she thinks.  She just emotes.

Who else can be stupid enough to bring up the interstate, and not know the interstate came 50 years after the invention of the automobile.

I swear they "think" that concrete, black top, tar, paint, all that stuff needed for roads, comes from the government.  

They don't know it's private industry that provides that.

It's no different than WWII.  THE GOVERNMENT did not make war planes, ships, guns, bullets, bombs.  PRIVATE INDUSTRY MADE THEM.  The government paid for them, but private industry MADE THEM.

The government makes NOTHING.  They just don't get that.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

boy, you bigot baggers ought to rethink posting at all anymore, every single word you say is either completely ignorant or just an outright lie

or, is it possible you have no clue how this nation was built, when, etc. ?

i guess it is possible


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> Hey IDIOT LIBS.
> 
> You given up on the idea on talking abouit the interstate?
> 
> You learned the interstate came approximately 50 YEARS AFTER the car?
> 
> I knew this, and it happened before I was born.
> 
> What is your idiot excuse!



Actually, the primary incentive for the interstate highway system was national defense. Ike came back from Germany after WWII and saw how effective the autobahn was in moving men and materials

In 1950s America, it was not a question of if there would be a nuclear attack, but when.  We needed a way to rapidly move evacuees, troops and supplies to affected areas. The interstate highway system was the key


----------



## mudwhistle

ConzHateUSA said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, this is great entertainment, reading these idiots.
> 
> I wonder if there is a reality tv show in this, maybe a camera crew follows an adult, i.e. liberal, as he or she goes to known bagger areas and asks them questions, the answers would be hysterical...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> I dont know if I have time, overseeing 52 employees does take a little bit of my time, but hell, I would rather be in show biz anyway!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't feed the troll!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> R E L A X
> 
> I can tell a nervous response when I read one, I have told you before, we have had a meeting, we are going to let the bagger racist haters stay here after we take over everything...so relax...its gonna be ok...
Click to expand...

We meaning you and the other swine?

Once you take over everything who's gonna bail you out when you run out of cash???


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> I gather anarchy is the next step.


 
THIS is a great insight into the liberal non mind.

They think freedom means chaos!

We have to be CONTROLLED FOR OUR OWN GOOD!

ANY TIME you hear a lib talk about freedom (unless it about himself).  

I mean if it's about himself, freedom is fine, BUT FOR ANYONE ELSE, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH THE LIBERAL!  Why the horror!  

You can't let those people be free!  Do what they want!  Decide for themselves!  Why, it would be utter chaos.

That is what liberals really think.  It's indicative of their ignorance and their paranoia.


----------



## Oldstyle

Is Conz still pretending to be rich?  

Considering the fact that he's shown himself to have the same IQ as your average houseplant, I'm finding that VERY hard to believe.

Why these idiots think they can come onto an internet chat board and declare themselves to be something that they obviously aren't and not get ridiculed for it is beyond me.  Yet they do...over and over again...


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, this is great entertainment, reading these idiots.
> 
> I wonder if there is a reality tv show in this, maybe a camera crew follows an adult, i.e. liberal, as he or she goes to known bagger areas and asks them questions, the answers would be hysterical...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> I dont know if I have time, overseeing 52 employees does take a little bit of my time, but hell, I would rather be in show biz anyway!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't feed the troll!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> R E L A X
> 
> I can tell a nervous response when I read one, I have told you before, we have had a meeting, we are going to let the bagger racist haters stay here after we take over everything...so relax...its gonna be ok...
Click to expand...

 
Please don't feed the troll!


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is wasteful, bloated, a grade A clusterfuck.
> 
> Government specializes in dumping billions and trillions down a rat hole.
> 
> Venture Capitalists lend, invest, make the tough decisions, provide direction. Without them most of our economy wouldn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Obama wants his supporters to think government is the reason for success.
> 
> It's sad, because control economies like we have in Western Europe, never work.
> 
> There is no government out there that can provide for everyone. But business can, because if there is a market for it, and they know they can make money, they will go after that market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont know for sure what Obama wants, but I want to TAX you out of existence
Click to expand...

 
Please don't feed the troll!


----------



## jillian

ConzHateUSA said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is wasteful, bloated, a grade A clusterfuck.
> 
> Government specializes in dumping billions and trillions down a rat hole.
> 
> Venture Capitalists lend, invest, make the tough decisions, provide direction. Without them most of our economy wouldn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Obama wants his supporters to think government is the reason for success.
> 
> It's sad, because control economies like we have in Western Europe, never work.
> 
> There is no government out there that can provide for everyone.  But business can, because if there is a market for it, and they know they can make money, they will go after that market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont know for sure what Obama wants, but I want to TAX you out of existence
Click to expand...


i'm going to go out on a limb and guess none of the whiners make over $250,000... in fact, i'm going to guess they don't come close.

but they do whine beautifully... in harmony even...

i also wonder how many of the whiners had government backed student loans, collect social security, have declared bankruptcy, get medicaid or medicare... drive on our roads; use public sewage, water.... courts, licensing agencies... or have their funds in banks where that money is federally protected... unlike 1930...

but they're independent, donchaknow...


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me the last time that a Union started a company and generated profits so they could hire workers, never happenede. Tell me the last time Obama started a company that made a profit so he would hire workers. Obama is a loser and has been and now that the truth is out he ain't doing so well. By By Obama in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another bigot racist moron....
> 
> well, thanks to liberal sciency types you can post on the internet too
Click to expand...

 
I guess this idiot doesn't know it was the military that started the internet.

He really thinks Al Gore did it!


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> Obama: Middle Class Tax Cuts Not A Game Of Chess - YouTube


 
And we can believe what Obama says, right??????????


----------



## ConzHateUSA

end capital gains tax, take very penny over $10 million in inheritance, ending the walton/walmart family's terrorism on our country...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

teapartysamurai said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> signelect said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me the last time that a Union started a company and generated profits so they could hire workers, never happenede. Tell me the last time Obama started a company that made a profit so he would hire workers. Obama is a loser and has been and now that the truth is out he ain't doing so well. By By Obama in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another bigot racist moron....
> 
> well, thanks to liberal sciency types you can post on the internet too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this idiot doesn't know it was the military that started the internet.
> 
> He really thinks Al Gore did it!
Click to expand...


you have no clue, at all, about the internet or anything else...nada

next


----------



## Skull Pilot

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey IDIOT LIBS.
> 
> You given up on the idea on talking abouit the interstate?
> 
> You learned the interstate came approximately 50 YEARS AFTER the car?
> 
> I knew this, and it happened before I was born.
> 
> What is your idiot excuse!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the primary incentive for the interstate highway system was national defense. Ike came back from Germany after WWII and saw how effective the autobahn was in moving men and materials
> 
> In 1950s America, it was not a question of if there would be a nuclear attack, but when.  We needed a way to rapidly move evacuees, troops and supplies to affected areas. The interstate highway system was the key
Click to expand...


The economic benefit of the highway system was ancillary to its purpose.

That benefit was undeniable but like any other system in existence the benefits of new roads is subject to the laws of diminishing returns.

I don't care how many new roads you build, the effect will not be the same as it was when the original interstates were built.

And mainlining roads does not add to the economic benefit it just costs money and actually slows the flow of people and goods.

Face it people our road system will never return the benefits it once did which is why roads are not as important to the success of businesses as they were.


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?????????
> 
> The expressway wasn't even a reality until the 50s!
> 
> In both cases the car, and even the materials to BUILD ROADS, THE BUSINESS CAME FIRST, NOT THE GOVENMENT!
Click to expand...



Do you understand what a paved road is and what its impact on automobile transport?  You have to crawl before you can run and we needed a network of paved roads first.  With dirt roads, fords and ferries across most of America you could not get around in the newfangled automobiles. They broke down too easily and got stuck in the mud.

It was the investment in roads that made automobiles practical. You did not have hundreds of thousands of cars being produced waiting for roads to drive them on


----------



## g5000

Collectivists' Goal Is To Dilute Our Concept Of Individualism



> Warren is (as William F. Buckley described Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith) a pyromaniac in a field of straw men: She refutes propositions no one asserts. Everyone knows that all striving occurs in a social context, so all attainments are conditioned by their context. This does not, however, entail a collectivist political agenda.
> 
> Such an agenda's premise is that individualism is a chimera, that any individual's achievements should be considered entirely derivative from society, so the achievements need not be treated as belonging to the individual. Society is entitled to socialize &#8212; i.e., conscript &#8212; whatever portion it considers its share. It may, as an optional act of political grace, allow the individual the remainder of what is misleadingly called the individual's possession.
> 
> *The collectivist agenda is antithetical to America's premise*, which is:
> 
> Government &#8212; including such public goods as roads, schools and police &#8212; is instituted to facilitate individual striving, aka the pursuit of happiness.





> Society &#8212; hundreds of millions of people making billions of decisions daily &#8212; is a marvel of spontaneous order among individuals in voluntary cooperation. Government facilitates this cooperation with roads, schools, police, etc. &#8212; and by getting out of its way. This is a sensible, dynamic, prosperous society's "underlying social contract."


----------



## Skull Pilot

jillian said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Obama wants his supporters to think government is the reason for success.
> 
> It's sad, because control economies like we have in Western Europe, never work.
> 
> There is no government out there that can provide for everyone.  But business can, because if there is a market for it, and they know they can make money, they will go after that market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know for sure what Obama wants, but I want to TAX you out of existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm going to go out on a limb and guess none of the whiners make over $250,000... in fact, i'm going to guess they don't come close.
> 
> but they do whine beautifully... in harmony even...
> 
> i also wonder how many of the whiners had government backed student loans, collect social security, have declared bankruptcy, get medicaid or medicare... drive on our roads; use public sewage, water.... courts, licensing agencies... or have their funds in banks where that money is federally protected... unlike 1930...
> 
> but they're independent, donchaknow...
Click to expand...

My Taxable income last year was 280K.

And  "society" didn't earn it. I did.


----------



## jillian

teapartysamurai said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Obama wants his supporters to think government is the reason for success.
> 
> It's sad, because control economies like we have in Western Europe, never work.
> 
> There is no government out there that can provide for everyone. But business can, because if there is a market for it, and they know they can make money, they will go after that market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know for sure what Obama wants, but I want to TAX you out of existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't feed the troll!
Click to expand...



is someone feeding you? tell them to stop. 

and you do know that maniacle laughing thing makes you look mentally ill, right?


----------



## BDBoop

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey IDIOT LIBS.
> 
> You given up on the idea on talking abouit the interstate?
> 
> You learned the interstate came approximately 50 YEARS AFTER the car?
> 
> I knew this, and it happened before I was born.
> 
> What is your idiot excuse!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the primary incentive for the interstate highway system was national defense. Ike came back from Germany after WWII and saw how effective the autobahn was in moving men and materials
> 
> In 1950s America, it was not a question of if there would be a nuclear attack, but when.  We needed a way to rapidly move evacuees, troops and supplies to affected areas. The interstate highway system was the key
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economic benefit of the highway system was ancillary to its purpose.
> 
> That benefit was undeniable but like any other system in existence the benefits of new roads is subject to the laws of diminishing returns.
> 
> I don't care how many new roads you build, the effect will not be the same as it was when the original interstates were built.
> 
> And mainlining roads does not add to the economic benefit it just costs money and actually slows the flow of people and goods.
> 
> Face it people our road system will never return the benefits it once did which is why roads are not as important to the success of businesses as they were.
Click to expand...


You use an outhouse, I take it.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Skull Pilot said:


> My Taxable income last year was 280K.







oh god, so funny


----------



## Skull Pilot

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the primary incentive for the interstate highway system was national defense. Ike came back from Germany after WWII and saw how effective the autobahn was in moving men and materials
> 
> In 1950s America, it was not a question of if there would be a nuclear attack, but when.  We needed a way to rapidly move evacuees, troops and supplies to affected areas. The interstate highway system was the key
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The economic benefit of the highway system was ancillary to its purpose.
> 
> That benefit was undeniable but like any other system in existence the benefits of new roads is subject to the laws of diminishing returns.
> 
> I don't care how many new roads you build, the effect will not be the same as it was when the original interstates were built.
> 
> And mainlining roads does not add to the economic benefit it just costs money and actually slows the flow of people and goods.
> 
> Face it people our road system will never return the benefits it once did which is why roads are not as important to the success of businesses as they were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use an outhouse, I take it.
Click to expand...


No I paid 30,000 for a septic system which I maintain with my own money even though some of my local taxes go for the upkeep of a water treatment plant that I do not use


----------



## ConzHateUSA

ps  and i am not going to educate you about how, when and who invented the internet, you are gonna have to do it on your own


----------



## BDBoop

Skull Pilot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic benefit of the highway system was ancillary to its purpose.
> 
> That benefit was undeniable but like any other system in existence the benefits of new roads is subject to the laws of diminishing returns.
> 
> I don't care how many new roads you build, the effect will not be the same as it was when the original interstates were built.
> 
> And mainlining roads does not add to the economic benefit it just costs money and actually slows the flow of people and goods.
> 
> Face it people our road system will never return the benefits it once did which is why roads are not as important to the success of businesses as they were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You use an outhouse, I take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I paid 30,000 for a septic system which I maintain with my own money even though some of my local taxes go for the upkeep of a water treatment plant that I do not use
Click to expand...


You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.


----------



## Skull Pilot

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use an outhouse, I take it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I paid 30,000 for a septic system which I maintain with my own money even though some of my local taxes go for the upkeep of a water treatment plant that I do not use
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.
Click to expand...


You never heard of a septic system?






Why am I not surprised

You do know that some people actually get their water from private wells on their property and not through some government funded water supply don't you?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use an outhouse, I take it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I paid 30,000 for a septic system which I maintain with my own money even though some of my local taxes go for the upkeep of a water treatment plant that I do not use
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.
Click to expand...


*just*

dear BD, they lie about absolutely   E V E R Y T H I N G

even shit they dont have to lie about


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey IDIOT LIBS.
> 
> You given up on the idea on talking abouit the interstate?
> 
> You learned the interstate came approximately 50 YEARS AFTER the car?
> 
> I knew this, and it happened before I was born.
> 
> What is your idiot excuse!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the primary incentive for the interstate highway system was national defense. Ike came back from Germany after WWII and saw how effective the autobahn was in moving men and materials
> 
> In 1950s America, it was not a question of if there would be a nuclear attack, but when. We needed a way to rapidly move evacuees, troops and supplies to affected areas. The interstate highway system was the key
Click to expand...

 
Well, there you go!  Point is, BDBoop is acting like the interstate came almost simultaneously with the car, when the fact is, that wasn't a reality for 50 years.

It being for military plays into my argument far more than BD's.  It had nothing to do serving business, IT WAS A FREAKING MILITARY PROJECT!

Regardless, the government didn't get those roads builts by themselves.  It took materials provided by business and the businesses came first!


----------



## Mac1958

BDBoop said:


> You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.




Just for the record, if I can't talk out my ass, this site won't be ANY fun.

.


----------



## Skull Pilot

ConzHateUSA said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I paid 30,000 for a septic system which I maintain with my own money even though some of my local taxes go for the upkeep of a water treatment plant that I do not use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *just*
> 
> dear BD, they lie about absolutely   E V E R Y T H I N G
> 
> even shit they dont have to lie about
Click to expand...

You obviously have never heard of a septic system either so you sure as shit don't know how much one costs to install.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey IDIOT LIBS.
> 
> You given up on the idea on talking abouit the interstate?
> 
> You learned the interstate came approximately 50 YEARS AFTER the car?
> 
> I knew this, and it happened before I was born.
> 
> What is your idiot excuse!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the primary incentive for the interstate highway system was national defense. Ike came back from Germany after WWII and saw how effective the autobahn was in moving men and materials
> 
> In 1950s America, it was not a question of if there would be a nuclear attack, but when. We needed a way to rapidly move evacuees, troops and supplies to affected areas. The interstate highway system was the key
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there you go!  Point is, BDBoop is acting like the interstate came almost simultaneously with the car, when the fact is, that wasn't a reality for 50 years.
> 
> It being for military plays into my argument far more than BD's.  It had nothing to do serving business, IT WAS A FREAKING MILITARY PROJECT!
> 
> Regardless, the government didn't get those roads builts by themselves.  It took materials provided by business and the businesses came first!
Click to expand...


so, you have NO clue about the internet OR the infrastructure, I am not surprised but you are batting 10000000


----------



## GuyPinestra

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you conservative dimbulbs only see the world in black and white.  Either you make yourself a success or the government does.
> 
> I'll spell this out for you since you're probably too stupid to get it from this clue.  It takes a motivated entrepreneur AND the infrastructure that government provides to create a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
Click to expand...


Folks drove on dirt roads for DECADES, how stupid are you?





In fact, they STILL do...


----------



## chikenwing

Skull Pilot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I paid 30,000 for a septic system which I maintain with my own money even though some of my local taxes go for the upkeep of a water treatment plant that I do not use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never heard of a septic system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised
> 
> You do know that some people actually get their water from private wells on their property and not through some government funded water supply don't you?
Click to expand...


Shoot you should see the thing I had to build for our home,it had to be workable for 50years!,and had too have room to duplicate it next too 1st system??


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey IDIOT LIBS.
> 
> You given up on the idea on talking abouit the interstate?
> 
> You learned the interstate came approximately 50 YEARS AFTER the car?
> 
> I knew this, and it happened before I was born.
> 
> What is your idiot excuse!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the primary incentive for the interstate highway system was national defense. Ike came back from Germany after WWII and saw how effective the autobahn was in moving men and materials
> 
> In 1950s America, it was not a question of if there would be a nuclear attack, but when.  We needed a way to rapidly move evacuees, troops and supplies to affected areas. The interstate highway system was the key
Click to expand...


Or move busloads of OWS demonstrators, illegals, or resthome residents quickly from one polling place to another.


----------



## chikenwing

our well is 180 feet,not bad water and lots of it,its such a gamble building a home,you don't know what you will get for water,will you get water where you don't want it??!!,and you pay for all missteps.


----------



## amrchaos

Skull Pilot said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *just*
> 
> dear BD, they lie about absolutely   E V E R Y T H I N G
> 
> even shit they dont have to lie about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have never heard of a septic system either so you sure as shit don't know how much one costs to install.
Click to expand...


I don't think they are doubting your use of a septic tank as much as your claim that roads do not matter to business or the distribution of goods and people.

That second claim, the one about roads, is a bit odd.


----------



## DiamondDave

ConzHateUSA said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> another bigot racist moron....
> 
> well, thanks to liberal sciency types you can post on the internet too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this idiot doesn't know it was the military that started the internet.
> 
> He really thinks Al Gore did it!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have no clue, at all, about the internet or anything else...nada
> 
> next
Click to expand...


The internet, IP routing, network engineering are ALL part of my career and expertise... care to discuss where it came from? The dot com boom/bust? The beginnings of BBS's for public use and dial up technologies? Transmission mediums? I will school you like there is no tomorrow

Go the fuck away troll


----------



## BDBoop

Mac1958 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the record, if I can't talk out my ass, this site won't be ANY fun.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


True. Same here. But I don't make shit up just to prove my argument.

Next he'll be saying he runs off a generator or seven.


----------



## P@triot

BDBoop said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the record, if I can't talk out my ass, this site won't be ANY fun.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Same here. But I don't make shit up just to prove my argument.
> 
> Next he'll be saying he runs off a generator or seven.
Click to expand...


Only the idiot known as BDPoop would actually try to make the case that flushing your toilet means you OWE government your business...


----------



## Wiseacre

rightwinger said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid, dude.   Roads have been around for centuries, the Romans built some very nice ones.   In the US, we've been building roads since 1625;  the first macadam roads were around 200 years ago, well before the invention of the auto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too stupid dude..
> 
> At the beginning of this country people covered large distances by boat across a network f rivers, lakes and canals. It was cheaper to ship goods to England than it was to ship goods 50 miles away across a shoddy network of roads
> Once rails came, it opened up the country and made transportation around the United States relatively fast and inexpensive
> 
> Early automobiles were just a novelty. There were not enough good roads around to justify the expenditure. In early contests between horses and automobiles, the horses won. The cars could not travel the muddy, potholed, dusty paths that passed for roads
> 
> It was the public investment in improving our highway and road system that made automobiles worth the investment
Click to expand...



People drove cars for decades before the hghways and roads were improved.   What made the auto worth the investment was supply side economics - Henry Ford introduced mass production techniques that made cars more affordable.   The gov't had nothing to do with making cars worth the investment as you claim.


----------



## teapartysamurai

jillian said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Obama wants his supporters to think government is the reason for success.
> 
> It's sad, because control economies like we have in Western Europe, never work.
> 
> There is no government out there that can provide for everyone. But business can, because if there is a market for it, and they know they can make money, they will go after that market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know for sure what Obama wants, but I want to TAX you out of existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm going to go out on a limb and guess none of the whiners make over $250,000... in fact, i'm going to guess they don't come close.
> 
> but they do whine beautifully... in harmony even...
> 
> i also wonder how many of the whiners had government backed student loans, collect social security, have declared bankruptcy, get medicaid or medicare... drive on our roads; use public sewage, water.... courts, licensing agencies... or have their funds in banks where that money is federally protected... unlike 1930...
> 
> but they're independent, donchaknow...
Click to expand...

 

Okay, a lot of this makes no sense.

How is a bankruptcy provided by the government?  Oh the LAW allows a bankruptcy, but a bankruptcy is created BY A PRIVATE LAW FIRM.

I KNOW!  I used to work for a law firm that did bankruptcies.  The government doesn't do 'em!  The court rules on them, but they don't file the bankruptcies themselves!  They don't pay for them, the client does that!  

Your assertion on that is total stupidity.  Do you know how many bankruptcies I have drawn up for people?  Too damn many, that's for sure!

As for FDIC.  Whoopdedoo!  How many of you have EVER seen your funds covered by FDIC?  SHOW OF HANDS!

All FDIC does is guarrantee that if something like a bankrobbery happens, you aren't out of luck.  

Any of you ever been in that boat?  Times I have?  ZERO!

Then, I've never had a student loan.  All the schooling I had (after high school) I either paid for MYSELF, MY PARENTS DID, or work did!

I've never had a student loan!

I've never used medicare or Medicaid!  There is this thing called INSURANCE FROM YOUR JOB.  You know that works, real good!

And when we were in a straight, and we had no insurance for a while (that's happened to me twice) I SIMPLY PAID FOR IT MYSELF OUT OF POCKET!  

YOU KNOW YOU CAN DO THAT!  I DID!  I was in the hospital a week for asthma.  I almost died.  They saved my life, AND LEFT ME WITH A HUGE BILL!  I left the hospital and on the way out, I walked right down to billing and worked out payment arrangements!

Government didn't do JACK for me!  I paid all those damn bills MYSELF!

And what does the amount we make have ANYTHING to do with the subject?  That somehow if we make less than $250K we should be on your side? 

The side that thinks bankruptcies come from government?

Please stop.  I'm laughing too hard!


----------



## P@triot

I swear, if I didn't know better, I would believe that Barack Hussein was desperately trying to NOT get re-elected. He has done everything in his power to ensure he is going home after his first term. From bashing America, it's history, and it's culture, to demonizing job makers and those who work hard, to Marxist policies that are collapsing the nation, to assinine comments that business owners owe their company to someone else. Since every group from Tea Party to business owners to minorities to Democrats hates this Marxist SOB, how exactly does he think he's going to get re-elected (other than lying and cheating, which is the staple of his entire life)....

The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation's leading bipartisan small-business advocacy group, has released a statement criticizing President Obama for saying that it's only through the grace of government that anyone has ever succeeded. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nations leading bipartisan small-business advocacy group, has released a statement criticizing President Obama for saying that its only through the grace of government that anyone has ever succeeded.

What a disappointment to hear President Obamas revealing comments challenging the significance of Americas entrepreneurs, NFIB President Dan Danne said in a statement to Mail Online.

His unfortunate remarks over the weekend show an utter lack of understanding and appreciation for the people who take a huge personal risk and work endless hours to start a business and create jobs, he added.

&#8216;Utter Lack of Understanding&#8217;: Bi-Partisan Business Group Fires Back at Obama&#8216;s &#8217;You Didn&#8216;t Build Your Business&#8217; Speech | TheBlaze.com


----------



## P@triot

Wiseacre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid, dude.   Roads have been around for centuries, the Romans built some very nice ones.   In the US, we've been building roads since 1625;  the first macadam roads were around 200 years ago, well before the invention of the auto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid dude..
> 
> At the beginning of this country people covered large distances by boat across a network f rivers, lakes and canals. It was cheaper to ship goods to England than it was to ship goods 50 miles away across a shoddy network of roads
> Once rails came, it opened up the country and made transportation around the United States relatively fast and inexpensive
> 
> Early automobiles were just a novelty. There were not enough good roads around to justify the expenditure. In early contests between horses and automobiles, the horses won. The cars could not travel the muddy, potholed, dusty paths that passed for roads
> 
> It was the public investment in improving our highway and road system that made automobiles worth the investment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People drove cars for decades before the hghways and roads were improved.   What made the auto worth the investment was supply side economics - Henry Ford introduced mass production techniques that made cars more affordable.   The gov't had nothing to do with making cars worth the investment as you claim.
Click to expand...


You'll never get leftwinger to acknowledge reality. Being a Communist, he will always try to convince people that only government can produce prosperity (when in fact, government creates only poverty).


----------



## teapartysamurai

jillian said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Obama wants his supporters to think government is the reason for success.
> 
> It's sad, because control economies like we have in Western Europe, never work.
> 
> There is no government out there that can provide for everyone. But business can, because if there is a market for it, and they know they can make money, they will go after that market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know for sure what Obama wants, but I want to TAX you out of existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm going to go out on a limb and guess none of the whiners make over $250,000... in fact, i'm going to guess they don't come close.
> 
> but they do whine beautifully... in harmony even...
> 
> i also wonder how many of the whiners had government backed student loans, collect social security, have declared bankruptcy, get medicaid or medicare... drive on our roads; use public sewage, water.... courts, licensing agencies... or have their funds in banks where that money is federally protected... unlike 1930...
> 
> but they're independent, donchaknow...
Click to expand...

 
Oh, and I forgot to add:  PRIOR TO OBAMA NOT ALL STUDENT LOANS WERE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, EITHER!


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> another bigot racist moron....
> 
> well, thanks to liberal sciency types you can post on the internet too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this idiot doesn't know it was the military that started the internet.
> 
> He really thinks Al Gore did it!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have no clue, at all, about the internet or anything else...nada
> 
> next
Click to expand...

 
I think we see who has no clue:



> The Internet was the result of some visionary thinking by people in the early 1960s who saw great potential value in allowing computers to share information on research and development in scientific and military fields. J.C.R. Licklider of MIT first proposed a global network of computers in 1962, and moved over to the *Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in late 1962 to head the work to develop it.* Leonard Kleinrock of MIT and later UCLA developed the theory of packet switching, which was to form the basis of Internet connections. Lawrence Roberts of MIT connected a Massachusetts computer with a California computer in 1965 over dial-up telephone lines. It showed the feasibility of wide area networking, but also showed that the telephone line's circuit switching was inadequate. Kleinrock's packet switching theory was confirmed. Roberts moved over to DARPA in 1966 and developed his plan for ARPANET. These visionaries and many more left unnamed here are the real founders of the Internet.


 
A Brief History of the Internet


----------



## Foxfyre

Reading through most of this thread--I'll admit I didn't read every single page--Obama is right in a way.  I didn't get where I am entirely on my own.  My mother had to give birth to me and she chose to raise, house, feed, clothe, and educate me until I could fend for myself.  Along the way I was blessed with mentors who taught me important principles about the founding of this country, the events that were both indefensible but people eventually found ways to utilize them for good, the values and ethics and points of view that allow people to prosper under the mantle of freedom our nation provides.  I in turn did the same for my children and tried to expose them to mentors who would instill the right values in them.

What material prosperity I enjoy, I worked for by trading my labor, experience, knowledge, skill sets, and work ethic for money that could be used to buy things that I wanted.  Percentage wise, I have been given a tiny fraction of what I have as gifts.  Certainly since I left highschool to date, I have received nothing from the government that I did not pay for out of those wages I that I worked for.

(I will qualify that by saying that some of my college education was no doubt funded by philanthropists who contributed to the university over the years and thereby lowered my costs for my education.  That was in the days before the federal government was involved in the universities in any way.)

I am not ashamed to name a single source that has given me a job or otherwise helped me out along the way.

Speaking of not getting there on his own, however, I wonder how open and honest President Obama would be in naming those who helped him along the way.  Rod Blogojevich?   Tony Resko?  William Ayers?  Raghuveer Nayak?  Sam Graham-Felsen?  Jeremiah Wright?  Louis Farakkhan?  Frank Marshall Davis?  Is there ANYBODY who helped Obama along the way he would want to point to with pride?

And what would we learn about who funded his fancy education if those records weren't under lock and key?  He sure as heck didn't do it all on student loans and we do at least know that he wasn't a student who likely earned full academic scholarships to anything.

Is he even capable of seeing the difference between working within private society as a private citizen to accomplish private enterprise and that which consists of political cronyism and manipulation?


----------



## P@triot

jillian said:


> i also wonder how many of the whiners had government backed student loans, *collect social security*, have declared bankruptcy, get medicaid or medicare... drive on our roads; use public sewage, water.... courts, licensing agencies... or have their funds in banks where that money is federally protected... unlike 1930...
> 
> but they're independent, donchaknow...


 
First of all "I" is supposed to be capitalized, sweetie. Second, only the idiot liberal would claim that conservatives are hypocrites about personal responsibility by citing "Social Security". Um, hey _*stupid*_, we are *forced* into Social Security _against_ our will. Make your Communist program voluntary and watch how many conservatives opt out (100%). Which is exactly why, in true Communist/Marxist/Socialist form, your side forced the entire nation into that unconstitutional program against our will. Which is why the say: "Socialism - an idea so good, it has to be *forced* on everyone".

And Jillian wonders why everyone laughs at her when she claims to be an "attorney"...


----------



## Some Guy

Rottweiler said:


> I swear, if I didn't know better, I would believe that Barack Hussein was desperately trying to NOT get re-elected. He has done everything in his power to ensure he is going home after his first term. From bashing America, it's history, and it's culture, to demonizing job makers and those who work hard, to Marxist policies that are collapsing the nation, to assinine comments that business owners owe their company to someone else.



It seems like he's writing off large groups of the voting community in favor of others.  He's got his base: those who want full blown socialism like him.  He may also be banking on getting his serfs to turn out in full force: those who are 100% dependent on the government nipple to get their liquor and porn.  Then, demonize the few (the rich, 1%, whatever you want to call them) as much as humanly possible in order to try to drum up as much animosity and anger as possible toward them while firmly putting yourself on the other side and then that might seal the deal.

If Obama and the democrats are successful in continuing to keep the economy down, keeping the employment rate and workforce low and getting more and more people on food stamps, then it's going to be awfully hard to get anyone elected who wants to make it easier for you to work for yourself rather than simply collect a welfare check.  Why work when you can have everything given to you in return for simply voting democrat once per couple years?


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?????????
> 
> The expressway wasn't even a reality until the 50s!
> 
> In both cases the car, and even the materials to BUILD ROADS, THE BUSINESS CAME FIRST, NOT THE GOVENMENT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what a paved road is and what its impact on automobile transport? You have to crawl before you can run and we needed a network of paved roads first. With dirt roads, fords and ferries across most of America you could not get around in the newfangled automobiles. They broke down too easily and got stuck in the mud.
> 
> It was the investment in roads that made automobiles practical. You did not have hundreds of thousands of cars being produced waiting for roads to drive them on
Click to expand...

 
The interstate was not a reality until the Eisenhower admin.

Are you going to tell me automobiles were not practical until then?????


----------



## Oddball

So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big Gubmint is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?


----------



## P@triot

Seriously, if you make the argument that conservatives are not exhibiting personal responsibility and independence by citing a program that all American's are forced into against their will, then you can't possibly be an attorney.

Nobody who was a lawyer would make an argument _that_ stupid....


----------



## teapartysamurai

jillian said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know for sure what Obama wants, but I want to TAX you out of existence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't feed the troll!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is someone feeding you? tell them to stop.
> 
> and you do know that maniacle laughing thing makes you look mentally ill, right?
Click to expand...

 
Unlike YOU thinking everyone has had a bankruptcy, collected medicaid, and that bankruptcies come from your government in the first place???????

As brainless as that is, YOU are going to lecture ME?


----------



## BDBoop

Oddball said:


> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big *Gubmint* is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?



'Gubmint?'

Bingo! Whack job bingo! 

I win.


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use an outhouse, I take it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I paid 30,000 for a septic system which I maintain with my own money even though some of my local taxes go for the upkeep of a water treatment plant that I do not use
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.
Click to expand...

 
You are the one that linked the interstate as if it came directly after the automobile.  I think we see who is talking out of one's own ass!


----------



## teapartysamurai

Skull Pilot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I paid 30,000 for a septic system which I maintain with my own money even though some of my local taxes go for the upkeep of a water treatment plant that I do not use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I just came to the realization that you are most likely literally talking out your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never heard of a septic system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised
> 
> You do know that some people actually get their water from private wells on their property and not through some government funded water supply don't you?
Click to expand...

 
The idiots probably think the government provides those too!


----------



## P@triot

Oddball said:


> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big Gubmint is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?



Come on now Oddball! You know that liberals aren't rational - they are emotional hypocrite Communists. That's why they own iPhones and iPads while shedding tears for those who are hungry, homeless, or uninsured.

Don't try to use rational thought with them - it's going to cause their head to explode!

(On a side note though, GREAT post exploiting their mind-numbing stupidity )


----------



## teapartysamurai

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Folks drove on dirt roads for DECADES, how stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, they STILL do...
Click to expand...

 
Hell yeah!

When I lived in California in 1976, Antelope Valley, Acton, there was a bunch of kids that had to delivered via bus up this one mountain and it was ENTIRELY DIRT ROAD.

That picture of the bus reminded me of that!


----------



## Some Guy

Oddball said:


> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big Gubmint is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?



Well, the government did sponsor Solyndra.  So, you're wrong on that one.


----------



## Foxfyre

Oddball said:


> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big Gubmint is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?



Nope.  And nobody has explained how a Mitt Romney made all his millions without government subsidies or how people built profitable farms and ranches and factories and mercantile enterprises before the federal government was involved in all that in any way, or how all those roads got built that the federal government neither built nor funded or how any of us have managed to support ourselves, buy homes and cars and raise a family without no government subsidies of any kind.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Rottweiler said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the record, if I can't talk out my ass, this site won't be ANY fun.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. Same here. But I don't make shit up just to prove my argument.
> 
> Next he'll be saying he runs off a generator or seven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the idiot known as BDPoop would actually try to make the case that flushing your toilet means you OWE government your business...
Click to expand...

 


Which proves BD is really the one talking out of her ass, but good!


----------



## P@triot

Some Guy said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I swear, if I didn't know better, I would believe that Barack Hussein was desperately trying to NOT get re-elected. He has done everything in his power to ensure he is going home after his first term. From bashing America, it's history, and it's culture, to demonizing job makers and those who work hard, to Marxist policies that are collapsing the nation, to assinine comments that business owners owe their company to someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like he's writing off large groups of the voting community in favor of others.  He's got his base: those who want full blown socialism like him.  He may also be banking on getting his serfs to turn out in full force: those who are 100% dependent on the government nipple to get their liquor and porn.  Then, demonize the few (the rich, 1%, whatever you want to call them) as much as humanly possible in order to try to drum up as much animosity and anger as possible toward them while firmly putting yourself on the other side and then that might seal the deal.
> 
> If Obama and the democrats are successful in continuing to keep the economy down, keeping the employment rate and workforce low and getting more and more people on food stamps, then it's going to be awfully hard to get anyone elected who wants to make it easier for you to work for yourself rather than simply collect a welfare check.  Why work when you can have everything given to you in return for simply voting democrat once per couple years?
Click to expand...


You make a lot of great points. But those that you are referring to don't even show up to vote. The crack addict mamma with 13 children doesn't even know what day it is, much less what day to vote, where to go, etc. And there are TONS of people out of work thanks to Obama who desperately want to be working and on their own.

Obama is going to lose a bigger landslide election than Jimmy Carter did to Ronald Reagan. All Romney has to do is repeat the same question: "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago"? Even the idiot Communists like Jillian, BDBoop, and leftwinger know they are not.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Rottweiler said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i also wonder how many of the whiners had government backed student loans, *collect social security*, have declared bankruptcy, get medicaid or medicare... drive on our roads; use public sewage, water.... courts, licensing agencies... or have their funds in banks where that money is federally protected... unlike 1930...
> 
> but they're independent, donchaknow...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all "I" is supposed to be capitalized, sweetie. Second, only the idiot liberal would claim that conservatives are hypocrites about personal responsibility by citing "Social Security". Um, hey _*stupid*_, we are *forced* into Social Security _against_ our will. Make your Communist program voluntary and watch how many conservatives opt out (100%). Which is exactly why, in true Communist/Marxist/Socialist form, your side forced the entire nation into that unconstitutional program against our will. Which is why the say: "Socialism - an idea so good, it has to be *forced* on everyone".
> 
> And Jillian wonders why everyone laughs at her when she claims to be an "attorney"...
Click to expand...

 
She claims to be an attorney but she thinks the government provides bankruptcies????

BWAHAHAHAA!

Hell! I don't claim to be an attorney. I was a legal secretary AND I KNOW DAMN WELL BETTER THAN THAT!

I sure as hell drew up enough of 'em! (Bankrupties, that is)

Government didn't pay for them! Our clients did!

Government didn't pay to HAVE THEM FILED!  Our clients had to pay filing fees!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Wiseacre said:


> Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.



Those who profit off it benefit more.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Oddball said:


> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big Gubmint is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?


 


Post of the day!


----------



## Skull Pilot

amrchaos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> *just*
> 
> dear BD, they lie about absolutely   E V E R Y T H I N G
> 
> even shit they dont have to lie about
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have never heard of a septic system either so you sure as shit don't know how much one costs to install.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they are doubting your use of a septic tank as much as your claim that roads do not matter to business or the distribution of goods and people.
> 
> That second claim, the one about roads, is a bit odd.
Click to expand...


Roads do not offer a business owner any greater benefit than anyone else because anyone can use the roads in order to do business.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Some Guy said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big Gubmint is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the government did sponsor Solyndra.  So, you're wrong on that one.
Click to expand...


Has anybody in the government admitted it was a bad investment by the government or poorly managed?  I don't think so.


----------



## Skull Pilot

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
Click to expand...


Anyone can use the roads to make profit if you don't because you're too fucking lazy that's your problem


----------



## teapartysamurai

BDBoop said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big *Gubmint* is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Gubmint?'
> 
> Bingo! Whack job bingo!
> 
> I win.
Click to expand...

 
In other words brainless is saying because you addressed the government sarcastically, instead of worshipping it like she does, you argument has no relevance.

And then SHE thinks she can decide who is the whack job?


----------



## rightwinger

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without that motivated entrepreneur who invented the vehicle, there would be no infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Folks drove on dirt roads for DECADES, how stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, they STILL do...
Click to expand...



And those dirt roads ate up the automobiles that were available in the early years of the 20th century. Early autos lacked suspensions, durable tires, reliable engines and structural strength to handle most roads.

There were often times a team of horses were needed to save precious automobiles.


----------



## Oddball

Some Guy said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big Gubmint is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the government did sponsor Solyndra.  So, you're wrong on that one.
Click to expand...

Only if Boiking came out and said "My bad...Ya fucked up, ya trusted me".

But he hasn't and won't.


----------



## teapartysamurai

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
Click to expand...

 

And your rationale for that is??????????

Oh, I forgot, you don't need a rationale.  You know it's true, because Obama told you, it's true!


----------



## P@triot

BDBoop said:


> You use an outhouse, I take it.



*And I take it you think the federal goverment runs your local sewer systems??? 

God almighty Boop, how many times do I have to establish your ignorance on a global platform such as this?

Why are you idiot liberals too stupid to understand the difference between FEDERAL and LOCAL government?!?!?*


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks drove on dirt roads for DECADES, how stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, they STILL do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And those dirt roads ate up the automobiles that were available in the early years of the 20th century. Early autos lacked suspensions, durable tires, reliable engines and structural strength to handle most roads.
> 
> There were often times a team of horses were needed to save precious automobiles.
Click to expand...

 
Bullshit! There are still areas where a dirt road is STILL all they have!

Have you ever seen Athens County, Ohio???????? Or Vintin County? 

OR Antelope Valley, California?


----------



## teapartysamurai

Rottweiler said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use an outhouse, I take it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And I take it you think the federal goverment runs your local sewer systems??? *
> 
> *God almighty Boop, how many times do I have to establish your ignorance on a global platform such as this?*
> 
> *Why are you idiot liberals too stupid to understand the difference between FEDERAL and LOCAL government?!?!?*
Click to expand...

 
Because say the word government and all these idiots think is Obama, as if he does it all himself, personally.


----------



## Some Guy

Rottweiler said:


> You make a lot of great points. But those that you are referring to don't even show up to vote. The crack addict mamma with 13 children doesn't even know what day it is, much less what day to vote, where to go, etc. And there are TONS of people out of work thanks to Obama who desperately want to be working and on their own.



True on the crack momma comment, although people to that level are almost certainly in the minority.  With community organizers and activists, you've got to believe that the serfs will know when the election is and get out for it.  Or, at least i'd assume that.

Agreed on the unemployed.  The way it seems to be going now, not just due to government but basically just to how people are these days, more and more people are going to be happy living a modest, comfortable life solely on the government nipple rather than work for a living and achieve something meaningful.

My young 20's sister-in-law has the entitlement attitude.  Works here and there, talks about "when i get a full-time job" despite not looking for one, doesn't clean up after herself, leaves lights and such on, etc.  Someone else (in her case, myself, her sister or her parents) will take care of that pesky stuff for her while they owe her money for food when she's in Vegas cause "if she was home, she'd be eating food anyway."  There's only more and more of those types out there.  If Obama is clear enough in his message that they're not to blame and they deserve to live a happy, comfortable life simply because someone else across the nation is successful in life, then Obama could take it.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks drove on dirt roads for DECADES, how stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, they STILL do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And those dirt roads ate up the automobiles that were available in the early years of the 20th century. Early autos lacked suspensions, durable tires, reliable engines and structural strength to handle most roads.
> 
> There were often times a team of horses were needed to save precious automobiles.
Click to expand...


Uh, what is "precious" about automobiles, stupid? Furthermore, what the fuck do you care if someone's automobile is getting torn up or requires "teams of horses"?!?! This proves what a stupid Communist you are. You think any problems is EVERYONE's problem. And you think someone's wealth is EVERYONE's wealth...


----------



## flacaltenn

Snookie didn't "get there on her own" either. She had LOTS of help to be as irrelevent, stupid, pregnant and obnoxious as she is... 

Maybe the Prez has a point here. It doesn't just apply to the rich and successful does it? 

Let's find those responsible for ALL the BAD outcomes -- and out them too...


----------



## P@triot

Some Guy said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a lot of great points. But those that you are referring to don't even show up to vote. The crack addict mamma with 13 children doesn't even know what day it is, much less what day to vote, where to go, etc. And there are TONS of people out of work thanks to Obama who desperately want to be working and on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True on the crack momma comment, although people to that level are almost certainly in the minority.  With community organizers and activists, you've got to believe that the serfs will know when the election is and get out for it.  Or, at least i'd assume that.
> 
> Agreed on the unemployed.  The way it seems to be going now, not just due to government but basically just to how people are these days, more and more people are going to be happy living a modest, comfortable life solely on the government nipple rather than work for a living and achieve something meaningful.
> 
> My sister-in-law has the entitlement attitude.  Works here and there, talks about "when i get a full-time job" despite not looking for one, doesn't clan up after herself, leaves lights and such on, etc.  Someone else (in her case, myself, her sister or her parents) will take care of that pesky stuff for her.  There's only more and more of those types out there.  If Obama is clear enough in his message that they're not to blame and they deserve to live a happy, comfortable life simply because someone else across the nation is successful in life, then Obama could take it.
Click to expand...


You're dead on with the direction this nation is taking. There are more and more of your sister-in-law (just see Jillian here, BDBoop here, lefwinger, etc.). But we're not there yet as a nation. Obama has ZERO chance of getting re-elected.

If nothing else, the electoral college elects the president - not the popular vote - and the electoral college is owned by the GOP right now. It's game, set, match for Obama and even he knows it.


----------



## GuyPinestra

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the invention of the automobile, it was the public investment in road infrastructure that made the automotive industry take off. Nobody would have bought cars if there were no roads to drive them on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks drove on dirt roads for DECADES, how stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, they STILL do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And those dirt roads ate up the automobiles that were available in the early years of the 20th century. *Early autos lacked suspensions, durable tires, reliable engines and structural strength to handle most roads.*
> 
> There were often times a team of horses were needed to save precious automobiles.
Click to expand...


Is it your assertion that government produced "suspensions, durable tires, reliable engines and structural strength", or was it market forces and private enterprise that met those needs?


----------



## Listening

Mr. H. said:


> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?



Sure government built those roads with tax money from businesses before the businesses existed.

In addition to a money tree, Obama has a time machine.


----------



## P@triot

teapartysamurai said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use an outhouse, I take it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And I take it you think the federal goverment runs your local sewer systems??? *
> 
> *God almighty Boop, how many times do I have to establish your ignorance on a global platform such as this?*
> 
> *Why are you idiot liberals too stupid to understand the difference between FEDERAL and LOCAL government?!?!?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because say the word government and all these idiots think is Obama, as if he does it all himself, personally.
Click to expand...


That's part of it, for certain. But the biggest part is that they are so desperate to make a point (because they get their asses handed to them in a debate since they are on the wrong side of the facts), that they get over excited when they think of ANY "come back" and so they don't stop to think if that response is even logical. She's looking for ANYTHING that people might be using which is government controlled, without stopping to realize that the federal government doesn't run that and we are discussing the unconstitutional size and scope of the FEDERAL governnment.

They are just that stupid. That's the simple truth...


----------



## Some Guy

Rottweiler said:


> If nothing else, the electoral college elects the president - not the popular vote - and the electoral college is owned by the GOP right now. It's game, set, match for Obama and even he knows it.



Agreed.  We're not completely lost as a country quite yet.


----------



## Buford

Dr Grump said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> which relative did you leech off of the most?
> 
> was it before or after you went on the dole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one of the dumbest twits around here.  Honestly.  No offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone with a clown as their avatar shouldn't really be throwing the word 'dumb' around. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...


And your handle fits you very well.  Carry on.


----------



## Wiseacre

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.   Those who profited from public works did so through their own ideas, hard work, and ingenuity.   They may have received financial help from friends and family members, or loans from a bank to get up and running, or even assistance from a gov't program, which was or should've been available to everyone else.   No successful person owes jack squat to the gov't for their success;  you should take responsibility for your failures but also the credit for your successes.   If the gov't had anything to do  with it either way, they shouldn't have.


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks drove on dirt roads for DECADES, how stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, they STILL do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And those dirt roads ate up the automobiles that were available in the early years of the 20th century. Early autos lacked suspensions, durable tires, reliable engines and structural strength to handle most roads.
> 
> There were often times a team of horses were needed to save precious automobiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit! There are still areas where a dirt road is STILL all they have!
> 
> Have you ever seen Athens County, Ohio???????? Or Vintin County?
> 
> OR Antelope Valley, California?
Click to expand...


And you got a 4x4 with a 5 litre engine to travel them

Point is....in 1900-1910 America, the fragile autos could not handle our existing roads


----------



## Listening

As you can see, this thread (and Obama's comments) have touched a nerve.

This really is the crux of Obama's argument....that big government is good and we should embrace it.

I am not saying that (his saying it) is a bad thing (even though I don't agree with it).

But if you look at the 70 pages of posting...this pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter and the difference between the GOP and the democrats.

My questions continues to be....why can't states be allowed to determine if they are big (state) government or not.  That way, you can chose to live there or not (I left California because of the way it was run......I could see the train coming a long time ago).  That way you have a choice.

Dems are always about choice....aren't they ?  Maybe not.

Repeal the 17th.

Enforce the 10th.

Kick John Roberts in the nuts.


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> And you got a 4x4 with a 5 litre engine to travel them
> 
> Point is....in 1900-1910 America, the fragile autos could not handle our existing roads



Is this really the argument here ?

You really are a jackass.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those dirt roads ate up the automobiles that were available in the early years of the 20th century. Early autos lacked suspensions, durable tires, reliable engines and structural strength to handle most roads.
> 
> There were often times a team of horses were needed to save precious automobiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! There are still areas where a dirt road is STILL all they have!
> 
> Have you ever seen Athens County, Ohio???????? Or Vintin County?
> 
> OR Antelope Valley, California?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you got a 4x4 with a 5 litre engine to travel them
> 
> Point is....in 1900-1910 America, the fragile autos could not handle our existing roads
Click to expand...


Actually, the point is it's 2012 and you're so desperate to make an argument for Communism, that you are pointing to the Model T Ford and the 1910's as a reason why Obama is correct in trying to convince America that business owners owe their success to the parasite class like you who sit at home and contribute nothing to society.


----------



## Oddball

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
Click to expand...

And they often end up paying more.

Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?

Next red herring, anyone?


----------



## rightwinger

Some Guy said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If nothing else, the electoral college elects the president - not the popular vote - and the electoral college is owned by the GOP right now. It's game, set, match for Obama and even he knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  We're not completely lost as a country quite yet.
Click to expand...


Romney currently trails in the electoral college 221-181 with 270 needed to win

RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls

Electoral college works against Romney. He is way behind before the election even starts. He needs to take roughly eight of twelve swing states to hope to eke out a win


----------



## P@triot

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you got a 4x4 with a 5 litre engine to travel them
> 
> Point is....in 1900-1910 America, the fragile autos could not handle our existing roads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this really the argument here ?
> 
> You really are a jackass.
Click to expand...


He's completely incapable of making a rational argument (you have to remember, the liberal brain is fried from years of getting stoned)...


----------



## Foxfyre

To expound on Jillian and some others' points, competent economists observe that responsible government more often follows the activities of free enterprise.  Private developers plan and begin work on a new housing development or shopping centers or a major manufacturing enterprise.  The local government works with them to approve and issue permits and might even vote to provide initial tax relief or reduced cost of sale of city land to attract a business that will bring many jobs and boost the local economy.

As the new construction begins, the city and utilities follow to install new lighting,  streets, sewer systems, gas lines, etc. to supply the new housing, commerce, and industry that is going in.  There are exceptions, but it is highly unlikely that the city itself would trigger such activity by installing the infrastructure and then hope housing, commerce, and industry will follow.  And many irresponsible governments have wasted taxpayer dollars attempting to do just that.

In other words, a responsive government in a free society provides what the people tell it that they need in order to conduct private commerce and industry.   An authoriatrian government dictates this and will be far less effective.

And as we have seen in case after case after case, commece and industry that will not happen WITHOUT government funding--for instance Solyndra--have a hugely high rate of failure wasting all the public and private monies that went into the effort.


----------



## Listening

Wiseacre said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   Those who profited from public works did so through their own ideas, hard work, and ingenuity.   They may have received financial help from friends and family members, or loans from a bank to get up and running, or even assistance from a gov't program, which was or should've been available to everyone else.   No successful person owes jack squat to the gov't for their success;  you should take responsibility for your failures but also the credit for your successes.   If the gov't had anything to do  with it either way, they shouldn't have.
Click to expand...


The one place this does apply is big business and big labor.

I am sure that GM employees sing "All hail to Obama and his bailout (for our bloated wages)" every morning.

I noticed that while Obama was buying union votes....oooops..."saving" GM, that small business were crashing left and right.

Who does he think he is kidding.

And big business has been using regulation and lobbying to keep competition out of the way for decades.

Obama can kiss my ass.


----------



## Sallow

Oddball said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
Click to expand...


I got this one binky.

As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.

It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Oddball said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
Click to expand...



Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than business does. But Republicans think that money earned by passive activity should be taxed at a lower rate than money earned by working or by producing a good or service.


So think about that.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If nothing else, the electoral college elects the president - not the popular vote - and the electoral college is owned by the GOP right now. It's game, set, match for Obama and even he knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  We're not completely lost as a country quite yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Romney currently trails in the electoral college 221-181 with 270 needed to win
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls
> 
> Electoral college works against Romney. He is way behind before the election even starts. He needs to take roughly eight of twelve swing states to hope to eke out a win
Click to expand...


LMAO! Keep telling yourself that. A liberal website trying to convince the Communist masses that Obama has a chance means nothing. Obama has zero chance and even he knows it. He's not going to get one single GOP vote, so he loses right there. And quite a few Dems are going to turn on him as they already have done (because he destroyed their party and got them all voted out in 2010). Even Barney Frank came forward and said Obama destroyed the party with Obamacare and that they should have addressed the economy FIRST before worrying about Socialized medicine...


----------



## asaratis

Oddball said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
Click to expand...


This is as it should be.  Big trucks cause more damage to the roads than passenger vehicles.  They weigh in the neighborhood of 80,000 pounds, causing the highways to require thicker and stronger designs, bridges to be more sturdy etc.  They make profit by using the roadways.  Why shouldn't they pay more to use the roadways?


----------



## flacaltenn

I think the Prez should start searching out all those who turned this formerly dynamic and strong economy into a nation of beggars and whiners.

They had help.. We should find those responsible for the help and make fun of them..


----------



## P@triot

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
Click to expand...


So you acknowledge that business pass the cost on to the consumer, yet you suppport a Communist government punishing businesses and success with higher and higher taxes? Then you people wonder why the economy tanks under your policies?

God almighty are you stupid! You realize that business is not going to eat the loss, that they will pass it on to  you, and still you sit here supporting that stupidity.


----------



## Moonglow

Rottweiler said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge that business pass the cost on to the consumer, yet you suppport a Communist government punishing businesses and success with higher and higher taxes? Then you people wonder why the economy tanks under your policies?
> 
> God almighty are you stupid! You realize that business is not going to eat the loss, that they will pass it on to  you, and still you sit here supporting that stupidity.
Click to expand...


Under communism there is no business tax, cause all he businesses belong to the state. You fail again.


----------



## Sallow

Listening said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   Those who profited from public works did so through their own ideas, hard work, and ingenuity.   They may have received financial help from friends and family members, or loans from a bank to get up and running, or even assistance from a gov't program, which was or should've been available to everyone else.   No successful person owes jack squat to the gov't for their success;  you should take responsibility for your failures but also the credit for your successes.   If the gov't had anything to do  with it either way, they shouldn't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one place this does apply is big business and big labor.
> 
> I am sure that GM employees sing *"All hail to Obama and his bailout (for our bloated wages)" every morning.*
> I noticed that while Obama was buying union votes....oooops..."saving" GM, that small business were crashing left and right.
> 
> Who does he think he is kidding.
> 
> And big business has been using regulation and lobbying to keep competition out of the way for decades.
> 
> Obama can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...


You guys are funnah.

The UAW took big pay cuts to keep GM open. Rick Wagoner, who ran GM to the ground, got a real nice going away present.

GM details payout to ex-chief Rick Wagoner - Los Angeles Times


----------



## Sallow

Rottweiler said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge that business pass the cost on to the consumer, yet you suppport a Communist government punishing businesses and success with higher and higher taxes? Then you people wonder why the economy tanks under your policies?
> 
> God almighty are you stupid! You realize that business is not going to eat the loss, that they will pass it on to  you, and still you sit here supporting that stupidity.
Click to expand...


Commies don't pay taxes.

Dog almighty you are stupid.

And either a  commie or an anarchist.

Your choice.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Rottweiler said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you got a 4x4 with a 5 litre engine to travel them
> 
> Point is....in 1900-1910 America, the fragile autos could not handle our existing roads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this really the argument here ?
> 
> You really are a jackass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's completely incapable of making a rational argument (you have to remember, the liberal brain is fried from years of getting stoned)...
Click to expand...


Man, leave getting stoned out of this.


----------



## rightwinger

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks drove on dirt roads for DECADES, how stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, they STILL do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And those dirt roads ate up the automobiles that were available in the early years of the 20th century. Early autos lacked suspensions, durable tires, reliable engines and structural strength to handle most roads.
> 
> There were often times a team of horses were needed to save precious automobiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, what is "precious" about automobiles, stupid? Furthermore, what the fuck do you care if someone's automobile is getting torn up or requires "teams of horses"?!?! This proves what a stupid Communist you are. You think any problems is EVERYONE's problem. And you think someone's wealth is EVERYONE's wealth...
Click to expand...


Hmmmm...someone is off their meds today


----------



## Oddball

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
Click to expand...

You still have to put the money up front....And it further underscores the fact that without businesses paying those taxes and fees, there's no loot for politicians and bureaucrats to spend on infrastructure.


----------



## Listening

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   Those who profited from public works did so through their own ideas, hard work, and ingenuity.   They may have received financial help from friends and family members, or loans from a bank to get up and running, or even assistance from a gov't program, which was or should've been available to everyone else.   No successful person owes jack squat to the gov't for their success;  you should take responsibility for your failures but also the credit for your successes.   If the gov't had anything to do  with it either way, they shouldn't have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one place this does apply is big business and big labor.
> 
> I am sure that GM employees sing *"All hail to Obama and his bailout (for our bloated wages)" every morning.*
> I noticed that while Obama was buying union votes....oooops..."saving" GM, that small business were crashing left and right.
> 
> Who does he think he is kidding.
> 
> And big business has been using regulation and lobbying to keep competition out of the way for decades.
> 
> Obama can kiss my ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys are funnah.
> 
> The UAW took big pay cuts to keep GM open. Rick Wagoner, who ran GM to the ground, got a real nice going away present.
> 
> GM details payout to ex-chief Rick Wagoner - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...


From what I understand it, the big pay cuts were the pay to those where were new hires, thus creating a two tier system.  The people in the system pretty much kept what they were getting.

That is how I recall it.


----------



## rightwinger

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  We're not completely lost as a country quite yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney currently trails in the electoral college 221-181 with 270 needed to win
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls
> 
> Electoral college works against Romney. He is way behind before the election even starts. He needs to take roughly eight of twelve swing states to hope to eke out a win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO! Keep telling yourself that. A liberal website trying to convince the Communist masses that Obama has a chance means nothing. Obama has zero chance and even he knows it. He's not going to get one single GOP vote, so he loses right there. And quite a few Dems are going to turn on him as they already have done (because he destroyed their party and got them all voted out in 2010). Even Barney Frank came forward and said Obama destroyed the party with Obamacare and that they should have addressed the economy FIRST before worrying about Socialized medicine...
Click to expand...


The current numbers work against Romney and he knows it. Three and a half months to go and he needs a miracle. All the current electoral college polling shows Romney trailing. Right now, the balance of power favors the blue states. Barring a miracle, Romney will lose by 100 electoral votes


----------



## regent

teapartysamurai said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans keep bringing up evidence that FDR didn't spend enough?
> 
> Oh LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! That one is a howler.
> 
> Name the Republican saying that. I have heard that charge made BUT BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA AND ONLY THE LIBERAL MEDIA.
> 
> I hate to break it to you but FDR had nothing to do with the unemployment rate coming down.
> 
> Look at it here: United States Unemployment Rate 1920&ndash;2010 &mdash; Infoplease.com
> 
> When did the unemployment rate come starkly down. IN THE YEAR 1942!
> 
> Now what event might have precipitated that? Oooooo Let me think.
> 
> WORLD WAR II YOU MORONS!
> 
> The DRAFT put men to work IN THE MILITARY. It put women to work in the factories.
> 
> FDR had nothing to do with it.
> 
> But the great prosperity only took effect under Truman and Eisenhower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way that FDR's hands were tied by Congress he did a good job of secretly and openly increasing military aid to England.
> So yes FDR was responsible for reviving the war industry well before war broke out in '41.
> If the repubs had their way,, The rising sun and swastika flags would still be waving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If FDR had his way, he would have packed the court.
> 
> And what are you talking about reviving the industry?  The US was in woeful STRAIGHTS when they entered the war, because they were unprepared!
> 
> They were terribly unprepared for WWII!
> 
> That's why Pearl Harbor happened you moron!
> 
> My grandfather was over the production of the B-25 for North American in Columbus, Ohio.
> 
> If he were still alive he could tell you.  FDR didn't do jack!  Not until the war broke out.
> 
> FDR PROMISED THE COUNTRY WHEN HE RAN AGAIN TO KEEP US OUT OF THE WAR!
> 
> Good grief what history books did you read?
> 
> Some leftist revisionism, obviously!
Click to expand...


When posters indicate it took the spending of WWII to cure the depression they in effect are saying it took war-time spending to stop the depression, so FDR simply didn't spend enough. As for prepardness the Republicans fought FDR on rearming America. Check out the "America Firsters."  Still FDR's peacetime draft had been in operation for a year before Pearl Harbor. One month before Pearl it was repassed by one vote in the House.  FDR made  decisions without Congressional approval for rearming America and helping Britain survive.  Check out the fifty destroyer deal, Lend Lease. Good for your grandfather, I lived through that period, and still remember the first draft number, 158, and even the songs, "Goodbye Dear, I'll be back in a year cause im in the army now." That first draft peacetime draft of America's was for a year, until the extension added in 1941. In 1936 economic indications pointed to a recovery and FDR stopped the New Deal. A mistake because we slid back into another smaller recession. As for the Court packing, it was a political failure but the Court saw the light and as pundits said, "a stich in time saved nine."  
Ever wonder how America got into the Great Depression? What kind of history books do you read?


----------



## BDBoop

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those dirt roads ate up the automobiles that were available in the early years of the 20th century. Early autos lacked suspensions, durable tires, reliable engines and structural strength to handle most roads.
> 
> There were often times a team of horses were needed to save precious automobiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, what is "precious" about automobiles, stupid? Furthermore, what the fuck do you care if someone's automobile is getting torn up or requires "teams of horses"?!?! This proves what a stupid Communist you are. You think any problems is EVERYONE's problem. And you think someone's wealth is EVERYONE's wealth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm...someone is off their meds today
Click to expand...


Today?

Oh, sorry. Thought we were talking about Squallball.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Frankilin needed government to invent the stove?
> To discvover the power of electricity?
> 
> *Franklin worked for the Government for a good part of his life*



Waaa????


ROFL

You seriously didn't just post that, didja Hack?

No, you pathetic hack, Benjamin Franklin did not "work for government for a good part of his life."

He held three positions, Postmaster of the confederacy (Pre-U.S.) from 1775 to 1777 - an unpaid position undertaken to establish a communication system after lose of British postal service. President of Pennsylvania for one year. Then Ambassador to France, another unpaid position. (Franklin was a wealth statesman by that time.) 

In 89 years, he spent less than 3 in government employ, and probably never took a dime from government.

Seriously hack, make up better lies.



> Was it the government that assisted the Wright brothers?
> 
> *The Wright Brothers got their first contract with the Army Signal Corps*



Before Kittyhawk, hack?



> Do you really believe the internet had no shot without the government?
> 
> * The Government invented the internet, Army ARPANET*



What year was that, hack? Would that be around 1991 with Algore the prevaricator?  Or was it more like 1963 with J.C. Licklider? 

Oh and hack, what about Doors and Wildcat? Wasn't the first coast to coast email system run across private BBS nodes on Wildcat using Doors to relay mail? In fact, wasn't this half a decade before Darpa allowed public switching infrastructure to link wide areas?

I could sent an email from Los Angeles to New York in 1981. Arpanet could in 1987.



> In fact, the Government now finances a good portion of the R&D on energy, communications and medical research



Is that right, hack?

So we can thank government for Verizon developing LTE? Fair enough, the U.S. Army DID create CDMA, but GSM came from Alltel.

I don't know hack, I think you are completely full of shit.


----------



## GuyPinestra

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than business does. But Republicans think that money earned by passive activity should be taxed at a lower rate than money earned by working or by producing a good or service.
> 
> 
> So think about that.
Click to expand...


No, economists think that. Supposedly it leads to more investment. I don't know if that's true or not, but in glancing at it the premise does seem reasonable.

On this too, I'm a fan of Dr. Paul. This country doesn't NEED income taxes AT ALL. It amounts to about 20% of total revenues. If we cut spending back to 2005 levels it would be a wash. We didn't have income taxes before 1913, AT ALL.

Regardless, we've GOT to cut spending. Taxes won't cut it. We can't pay THE INTEREST on what we owe without borrowing more. I say for now leave the taxes where they are and BALANCE A FUCKING BUDGET!! 

Or not, the results are going to be WICKED to watch...


----------



## Stephanie

just ran across this
VOTE Obama out people

SNIP:
Obama's Socialist Mantra: Risk Takers Are Free Riders

  Posted 07/16/2012 07:09 PM ET

Ideology: In his war on American exceptionalism, President Obama has turned the sights on exceptional Americans. If you've built a successful business, it wasn't your dream or your sweat  somebody else made it happen.

The unbridled disdain President Obama has for the entrepreneurs who work hard and risk everything was made plain when he told supporters in Roanoke, Va.: "If you've got a business  you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

*This was stunning news and a colossal slap in the face to the millions of small-business owners who get up every day and by the sweat of their brow and the drive of their ambition still pursue the American dream in spite of the obstacles and hurdles this administration has put in front of them.*



> In Obama's collectivist world view, we are all ants on a socialist ant farm. We are sheep being led by a government shepherd. Wealth, as we now know, is not to be created but to be redistributed in the manner of the Marxist slogan  to each according to his need and from each according to his ability.


 
Your success, Obama says, is not your own. There "was a great teacher somewhere in your life," he tells us, and that somebody "invested in roads and bridges."

Is it a coincidence that virtually the only people President Obama gives credit to for anything are teacher and construction unions?

all of it here
Obama Tells Entrepreneurs If You Have A Business, You Didn't Build That - Investors.com


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney currently trails in the electoral college 221-181 with 270 needed to win
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls
> 
> Electoral college works against Romney. He is way behind before the election even starts. He needs to take roughly eight of twelve swing states to hope to eke out a win
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO! Keep telling yourself that. A liberal website trying to convince the Communist masses that Obama has a chance means nothing. Obama has zero chance and even he knows it. He's not going to get one single GOP vote, so he loses right there. And quite a few Dems are going to turn on him as they already have done (because he destroyed their party and got them all voted out in 2010). Even Barney Frank came forward and said Obama destroyed the party with Obamacare and that they should have addressed the economy FIRST before worrying about Socialized medicine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The current numbers work against Romney and he knows it. Three and a half months to go and he needs a miracle. All the current electoral college polling shows Romney trailing. Right now, the balance of power favors the blue states. Barring a miracle, Romney will lose by 100 electoral votes
Click to expand...


Please hold on to that thought.  Relish it and rest well with it.

You'll never see the spring loaded blast Obama knows is coming.

100,000,000 dollars in negative adds and essentially no change in the polls.  Most indes won't engage until the last month or two and when they do.......

Obama will be spending next Spring by Lake Michigan.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mac1958 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mac.....
> 
> Can you tell us what comments you are disappointed in or insulted by and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, but they REALLY want to pretend they're utterly baffled that anyone could take offense to Obama's words, so it's necessary for them to keep blankly asking what could POSSIBLY be the problem, as though it's incomprehensible.


----------



## DiamondDave

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankilin needed government to invent the stove?
> To discvover the power of electricity?
> 
> *Franklin worked for the Government for a good part of his life*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waaa????
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You seriously didn't just post that, didja Hack?
> 
> No, you pathetic hack, Benjamin Franklin did not "work for government for a good part of his life."
> 
> He held three positions, Postmaster of the confederacy (Pre-U.S.) from 1775 to 1777 - an unpaid position undertaken to establish a communication system after lose of British postal service. President of Pennsylvania for one year. Then Ambassador to France, another unpaid position. (Franklin was a wealth statesman by that time.)
> 
> In 89 years, he spent less than 3 in government employ, and probably never took a dime from government.
> 
> Seriously hack, make up better lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it the government that assisted the Wright brothers?
> 
> *The Wright Brothers got their first contract with the Army Signal Corps*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before Kittyhawk, hack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe the internet had no shot without the government?
> 
> * The Government invented the internet, Army ARPANET*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What year was that, hack? Would that be around 1991 with Algore the prevaricator?  Or was it more like 1963 with J.C. Licklider?
> 
> Oh and hack, what about Doors and Wildcat? Wasn't the first coast to coast email system run across private BBS nodes on Wildcat using Doors to relay mail? In fact, wasn't this half a decade before Darpa allowed public switching infrastructure to link wide areas?
> 
> I could sent an email from Los Angeles to New York in 1981. Arpanet could in 1987.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the Government now finances a good portion of the R&D on energy, communications and medical research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that right, hack?
> 
> So we can thank government for Verizon developing LTE? Fair enough, the U.S. Army DID create CDMA, but GSM came from Alltel.
> 
> I don't know hack, I think you are completely full of shit.
Click to expand...


Kudos on the bust out of wrongwinger...  needs to happen more


----------



## P@triot

Sallow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge that business pass the cost on to the consumer, yet you suppport a Communist government punishing businesses and success with higher and higher taxes? Then you people wonder why the economy tanks under your policies?
> 
> God almighty are you stupid! You realize that business is not going to eat the loss, that they will pass it on to  you, and still you sit here supporting that stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies don't pay taxes.
> 
> Dog almighty you are stupid.
> 
> And either a  commie or an anarchist.
> 
> Your choice.
Click to expand...


That's it - try to avoid the conversation because I just exposed your hypocrisy in front of everyone!


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney currently trails in the electoral college 221-181 with 270 needed to win
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls
> 
> Electoral college works against Romney. He is way behind before the election even starts. He needs to take roughly eight of twelve swing states to hope to eke out a win
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO! Keep telling yourself that. A liberal website trying to convince the Communist masses that Obama has a chance means nothing. Obama has zero chance and even he knows it. He's not going to get one single GOP vote, so he loses right there. And quite a few Dems are going to turn on him as they already have done (because he destroyed their party and got them all voted out in 2010). Even Barney Frank came forward and said Obama destroyed the party with Obamacare and that they should have addressed the economy FIRST before worrying about Socialized medicine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The current numbers work against Romney and he knows it. Three and a half months to go and he needs a miracle. All the current electoral college polling shows Romney trailing. Right now, the balance of power favors the blue states. Barring a miracle, Romney will lose by 100 electoral votes
Click to expand...


You can wish all you want and you can post as many fake numbers as you want. At the end of the day, it's over for Obama and even he knows it. He's not going to get ONE SINGLE GOP VOTE. And he's going to lose handfuls of Democrat votes. He has ZERO chance of getting re-elected and he knows it. He knew it in November 2010 (why do you think he looked like he was going to cry that day )


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Rottweiler said:


> , it's over for Obama and even he knows it.







Oh god, you are maybe the winner of the funniest post of the day...

Real world:  conz cant ever win a national election when everyone votes, not ever, simple fact of mathematics

Con world: Obama has no chance



Stupid bigot, the ONLY way you get close to winning is by stealing the election by preventing millions of us from voting...better not, or you will have a problem on your hands you will not like...


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> , it's over for Obama and even he knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, you are maybe the winner of the funniest post of the day...
> 
> Real world:  conz cant ever win a national election when everyone votes, not ever, simple fact of mathematics
> 
> Con world: Obama has no chance
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid bigot, the ONLY way you get close to winning is by stealing the election by preventing millions of us from voting...better not, or you will have a problem on your hands you will not like...
Click to expand...


Don't need to steal anything.  And even if we did...you'd be to stupid to know it happened.

Obama is up...sleep well.

Hold onto that like your pacifier or thumb.

Just don't blow a head gasket when BHO is back on the shores of Lake Michigan come next March.


----------



## Cecilie1200

zeke said:


> What is it you want Mac? Big tears because you started a business? Wasn't it your choice? Did you not reap the rewards that you thought were yours because you started a business?
> 
> Damn man. If you are a successful business man, quit whining.
> 
> Oh and btw, you need a better HR department. I read where your employees were ripping you off. Fire the HR manager and start over. Or is the HR manager YOU?



I could be wrong, but I think what he wants is for dipshits like you and Obama to stop acting like the effort he put into building his business was no great shakes, and like you and Obama contributed just as much, and are just as entitled - if not more entitled - to the profits from that business.

And I don't think there's anything "whining" about saying, "Where the fuck do you get off taking credit for my work?"  There IS, however, a large element of whining in "How dare you object to supporting other people?" which is such a constant and popular theme with Obama and his worshippers.  I also find a lot of whining in Obama's new line, to which his worshippers are fervently rallying, of "How dare you think YOU'VE accomplished anything, you arrogant, conceited plebian?  We did everything for you, and you just got lucky."


----------



## Stephanie

One good thing with this speech is the people got to see the MASK come completely off of obama and how he really views us and the country he hates and wants to TRANSFORM..

VOTE this ugly man out..

he's put us down enough


----------



## GuyPinestra

ConzHateUSA said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> , it's over for Obama and even he knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, you are maybe the winner of the funniest post of the day...
> 
> Real world:  conz cant ever win a national election when everyone votes, not ever, simple fact of mathematics
> 
> Con world: Obama has no chance
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid bigot, the ONLY way you get close to winning is by stealing the election by preventing millions of us from voting...better not, or you will have a problem on your hands you will not like...
Click to expand...


I don't know what kind of problem you're referring to, could you be a little more specific?

Or is it just your habit to post vague threats on message boards?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Stephanie said:


> One good thing with this speech is the people got to see the MASK come completely off of obama and how he really views us and the country he hates and wants to TRANFORM..
> 
> VOTE this ugly man out..
> 
> he's put us down enough





You idiots are so upset, this reminds me of that idiot joe the plumber who didnt own jack...

i am running out of things to say to you guys, what do you say to someone who is wrong on absolutely everything they say, shaking my head, i may finally be speechless


----------



## Cecilie1200

OldUSAFSniper said:


> You know, when I heard this comment by Barry, all it did was cement what I already KNEW about him BEFORE he was elected.  The man is absolutely as CLUELESS about capatalism and free enterprise and is a student of socialism at its worst.
> 
> The simple fact is that if a small business man makes it, if he works HARD enough and LONG enough, he might (if he is really lucky) make a go of it DESPITE the federal government.  Because I am here to tell you that from the beginning of my business to the day that I shut the doors, the federal government was the BIGGEST roadblock to success.  For 20 years, from the moment I started, the nightmare that I had to deal with was "Hello, I'm from the federal government."  The second worst nightmare?  "Hello, I'm from the state government."
> 
> I have NOT met a small businessman who for an instant believes the crap that this man is dishing...



I'll bet "I'm from the city/county" was always a good time, too, huh?


----------



## Moonglow

I am glad to see all the twisted concepts of what Obama said. I thought it was just my wife that acted in a demented fashion of interpretation.


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> You idiots are so upset, this reminds me of that idiot joe the plumber who didnt own jack...
> 
> i am running out of things to say to you guys, *what do you say to someone who is wrong on absolutely everything* they say, shaking my head, i may finally be speechless



Here is a clue.

ConzHateUSA...STFU.


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you want Mac? Big tears because you started a business? Wasn't it your choice? Did you not reap the rewards that you thought were yours because you started a business?
> 
> Damn man. If you are a successful business man, quit whining.
> 
> Oh and btw, you need a better HR department. I read where your employees were ripping you off. Fire the HR manager and start over. Or is the HR manager YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could be wrong, but I think what he wants is for dipshits like you and Obama to stop acting like the effort he put into building his business was no great shakes, and like you and Obama contributed just as much, and are just as entitled - if not more entitled - to the profits from that business.
> 
> And I don't think there's anything "whining" about saying, "Where the fuck do you get off taking credit for my work?"  There IS, however, a large element of whining in "How dare you object to supporting other people?" which is such a constant and popular theme with Obama and his worshippers.  I also find a lot of whining in Obama's new line, to which his worshippers are fervently rallying, of "How dare you think YOU'VE accomplished anything, you arrogant, conceited plebian?  We did everything for you, and you just got lucky."
Click to expand...


well talk about extemist views.


----------



## Stephanie

Moonglow said:


> I am glad to see all the twisted concepts of what Obama said. I thought it was just my wife that acted in a demented fashion of interpretation.



Oh right, it's always everybody just didn't understand what he said..
we heard it loud and clear...and I hope they show up to vote.......him OUT


----------



## GuyPinestra

Moonglow said:


> I am glad to see all the twisted concepts of what Obama said. I thought it was just my wife that acted in a demented fashion of interpretation.



Twist this....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZO7XOpwa8]Obama 7.13.2012: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Stephanie said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to see all the twisted concepts of what Obama said. I thought it was just my wife that acted in a demented fashion of interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, it's always everybody just didn't understand what he said..
> we heard it loud and clear...and I hope they show up to vote.......him OUT
Click to expand...


Yes, everybody heard it loud and clear, he correctly stated that NOBODY ever made it ENTIRELY on their own, to argue the reverse proves you to be incredibly stupid.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sallow said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is speaking for himself, no doubt, as his past is as nefarious as one can be. He has no clue, and thus remains envious to the core, for those who do work against all challenges to become successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually..no.
> 
> He was speaking for every American Capitalist.
> 
> Unless of course..you know one that did make it entirely on his or her own?
> 
> Fill us in.
Click to expand...


Considering that you, and I, and every other resident of the United States gets EXACTLY the same "help" as small business owners, but the rest of us do NOT have successful businesses, I'd say every damned one of them made the difference between them and us entirely on their own.

This whole "You live in the United States, so your success is owed to everyone else in the United States for the good fortune of living here" line of crap is cutting zero ice with anyone who isn't a freeloading sack of dung.  I will be grateful to my nation and my community for the OPPORTUNITY to be successful that it affords me (and everyone else).  I refuse to be grateful to them for what _I _did with that opportunity.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Cecilie1200 said:


> Considering that you, and I, and every other resident of the United States gets EXACTLY the same "help" as small business owners, but the rest of us do NOT have successful businesses, I'd say every damned one of them made the difference between them and us entirely on their own.
> 
> This whole "You live in the United States, so your success is owed to everyone else in the United States for the good fortune of living here" line of crap is cutting zero ice with anyone who isn't a freeloading sack of dung.  I will be grateful to my nation and my community for the OPPORTUNITY to be successful that it affords me (and everyone else).  I refuse to be grateful to them for what _I _did with that opportunity.



This is an informative post, this person has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, has absolutely no historical context nor does he or she realize just how completely absurd this is, especially this comment



> Considering that you, and I, and every other resident of the United States gets EXACTLY the same "help" as small business owners,




Liberals, look at that...I know, I know, I hear you screaming, I hear you trying to scream out an education for this person, but they cant hear it...

I think this proves that they cannot be taught, well they can, there is no reason they cant, but they refuse to, their bigotry is simply way too valuable to them


----------



## Stephanie

I see someone is have a melt down..OH WELL



ConzHateUSA This user is on your Ignore List.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

ignore me, right

you live to read my posts  LOL


----------



## Cecilie1200

JoeNormal said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two thoughts in that sentence.  That'll blow most conservative minds.  A thing can only be one thing or another.  And the one thing or another come from a very small subset of the spectrum of possibilities out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, how much does a whiner like you owe to the government for your success?   You use the infrastructure to, although I can guarantee you pay a hell of a lot less for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I received a public education as I assume most people on here have.  I have two college degrees and even though I received no scholarship, colleges are subsidized by the government.  I deal with high tech stuff that was largely developed at universities and national laboratories that are funded by the government.  So I can admit that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing without government assistance.  But unless you run a low tech sweatshop, neither can you.
Click to expand...


I sincerely doubt you have any clue WHO developed the stuff you use, or who paid for it.  Your idea that the government is responsible for most of the funding for all universities is just laughable.

I used to work at the University of Arizona, which is a well-respected research university as well as being an educational institution.  I can tell you, from my position in the nuts-and-bolts level of administration in several departments that where the funding comes from depends largely on which department you're in.  "Womyn's Studies", African-American Studies, that sort of thing?  Whatever "research" they're doing is funded by government grants.  But, as an example of the direct opposite, one professor I worked for in the chemistry department was working on developing a tanning pill.  His research was funded entirely by private pharmaceutical interests, who stood to make a fortune if and when he succeeded.  As another example, the professor I worked for in Consumer Studies conducted consumer research surveys which were entirely funded by the companies and industries who wanted to use the data to refine their marketing strategies.

Generally speaking, any research that stands a good possibility of being profitable is getting only a small proportion of its money - if any - from the government.  The majority is coming from the private industries who actually stand to profit.  The government may have come up with the initial germ of an idea for the Internet, but it was the private sector that really ran with it and made it what it is today.


----------



## Lakhota

> *Does President Obama Think You Didnt Build Your Business? No.*
> 
> _By Benjy Sarlin_
> 
> Heres the full passage:
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.​



More: Does President Obama Think You Didnt Build Your Business? No. | TPM2012


----------



## regent

If I had a dime for every time a poster uses the word communism on these boards I would put those millions into a saving account in the Cayman Islands. If I had to pay a dime for every poster that I felt knew what communism meant I would still have my millions. It's understandable, schools probably steered clear of the entire topic, why make the five O'clock news trying to teach a course in comparative economic systesms? It seems to mean all sorts of things to posters, but what? I have met people from the USSR and they didn't seem to know what Marx was talking about, they only knew and believed that which USSR practiced was communism. It's usage  today seems to have boiled down to, it's what Democrats do, and has no relationship to what Karl Marx advocated.


----------



## GuyPinestra

ConzHateUSA said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that you, and I, and every other resident of the United States gets EXACTLY the same "help" as small business owners, but the rest of us do NOT have successful businesses, I'd say every damned one of them made the difference between them and us entirely on their own.
> 
> This whole "You live in the United States, so your success is owed to everyone else in the United States for the good fortune of living here" line of crap is cutting zero ice with anyone who isn't a freeloading sack of dung.  I will be grateful to my nation and my community for the OPPORTUNITY to be successful that it affords me (and everyone else).  I refuse to be grateful to them for what _I _did with that opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an informative post, this person has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, has absolutely no historical context nor does he or she realize just how completely absurd this is, especially this comment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that you, and I, and every other resident of the United States gets EXACTLY the same "help" as small business owners,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, look at that...I know, I know, I hear you screaming, I hear you trying to scream out an education for this person, but they cant hear it...
> 
> I think this proves that they cannot be taught, well they can, there is no reason they cant, but they refuse to, their bigotry is simply way too valuable to them
Click to expand...


Speaking of informative posts, I'm sure yours are giving an eye-opening education to the Independents who will decide this election. 

Please keep it up and let the whole world know just what Liberals really are when you peel back their skin.


----------



## Listening

Lakhota said:


> *Does President Obama Think You Didnt Build Your Business? No.*
> 
> _By Benjy Sarlin_
> 
> Heres the full passage:
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Does President Obama Think You Didnt Build Your Business? No. | TPM2012
Click to expand...


And if you want to be on your own...we will penalize you for it.

We don't rise or fall on all issues.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous fallacies of Obama.....


----------



## Rocko

I don't understand why the OP thinks this is a new tactic from the president. He uses it all the time. It's called class warefare.


----------



## Lakhota

Listening said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does President Obama Think You Didn&#8217;t Build Your Business? No.*
> 
> _By Benjy Sarlin_
> 
> Here&#8217;s the full passage:
> 
> &#8220;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&#8217;ve got a business, you didn&#8217;t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn&#8217;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&#8217;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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That&#8217;s how we funded the GI Bill. That&#8217;s how we created the middle class. That&#8217;s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That&#8217;s how we invented the Internet. That&#8217;s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that&#8217;s the reason I&#8217;m running for president &#8212; because I still believe in that idea. You&#8217;re not on your own, we&#8217;re in this together.&#8221;​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Does President Obama Think You Didn&#8217;t Build Your Business? No. | TPM2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you want to be on your own...we will penalize you for it.
> 
> We don't rise or fall on all issues.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous fallacies of Obama.....
Click to expand...


Damn, you must really be retarded.  Try this: Buy a large section of raw land and build your own business - including all infrastructure. Build and pay for your own defense, transportation (roads/highways/ports/shipping), education, research & development, energy, police, courts, etc. without help from anyone else - including the government.

There is much more, but surely you get the drift by now.  Good luck...


----------



## Stephanie

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9sbQf9MQ4]He Doesn&#39;t Get It - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Moonglow

Lakhota said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Does President Obama Think You Didn&#8217;t Build Your Business? No. | TPM2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to be on your own...we will penalize you for it.
> 
> We don't rise or fall on all issues.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous fallacies of Obama.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you must really be retarded.  Try this: Buy a large section of raw land and build your own business - including all infrastructure. Build and pay for your own defense, transportation (roads/highways/ports/shipping), education, research & development, energy, police, courts, etc. without help from anyone else - including the government.
> 
> There is much more, but surely you get the drift by now.  Good luck...
Click to expand...


They never will. They just can't see where both govt and business can be good for each other. The interstate sytem was built for trucks to move products more efficeintly than having to stop in every town and go where the road led instead of a direct route.


----------



## P@triot

regent said:


> If I had a dime for every time a poster uses the word communism on these boards I would put those millions into a saving account in the Cayman Islands. If I had to pay a dime for every poster that I felt knew what communism meant I would still have my millions. It's understandable, schools probably steered clear of the entire topic, why make the five O'clock news trying to teach a course in comparative economic systesms? It seems to mean all sorts of things to posters, but what? I have met people from the USSR and they didn't seem to know what Marx was talking about, they only knew and believed that which USSR practiced was communism. It's usage  today seems to have boiled down to, it's what Democrats do, and has no relationship to what Karl Marx advocated.



Well, the fact that you just referred to it as an "economic system" is a clear indication that you too do not know what it means.

The first thing people don't understand is that there are economic systems (ie Capitalism, Socialism, etc.) and political systems (ie Republics, Dictatorships, etc.).

Communism is neither - it is a blanket term the US leaders started using in the early 1900's to describe nations that were politically a dictatorship and economically Marxists/Socialists. You can be a Republic or Democracy that votes for voluntary Socialism economically. That is NOT Communism. But when you are FORCED by a dictator (or small faction of power) into Marxism or Socialism, that is Communism.

And that is why Communism is the proper term to describe today's liberal. Because they want to FORCE the rest of America into their Marxist/Socialist ideology. Today's liberal is so radical, they are Communism in it's purest form.


----------



## Cecilie1200

teapartysamurai said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> PROVIDED????????????
> 
> Like the entrepeneur didn't pay for those government services?
> 
> I don't pay for those services?
> 
> You don't pay for those services?
> 
> The government just "provides" those services out of the "goodness" of their bureacratic little hearts?
> 
> By your own non-logic I now demand you hand your pay checks over because you couldn't have made that check without all of us.
> 
> It's makes about as much sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so..now you are saying we live in a collective society.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what liberals do when they are losing.  Claim you said something NOT IN EVIDENCE.
> 
> When you can prove that claim, let me know.
> 
> YOU are the ones claiming we are living a collectivist society.
> 
> I'm saying we all pay taxes.  But you libs make it sound as if everyone else pays taxes and the small business owner does not!
> 
> How can you libs claim, they aren't paying their "faire share" when 70% of the taxes in this country come from those making $250K and UP!
> 
> But 48% of this country pays no federal taxes whatsoever and I don't see a demand from you libs that THEY PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE (which obviously they are not, by YOUR own non-logic)
Click to expand...


They've done a lot more than "make it sound like" business owners don't pay taxes.  Several of them have posted right here on this thread, STATING that businesses "profit from things they didn't pay for".


----------



## Cecilie1200

BDBoop said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is every person could benefit from infrastructure as much as a successful businessman.
> 
> So that one person does and others don't is no cause for that person to pay more than his share now is it?
> 
> And I've already shown you multiple times that businesses already pay more for "society" than the average American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficientlyWe can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  Thats how we funded the GI Bill.  Thats how we created the middle class.  Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet.  Thats how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea.  Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
Click to expand...


I'm sure YOU think it sounds wonderful now matter how it's quoted, because Obama said it, and because you're a leftist retard.

Unfortunately for your little plan, your allegedly "ignored" context makes it sound no better whatsoever to anyone who's ever accomplished a damned thing in life besides cash a check.

It still says, "You need to 'give back' more, because you're not contributing enough to compensate for all the effort everyone else put into your lucky break."


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We&#8217;ve already made a trillion dollars&#8217; worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don&#8217;t work, and make government work more efficiently&#8230;We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more &#8230;
> 
> 
> There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.  They know they didn&#8217;t -look, if you&#8217;ve been successful, you didn&#8217;t get there on your own.  You didn&#8217;t get there on your own.  I&#8217;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 &#8211; there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
> 
> 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&#8217;ve got a business. you didn&#8217;t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn&#8217;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&#8217;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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That&#8217;s how we funded the GI Bill.  That&#8217;s how we created the middle class.  That&#8217;s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That&#8217;s how we invented the Internet.  That&#8217;s how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that&#8217;s the reason I&#8217;m running for president &#8211; because I still believe in that idea.  You&#8217;re not on your own, we&#8217;re in this together.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure YOU think it sounds wonderful now matter how it's quoted, because Obama said it, and because you're a leftist retard.
> 
> Unfortunately for your little plan, your allegedly "ignored" context makes it sound no better whatsoever to anyone who's ever accomplished a damned thing in life besides cash a check.
> 
> It still says, "You need to 'give back' more, because you're not contributing enough to compensate for all the effort everyone else put into your lucky break."
Click to expand...


No it doesn't. He only stated a fact about how humans got to where they are. Did u educate yourself all through your early life, feed urself when you were a toddler, did you never have a mentor that gave you strength and courage to take chances in business? 
No man is an island, remember that? 
What does that mean? 
I believe it is the same premise as Obama's not by yourself statement.


----------



## Stephanie

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure YOU think it sounds wonderful now matter how it's quoted, because Obama said it, and because you're a leftist retard.
> 
> Unfortunately for your little plan, your allegedly "ignored" context makes it sound no better whatsoever to anyone who's ever accomplished a damned thing in life besides cash a check.
> 
> It still says, "You need to 'give back' more, because you're not contributing enough to compensate for all the effort everyone else put into your lucky break."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. He only stated a fact about how humans got to where they are. Did u educate yourself all through your early life, feed urself when you were a toddler, did you never have a mentor that gave you strength and courage to take chances in business?
> No man is an island, remember that?
> What does that mean?
> I believe it is the same premise as Obama's not by yourself statement.
Click to expand...


omg..that was spin


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of the thread is "You did not get there on your own"
> 
> Nobody has questioned that businesses pay taxes as they should. Nobody questions that businesses pay more taxes than the average Joe Taxpayer. They also benefit more from what those taxes provide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficientlyWe can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  Thats how we funded the GI Bill.  Thats how we created the middle class.  Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet.  Thats how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea.  Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure YOU think it sounds wonderful now matter how it's quoted, because Obama said it, and because you're a leftist retard.
> 
> Unfortunately for your little plan, your allegedly "ignored" context makes it sound no better whatsoever to anyone who's ever accomplished a damned thing in life besides cash a check.
> 
> It still says, "You need to 'give back' more, because you're not contributing enough to compensate for all the effort everyone else put into your lucky break."
Click to expand...


is that the only way you know how to converse with people?


----------



## Listening

Lakhota said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Does President Obama Think You Didn&#8217;t Build Your Business? No. | TPM2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to be on your own...we will penalize you for it.
> 
> We don't rise or fall on all issues.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous fallacies of Obama.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you must really be retarded.  Try this: Buy a large section of raw land and build your own business - including all infrastructure. Build and pay for your own defense, transportation (roads/highways/ports/shipping), education, research & development, energy, police, courts, etc. without help from anyone else - including the government.
> 
> There is much more, but surely you get the drift by now.  Good luck...
Click to expand...


I know it is tough having your head up David Axelrod's ass, but try to pay attention.

The U.S. bound together for protection.  Secure the borders.

After that, they said to the states....you go where you will...there only a few things you can't (according a well known document called the U.S. Constitution).

States then provided a great deal of the infrastructure you mentioned.

If you assholes realized that leaving it at the state level would be fine with conservatives....you might not spend so much time trying to read the writing on each others underwear while hiding under each others skirts.

Tell Obama to GTFO of states business (like health care which is not called out in the constitution) and you'll find you have a great many friends in conservatives.

Otherwise, go ask for a refund for your education tax dollars...you were obviously screwed.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Does President Obama Think You Didn&#8217;t Build Your Business? No. | TPM2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to be on your own...we will penalize you for it.
> 
> We don't rise or fall on all issues.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous fallacies of Obama.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you must really be retarded.  Try this: Buy a large section of raw land and build your own business - including all infrastructure. Build and pay for your own defense, transportation (roads/highways/ports/shipping), education, research & development, energy, police, courts, etc. without help from anyone else - including the government.
> 
> There is much more, but surely you get the drift by now.  Good luck...
Click to expand...


Damn, you REALLY ARE RETARDED (by the way - thanks again for showing the ugly side of the liberal, taking a very real mental handicap and turning it into a negative insult).

Defense - well stupid, it doesn't cost that much to own a gun. And it certainly isn't that hard to hire private security. But here's the most important part - defense is the #1 priority of the federal government in the US Constitution. NOBODY is complaining about taxes for defense. In fact, it's YOUR idiot Marxist president who is looking to gut our defense. *EPIC FAIL* in your "argument".

Transportation - Hey stupid, the majority of us pay for our own transportation every day. I've NEVER taken a bus or a train. I own a car. I've rented a car. And I've paid PRIVATE (ie not government) companies for a limo and for a taxi. *EPIC FAIL* in your "argument".

Roads/Highways/etc. - Those are STATE and LOCAL issue stupid. The federal government is NOT constitutionally authorized to build roads in Idaho. But liberals are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between FEDERAL and LOCAL government. *EPIC FAIL* in your "argument".

Education - Another STATE and LOCAL issue stupid! The federal government is NOT constitutionally authorized to over see education. But liberals are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between FEDERAL and LOCAL government. *EPIC FAIL* in your "argument".

Research & Development - Is a PRIVATE sector issue you fucking moron! Bill Gates didn't need the US government for R&D on Windows. Steve Jobs didn't need the US government for R&D on the iPad, iPhone, or iPod. And Sony didn't need the US government for R&D on the Playstation. Only Communists think the government should take money from tax payers and spend it on R&D that is not directly related to their constitutional responsibilities (like defense, stupid). So yes, just like the private companies I just listed did, we could (and SHOULD) pay for own R&D. *EPIC FAIL* in your "argument".

Energy - Is a PRIVATE sector issue you fucking moron!!! Is the federal government mining for natural gas? Is the federal government mining for coal? Is the federal government drilling for oil? Damn are you an IDIOT!!! *EPIC FAIL* in your "argument".

Police - Once again, a STATE and LOCAL issue you fucking moron. The federal government does not pay for your local police, so this argument does not apply. Barack Obama is president of the US, not mayor of your local city. But that aside, as we already discovered in my first post, it's not that difficult to purchase firearms and/or pay for private security. So yes, anyone who is not an idiot asshole liberal could provide this for themselves. *EPIC FAIL* in your "argument".

Courts - Except for the federal courts, once again a STATE and LOCAL issue. *EPIC FAIL* in your "argument".

*It is fucking amazing how helpless you asshole liberals are. You believe you can't survive 15 fucking minutes if government isn't there to coddle you and provide for you. You people must walk around your government provided apartments wearing diapers and bonets with a binkie in your mouths. I swear to God, you're the most helpless little bitches in world history. You think NOTHING is possible without goverment doing it for you. Fucking lazy and helpless....*


----------



## Murf76

Lakhota said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Does President Obama Think You Didn&#8217;t Build Your Business? No. | TPM2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to be on your own...we will penalize you for it.
> 
> We don't rise or fall on all issues.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous fallacies of Obama.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you must really be retarded.  Try this: Buy a large section of raw land and build your own business - including all infrastructure. Build and pay for your own defense, transportation (roads/highways/ports/shipping), education, research & development, energy, police, courts, etc. without help from anyone else - including the government.
> 
> There is much more, but surely you get the drift by now.  Good luck...
Click to expand...


Well, that's pretty much what our pioneering forebears did.  In the game of 'which came first', clearly Commerce must happen before Revenue can be collected.

Today, of course, there's alot more to it.  But when we have nearly HALF this nation's citizens collecting some form of government payment and not paying income tax to boot... there's no "we did it together" involved.  Obama infers that these businesses _owe_ something for their success.  But the fact of the matter is... they're the ones who are paying for that infrastructure... and MORE than their "fair share" too.


----------



## candycorn

All of us are warmed by the fires stoked by others.  No exceptions.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Attacking small business was a tactical mistake for Dear Leader. I know he is just waging class warfare as he always does, but this will hurt him a lot more than the Bainther® movement is hurting Romney.


----------



## jillian

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure YOU think it sounds wonderful now matter how it's quoted, because Obama said it, and because you're a leftist retard.
> 
> Unfortunately for your little plan, your allegedly "ignored" context makes it sound no better whatsoever to anyone who's ever accomplished a damned thing in life besides cash a check.
> 
> It still says, "You need to 'give back' more, because you're not contributing enough to compensate for all the effort everyone else put into your lucky break."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is that the only way you know how to converse with people?
Click to expand...


Yeah, she thinks we're her clients and want to be told how naughty and worthless we are.

Mistress Cecile is pretty pathetic that way


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a business I didn't build that?
> 
> What the fuck does that mean?  Is Bam Bam saying that people give buildings away to be used as businesses?
> 
> If I paid for a building to be built then yes I built it because without my money it wouldn't have happened now would it?
> 
> Let me ask you sheep this?
> 
> *Whose money funded my business? I didn't take any government guaranteed loans.  I am personally responsible for every dollar I borrowed and every lease I took out for equipment.*
> Which of you did any of that for me?
> 
> Were any of you working with me when I had to do 50K in code upgrades so as to open? Did you help pay for the code upgrades?
> 
> Where would you have been if our business failed?  Would you have given us room and board?
> 
> What risk did anyone else in "society" take when I opened my business?
> 
> None that's what and now you greedy fucks want more of the rewards I made happen.
> 
> Seems Bam Bam doesn't understand the difference between working together and paying people to do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
Click to expand...


Borrowing money from a bank is "on the tit of the government"?  My God, you get dumber every time you talk.


----------



## Mac1958

Uncensored2008 said:


> Attacking small business was a tactical mistake for Dear Leader. I know he is just waging class warfare as he always does, but this will hurt him a lot more than the Bainther® movement is hurting Romney.




He's evidently put his chips down on the fact that there are more who don't own businesses than those who do.  So, it's "you're just as important to the success of the business as your boss, even if you're a part time janitor."

Ping!  Another vote.  Easy as pie.

.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> What the fuck.
> 
> You borrowed money?
> 
> Don't fucking tell me you went to a bank and borrowed money.
> 
> Why didn't you have the cash on hand?
> 
> Or heck..why didn't you just get the materials on your own.
> 
> That's so freaking typical.
> 
> Borrowing money..gosh. On the tit of the government.
> 
> So disappointing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not just banks but venture-capitalist groups like Bain Capital made much of the wealth in America possible. The government had little to do with it.
> 
> The only thing government did for my business was set up road-blocks for fuck's sake.
> 
> Obama has his head up his ass cuz he walked right into that one....and so did you. Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> these are fast becoming not just the stupidest comments (not picking on you personally, pretty much all of you rightwingers have entirely and completely lost your minds) in history, but if we allowed these lower middle class white bagger bigots to run things, the country would be done very very quickly...
> 
> It is being dismantled now, and getting these dumb baggers to believe this garbage is why we are always fighting each other, well that and they hate people that dont look exactly like them...
Click to expand...


Yet another "I have nothing real to say to refute this, so I'll just dismiss it as 'dumb' and hope no one notices" leftist.  ::yawn::


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> tea party
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> god, if they only knew why their agenda was the opposite of the actual history they think they are repeating



If only you could actually PROVE that their agenda is the opposite of history, rather than just claiming it is and hoping no one will call your bluff.


----------



## Stephanie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Attacking small business was a tactical mistake for Dear Leader. I know he is just waging class warfare as he always does, but this will hurt him a lot more than the Bainther® movement is hurting Romney.



yep, and they tell us obama is Brilliant..


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> Oh god, this is great entertainment, reading these idiots.
> 
> I wonder if there is a reality tv show in this, maybe a camera crew follows an adult, i.e. liberal, as he or she goes to known bagger areas and asks them questions, the answers would be hysterical...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> I dont know if I have time, overseeing 52 employees does take a little bit of my time, but hell, I would rather be in show biz anyway!



"Oh, God, listening to all these people making substantial arguments that I can't refute is SOO funny, and I sure hope no one asks me to explain WHY it's funny, and they just assume it's because I know something lofty and meaningful that I haven't mentioned!"

Say something useful, or shut the fuck up.  You're wasting space with this whole "You're so stupid, but I'm MUCH too busy to explain why" schtick, and it's not fooling anyone.  Even the other leftist idiots think you're a dolt, whether they'll admit it or not.


----------



## regent

Rottweiler said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a dime for every time a poster uses the word communism on these boards I would put those millions into a saving account in the Cayman Islands. If I had to pay a dime for every poster that I felt knew what communism meant I would still have my millions. It's understandable, schools probably steered clear of the entire topic, why make the five O'clock news trying to teach a course in comparative economic systesms? It seems to mean all sorts of things to posters, but what? I have met people from the USSR and they didn't seem to know what Marx was talking about, they only knew and believed that which USSR practiced was communism. It's usage  today seems to have boiled down to, it's what Democrats do, and has no relationship to what Karl Marx advocated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the fact that you just referred to it as an "economic system" is a clear indication that you too do not know what it means.
> 
> The first thing people don't understand is that there are economic systems (ie Capitalism, Socialism, etc.) and political systems (ie Republics, Dictatorships, etc.).
> 
> Communism is neither - it is a blanket term the US leaders started using in the early 1900's to describe nations that were politically a dictatorship and economically Marxists/Socialists. You can be a Republic or Democracy that votes for voluntary Socialism economically. That is NOT Communism. But when you are FORCED by a dictator (or small faction of power) into Marxism or Socialism, that is Communism.
> 
> And that is why Communism is the proper term to describe today's liberal. Because they want to FORCE the rest of America into their Marxist/Socialist ideology. Today's liberal is so radical, they are Communism in it's purest form.
Click to expand...


Asking US leaders to define communism is similar to asking posters to define communism.  Better and more accurate definitions might be found by asking political scientists, perhaps those that teach subjects like comparative economic systems, and even better than that, to read what Marx had to say about the political and economic facets of his system. 
Did Marx believe that a dictators would force capitalistic nations into communism? How was that transfer to take place? What was the political system that Marx envisioned for his system? I'll ask you another question one that I have asked numerous times, can you name a nation that has or is now practicing Marxian communism? And still another question, if our founders were liberals and used liberal ideas in the Constitution does that make the founders communists? They certainly advocated a political system that was pretty radical for its time and based on liberal ideas.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BDBoop said:


> I gather anarchy is the next step.



Only to simplistic dumbfucks who can't see any middle ground between all-intrusive government and no government at all.

Take a bow, simplistic dumbfuck!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Cecilie1200 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gather anarchy is the next step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to simplistic dumbfucks who can't see any middle ground between all-intrusive government and no government at all.
> 
> Take a bow, simplistic dumbfuck!
Click to expand...


Well, without da gubmint, Obama would be working at McDonalds.... he's not the most impressive man mentally.  So of course he thinks gubmint is the bees knees.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me the last time that a Union started a company and generated profits so they could hire workers, never happenede.  Tell me the last time Obama started a company that made a profit so he would hire workers.  Obama is a loser and has been and now that the truth is out he ain't doing so well.  By By Obama in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another bigot racist moron....
> 
> well, thanks to liberal sciency types you can post on the internet too
Click to expand...


No one has mentioned race but you, numbfuck, which would make YOU the only bigot and racist around here at the moment.

Sadly, you're far from being the only moron.  Lots of other leftists here who qualify for that.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Cecilie1200 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gather anarchy is the next step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to simplistic dumbfucks who can't see any middle ground between all-intrusive government and no government at all.
> 
> Take a bow, simplistic dumbfuck!
Click to expand...


Indeed, it's either statism or anarchy in their world.  They're not the brightest bunch ya know.


----------



## Stephanie

Cecilie1200 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gather anarchy is the next step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to simplistic dumbfucks who can't see any middle ground between all-intrusive government and no government at all.
> 
> Take a bow, simplistic dumbfuck!
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> boy, you bigot baggers ought to rethink posting at all anymore, every single word you say is either completely ignorant or just an outright lie
> 
> or, is it possible you have no clue how this nation was built, when, etc. ?
> 
> i guess it is possible



HateUSA apparently thinks the word "bigot" means "someone who says things I don't like, but am too stupid to argue with".


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Cecilie1200 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> signelect said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me the last time that a Union started a company and generated profits so they could hire workers, never happenede.  Tell me the last time Obama started a company that made a profit so he would hire workers.  Obama is a loser and has been and now that the truth is out he ain't doing so well.  By By Obama in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another bigot racist moron....
> 
> well, thanks to liberal sciency types you can post on the internet too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has mentioned race but you, numbfuck, which would make YOU the only bigot and racist around here at the moment.
> 
> Sadly, you're far from being the only moron.  Lots of other leftists here who qualify for that.
Click to expand...


Race card = "I got nutt'n"


----------



## GuyPinestra

Moonglow said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you want to be on your own...we will penalize you for it.
> 
> We don't rise or fall on all issues.
> 
> This has to be one of the most ridiculous fallacies of Obama.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you must really be retarded.  Try this: Buy a large section of raw land and build your own business - including all infrastructure. Build and pay for your own defense, transportation (roads/highways/ports/shipping), education, research & development, energy, police, courts, etc. without help from anyone else - including the government.
> 
> There is much more, but surely you get the drift by now.  Good luck...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They never will. They just can't see where both govt and business can be good for each other. The interstate sytem was built for trucks to move products more efficeintly than having to stop in every town and go where the road led instead of a direct route.
Click to expand...


Moonbat, the Interstate system was built by Eisenhower for national defense, moving troops and supplies more efficiently. It had ZERO to do with moving trade goods, that was and is an ancillary benefit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

teapartysamurai said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gather anarchy is the next step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is a great insight into the liberal non mind.
> 
> They think freedom means chaos!
> 
> We have to be CONTROLLED FOR OUR OWN GOOD!
> 
> ANY TIME you hear a lib talk about freedom (unless it about himself).
> 
> I mean if it's about himself, freedom is fine, BUT FOR ANYONE ELSE, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH THE LIBERAL!  Why the horror!
> 
> You can't let those people be free!  Do what they want!  Decide for themselves!  Why, it would be utter chaos.
> 
> That is what liberals really think.  It's indicative of their ignorance and their paranoia.
Click to expand...


Leftists only want the freedom to take drugs, abort babies, and camp in parks for months on end.  Everything else should be micro-managed by the government (federal for preference, but they'll accept lower governments in a pinch).


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> end capital gains tax, take very penny over $10 million in inheritance, ending the walton/walmart family's terrorism on our country...



. . . And you'll still be a broke, punk-ass loser.  No amount of misery spread to other people is going to make your life any less of a shit sandwich, so get over it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

What on earth are the insane rightists whining about  no one gets anywhere on his own; business owners are products of public education and graduates of public colleges and universities. 

Without government thered be no modern business, no employees to work in those businesses, and no consumers to patronize those businesses. 

Any argument otherwise is ignorant idiocy.


----------



## Rozman

The President knows a lot about the subject I'm sure....He must have been looking back at how he got as far as he has.


----------



## Sallow

GuyPinestra said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you must really be retarded.  Try this: Buy a large section of raw land and build your own business - including all infrastructure. Build and pay for your own defense, transportation (roads/highways/ports/shipping), education, research & development, energy, police, courts, etc. without help from anyone else - including the government.
> 
> There is much more, but surely you get the drift by now.  Good luck...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never will. They just can't see where both govt and business can be good for each other. The interstate sytem was built for trucks to move products more efficeintly than having to stop in every town and go where the road led instead of a direct route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moonbat, the Interstate system was built by Eisenhower for national defense, moving troops and supplies more efficiently. It had ZERO to do with moving trade goods, that was and is an ancillary benefit.
Click to expand...


Except..it was one of Eisenhower's shining achievements in terms of making the US an economic powerhouse and superpower.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the primary incentive for the interstate highway system was national defense. Ike came back from Germany after WWII and saw how effective the autobahn was in moving men and materials
> 
> In 1950s America, it was not a question of if there would be a nuclear attack, but when.  We needed a way to rapidly move evacuees, troops and supplies to affected areas. The interstate highway system was the key
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The economic benefit of the highway system was ancillary to its purpose.
> 
> That benefit was undeniable but like any other system in existence the benefits of new roads is subject to the laws of diminishing returns.
> 
> I don't care how many new roads you build, the effect will not be the same as it was when the original interstates were built.
> 
> And mainlining roads does not add to the economic benefit it just costs money and actually slows the flow of people and goods.
> 
> Face it people our road system will never return the benefits it once did which is why roads are not as important to the success of businesses as they were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use an outhouse, I take it.
Click to expand...


Oh, now that roads have been shown to not fit your narrative, you're going to try to pretend that sewer systems aren't paid for by taxes, which are ALSO paid in much larger amounts and proportions by businesses than by individuals?

Give it the fuck up, already, BDPoop.  Anything you can possibly list as a "benefit being provided for businesses to profit off of" is going to fall under the heading of "more than paid for by their taxes".


----------



## GuyPinestra

Sallow said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> They never will. They just can't see where both govt and business can be good for each other. The interstate sytem was built for trucks to move products more efficeintly than having to stop in every town and go where the road led instead of a direct route.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonbat, the Interstate system was built by Eisenhower for national defense, moving troops and supplies more efficiently. It had ZERO to do with moving trade goods, that was and is an ancillary benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except..it was one of Eisenhower's shining achievements in terms of making the US an economic powerhouse and superpower.
Click to expand...


But that wasn't it's PURPOSE.

Like I said, ancillary benefit. 

Thank you for agreeing with me.


----------



## Pho_King

I wanted to thank everyone for their contributions to the success of my business.  But I want to thank appropriately, so I need to know just how much you contributed.   Shall I send a mere thank you card or did you contribute enough for a gift basket thank you?


----------



## Too Tall

Truthmatters said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are finally admitting they're Socialists/Communists!
> 
> Praise Allah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was the cumberland road a commy plot?
Click to expand...


No, it was built with the taxes paid to the government by business owners and their employees.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Pho_King said:


> I wanted to thank everyone for their contributions to the success of my business.  But I want to thank appropriately, so I need to know just how much you contributed.   Shall I send a mere thank you card or did you contribute enough for a gift basket thank you?



Fuck a basket, I demand PROFIT-SHARING!!!


----------



## Dr Grump

jillian said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure YOU think it sounds wonderful now matter how it's quoted, because Obama said it, and because you're a leftist retard.
> 
> Unfortunately for your little plan, your allegedly "ignored" context makes it sound no better whatsoever to anyone who's ever accomplished a damned thing in life besides cash a check.
> 
> It still says, "You need to 'give back' more, because you're not contributing enough to compensate for all the effort everyone else put into your lucky break."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that the only way you know how to converse with people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, she thinks we're her clients and want to be told how naughty and worthless we are.
> 
> Mistress Cecile is pretty pathetic that way
Click to expand...


Bah, she's just too moronic, pathetic, [insert derogatory adjective here - she meets all criteria after all] to converse with well-informed, educated people...

Uncivil discourse is the last bastian of the feeble, weak-minded and ill-informed...


----------



## Dr Grump

GuyPinestra said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to thank everyone for their contributions to the success of my business.  But I want to thank appropriately, so I need to know just how much you contributed.   Shall I send a mere thank you card or did you contribute enough for a gift basket thank you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck a basket, I demand PROFIT-SHARING!!!
Click to expand...


And yet a forward-thinking, intelligent CEO would include some form of profit-sharing with his or her employees....


----------



## Too Tall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What on earth are the insane rightists whining about  no one gets anywhere on his own; business owners are products of public education and graduates of public colleges and universities.
> 
> Without government thered be no modern business, no employees to work in those businesses, and no consumers to patronize those businesses.
> 
> Any argument otherwise is ignorant idiocy.



I would much rather discuss who signs treaties.

Macon Phillips
April 08, 2010 
10:17 AM EDT



> Earlier today, President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia signed the New START treaty and its protocol.


----------



## Dante

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



You were wrong about it flying into the rights' strengths. You've bought their bullshit for so long you believe it too.

Whether Obama wins the argument or even the election, he has changed the dynamic of the conversation for the first time in decades. Even Bill Clinton sucked up to Conservatives bullshit on economic and finance and business issues. He had to. 

To me, Obama is looking more and more like a great President. He may not change much with legislative initiatives, that's Congress's turf anyway, but Obama has been changing the national dialogue and with it the American psyche.


----------



## Rozman

I think maybe the President is flexing his muscles a bit...sensing a big win in Nov...
It's like a new pet owner getting a puppy from the pet shop and he's training it.
The first time the puppy poops in the house the owner puts the dogs nose in it to teach it to go outside.

Well Obama just wants business to know that he is the big dog in the house and he and his government
will rub businesses nose in the you know what anytime he feels like it.


----------



## Pheonixops

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



I certainly think that he could have worded it better. In my opinion, it laves a lot of room for the dishonest conservative talking heads to lie and misrepresent his statement. While they are not his "target market" so to speak, it gives his opposition a rallying point.


----------



## Stephanie

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> is that the only way you know how to converse with people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, she thinks we're her clients and want to be told how naughty and worthless we are.
> 
> Mistress Cecile is pretty pathetic that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bah, she's just too moronic, pathetic, [insert derogatory adjective here - she meets all criteria after all] to converse with well-informed, educated people...
> 
> Uncivil discourse is the last bastian of the feeble, weak-minded and ill-informed...
Click to expand...


omg...YOU SHOULD TALK...go back and look at some of your post..


----------



## onecut39

teapartysamurai said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that you are a liar. You know damn well that Democrats aren't calling for socialism. What they are calling for is what they believe would be *a more healthy balance within our MIXED economic system.* The fact that you can't address them on that front that not only are you completely ignorant and intellectually deplete, but that your own position is as weak as wet spagetti holding a ton of feathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you get this?  FIRST he denies Obama is advocating socialism THEN HE ADMITS IT!
> 
> This is typical liberalism.
> 
> Look "IN the Middle of lies" All you are saying is we have "a little socialism" going on.
> 
> But socialism is SOCIALISM, whether you call it a "mixed economy" or not.
> 
> Obama is demanding that "MIX" get a little stronger, and you libs are trying to shut up anyone who says that really means.
> 
> IT'S SOCIALISM.  That's NOT a lie.  The LIE is coming from you libs denying the obvious, while you still try to admit it (and justify it).
Click to expand...


Stupidity is so amusing.  It has never been a question of whether we will have capitalism or socialism.  Neither can function in their pure form.  The question is exactly what the mix of the two will be. 

Both unrestricte capitalism and socialism wind up at the same place.  Statism!

We are fairly down the road to a statist capitalistic society.  Right now we have a plutocracy.  An elected plutocracy but a plutocracy nevertheless.

Clsss war?  Hell that ended a decade ago when the rich won.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rozman said:


> I think maybe the President is flexing his muscles a bit...sensing a big win in Nov...
> It's like a new pet owner getting a puppy from the pet shop and he's training it.
> The first time the puppy poops in the house the owner puts the dogs nose in it to teach it to go outside.
> 
> Well Obama just wants business to know that he is the big dog in the house and he and his government
> will rub businesses nose in the you know what anytime he feels like it.



Then again, maybe he is saying to small businesses that employ people "Hey, you didn't get there on your own" and nothing more...

And it is true. Not talking one-man band's here. Even McDonalds started out as a single store. You think the McDonald bros were the only ones making burgers, cooking the food or tending the till? Is Obama saying "you must give your employees all your profits etc"? No, he appears to be saying "well done, but just remember the guys and gals who got you there too"...Nothing wrong with that IMO...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
Click to expand...


The fact that businesses have to adjust their prices to accommodate the taxes they pay for the services you want them to thank government for in no way changes the fact that they ARE paying taxes for those services, and thus owe government no thanks at all.


----------



## Dr Grump

Stephanie said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, she thinks we're her clients and want to be told how naughty and worthless we are.
> 
> Mistress Cecile is pretty pathetic that way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bah, she's just too moronic, pathetic, [insert derogatory adjective here - she meets all criteria after all] to converse with well-informed, educated people...
> 
> Uncivil discourse is the last bastian of the feeble, weak-minded and ill-informed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> omg...YOU SHOULD TALK...go back and look at some of your post..
Click to expand...


With the grand exception of Cesspit (and possibly the T), I rarely start it - and even then I only wade in after theyv'e fired shots at others with their exceptionally fluid way of posting nice - I mean you've seen how conducive their posting is to civil debate, right? Now YOU go back and read those posts...I fight fire with fire, there is no denying. Starting it? Hardly....


----------



## freedombecki

Zoom-boing said:


> Leftist thinking:


If that doesn't drive it home about Obama's belief system, nothing else will get through either, Zoom-boing.


----------



## jillian

Rozman said:


> The President knows a lot about the subject I'm sure....He must have been looking back at how he got as far as he has.



Being top 10% of his law school class?


----------



## Cecilie1200

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than business does. But Republicans think that money earned by passive activity should be taxed at a lower rate than money earned by working or by producing a good or service.
> 
> 
> So think about that.
Click to expand...



No, WE recognize that it's not just rich people like Mitt Romney who benefit from capital gains, and unlike leftists, WE don't think that the poor and middle class with 401k accounts should be penalized just to score points during an election.

So think about THAT.


----------



## Cecilie1200

asaratis said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is as it should be.  Big trucks cause more damage to the roads than passenger vehicles.  They weigh in the neighborhood of 80,000 pounds, causing the highways to require thicker and stronger designs, bridges to be more sturdy etc.  They make profit by using the roadways.  Why shouldn't they pay more to use the roadways?
Click to expand...


No one said they should or shouldn't.  Point is, they ARE paying for their use of the roads, and have no need to "thank" the government for them as though it was some generous donation made to their business.


----------



## Rozman

This whole left wing obsession with Government and Obama in particular is very disturbing.


----------



## Sallow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that businesses have to adjust their prices to accommodate the taxes they pay for the services you want them to thank government for in no way changes the fact that they ARE paying taxes for those services, and thus owe government no thanks at all.
Click to expand...


Businesses are free to start a country of their own..you know..if they are so unhappy.


----------



## Dr Grump

jillian said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The President knows a lot about the subject I'm sure....He must have been looking back at how he got as far as he has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being top 10% of his law school class?
Click to expand...


Uh-uh. No-way. He got there via affirmative action and the colour of his skin dontcha know!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you want Mac? Big tears because you started a business? Wasn't it your choice? Did you not reap the rewards that you thought were yours because you started a business?
> 
> Damn man. If you are a successful business man, quit whining.
> 
> Oh and btw, you need a better HR department. I read where your employees were ripping you off. Fire the HR manager and start over. Or is the HR manager YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could be wrong, but I think what he wants is for dipshits like you and Obama to stop acting like the effort he put into building his business was no great shakes, and like you and Obama contributed just as much, and are just as entitled - if not more entitled - to the profits from that business.
> 
> And I don't think there's anything "whining" about saying, "Where the fuck do you get off taking credit for my work?"  There IS, however, a large element of whining in "How dare you object to supporting other people?" which is such a constant and popular theme with Obama and his worshippers.  I also find a lot of whining in Obama's new line, to which his worshippers are fervently rallying, of "How dare you think YOU'VE accomplished anything, you arrogant, conceited plebian?  We did everything for you, and you just got lucky."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well talk about extemist views.
Click to expand...


I have no interest in talking about your view, thanks.


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The President knows a lot about the subject I'm sure....He must have been looking back at how he got as far as he has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being top 10% of his law school class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-uh. No-way. He got there via affirmative action and the colour of his skin dontcha know!
Click to expand...


Lol. Except we're talking about the president, not Clarence thomas


----------



## Stephanie

Sallow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that businesses have to adjust their prices to accommodate the taxes they pay for the services you want them to thank government for in no way changes the fact that they ARE paying taxes for those services, and thus owe government no thanks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses are free to start a country of their own..you know..if they are so unhappy.
Click to expand...


No the hell with that...most of us like businesses...You liberals should move and start that utopia of your own..see how long you last


----------



## Rozman

Business provides jobs and generates tax revenue which keeps government running which keeps politicians in power.

Government should thank businesses for everything they have stuffed in their pockets over the years.

How dare the President mock the backbone of this country.
Shame on him...


----------



## Oddball

Rozman said:


> Business provides jobs and generates tax revenue which keeps government running which keeps politicians in power.
> 
> Government should thank businesses for everything they have stuffed in their pockets over the years.
> 
> How dare the President mock the backbone of this country.
> Shame on him...


Whaddaya want?...He's a dick.


----------



## Sallow

Stephanie said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that businesses have to adjust their prices to accommodate the taxes they pay for the services you want them to thank government for in no way changes the fact that they ARE paying taxes for those services, and thus owe government no thanks at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are free to start a country of their own..you know..if they are so unhappy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the hell with that...most of us like businesses...You liberals should move and start that utopia of your own..see how long you last
Click to expand...


The hell with what?

Liberals started this government. Got everything essentially up and running.

I'd like to see a country started by businesses.

It'd be kind of fun..it's never been done.

We can see how well "proprietary" material works when you are trying to establish a workable government.


----------



## Dante

Rozman said:


> Business provides jobs and generates tax revenue which keeps government running which keeps politicians in power.
> 
> Government should thank businesses for everything they have stuffed in their pockets over the years.
> 
> How dare the President mock the backbone of this country.
> Shame on him...



Do you often read bumper stickers out loud?


----------



## Dr Grump

Rozman said:


> How dare the President mock the backbone of this country.



If he did that, you would be right. He didn't, so you're wrong


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dr Grump said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to thank everyone for their contributions to the success of my business.  But I want to thank appropriately, so I need to know just how much you contributed.   Shall I send a mere thank you card or did you contribute enough for a gift basket thank you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck a basket, I demand PROFIT-SHARING!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet a forward-thinking, intelligent CEO would include some form of profit-sharing with *his or her employees*....
Click to expand...


Operative words...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> O hai. Fox News truncated the President's remarks and then went screaming apeshit based on their misquotation instead of what he actually said? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
> 
> Here's the full context *probably AGAIN* of what he ACTUALLY said.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. It sounds so much more logical (and actually like the President) when you say it THAT WAY.
> 
> You know. The way he ACTUALLY SAID IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure YOU think it sounds wonderful now matter how it's quoted, because Obama said it, and because you're a leftist retard.
> 
> Unfortunately for your little plan, your allegedly "ignored" context makes it sound no better whatsoever to anyone who's ever accomplished a damned thing in life besides cash a check.
> 
> It still says, "You need to 'give back' more, because you're not contributing enough to compensate for all the effort everyone else put into your lucky break."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is that the only way you know how to converse with people?
Click to expand...


No, but how I communicate with intelligent people bears no relation whatsoever to talking to BDPoop . . . or you, for that matter.


----------



## Oddball

Oddball said:


> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big Gubmint is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?


Nothin' yet, huh?


----------



## Cecilie1200

jillian said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure YOU think it sounds wonderful now matter how it's quoted, because Obama said it, and because you're a leftist retard.
> 
> Unfortunately for your little plan, your allegedly "ignored" context makes it sound no better whatsoever to anyone who's ever accomplished a damned thing in life besides cash a check.
> 
> It still says, "You need to 'give back' more, because you're not contributing enough to compensate for all the effort everyone else put into your lucky break."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that the only way you know how to converse with people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, she thinks we're her clients and want to be told how naughty and worthless we are.
> 
> Mistress Cecile is pretty pathetic that way
Click to expand...


Customers?  Maybe YOU charge for your sex life, but please don't project that onto others.

Furthermore, please don't flatter yourself that you and your leftist retard buddies would EVER qualify to be part of my personal life under any circumstances.

And finally, I don't give a rat's ass if you WANT to be told how stupid and worthless you are.  You NEED to be told, and if you can't handle it without whining and bringing people's personal lives into it, then I suggest you take your sniveling, thin-skinned little ass somewhere else.  Political message boards are for grown-ups, not school children looking for someone to "enhance their self-esteem".

But I do thank you for, as always, demonstrating to everyone how "tolerant" the left REALLY is.  Respecting free lifestyle choices only applies to the good little slaves on the Democrat plantation, obviously.  Not but what I would expect from people who shout for "gay rights", but gaybait their enemies at the drop of a hat.  Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.  Stupid hypocrisy, thy name is Jillian.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pheonixops said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly think that he could have worded it better. In my opinion, it laves a lot of room for the dishonest conservative talking heads to lie and misrepresent his statement. While they are not his "target market" so to speak, it gives his opposition a rallying point.
Click to expand...


It's interesting how the leftists started out this thread applauding Obama's statement while interpreting it EXACTLY the way conservatives do.  It's only after pages of getting their asses beaten like meringues that they SUDDENLY realize that Obama didn't really mean it "that way".

Good luck with that tactic.  I expect it'll be as successful as applauding him was.


----------



## Cecilie1200

jillian said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The President knows a lot about the subject I'm sure....He must have been looking back at how he got as far as he has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being top 10% of his law school class?
Click to expand...


Prove it.  Let's see those sealed school records.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sallow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that businesses have to adjust their prices to accommodate the taxes they pay for the services you want them to thank government for in no way changes the fact that they ARE paying taxes for those services, and thus owe government no thanks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses are free to start a country of their own..you know..if they are so unhappy.
Click to expand...


They DID.  THIS one.  And I see no reason why they should leave it to greedy, freeloading sacks of shit like you just because you've decided you want it and they haven't done anything to deserve their success.


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big Gubmint is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothin' yet, huh?
Click to expand...


----------



## freedombecki

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What on earth are the insane rightists whining about &#8211; no one gets anywhere on his own; business owners are products of public education and graduates of public colleges and universities.
> 
> Without government there&#8217;d be no modern business, no employees to work in those businesses, and no consumers to patronize those businesses.
> 
> Any &#8216;argument&#8217; otherwise is ignorant idiocy.


Sorry, but that is not always so, Mr. Jones. A number of youthful business owners quit school to start their businesses, and examples are everywhere. They had great ideas and just couldn't sit still any more, held back by pedants.. They employed a lot of people, made innovations like no one else ever did, and it was _carpe diem_ for the rest of their lives.

Entrepreneurs just know where they're going at a certain point, and they know how to cut their losses in other areas, namely public education, to get started on those goals they have developed.

America has always encouraged this until recently. It now encourages people to go on the dole for support rather than work for it.

15 Successful Entrepreneurs who Didn't finish school

That doesn't even include the most famous school drop-out who made his own way and affected many industries by furnishing a cheap source for lights: Thomas Alva Edison.

We have him to thank for this:

Edison's Work:
credits

​


----------



## del

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that businesses have to adjust their prices to accommodate the taxes they pay for the services you want them to thank government for in no way changes the fact that they ARE paying taxes for those services, and thus owe government no thanks at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are free to start a country of their own..you know..if they are so unhappy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They DID.  THIS one.  And I see no reason why they should leave it to greedy, freeloading sacks of shit like you just because you've decided you want it and they haven't done anything to deserve their success.
Click to expand...


businesses started this country?



you might want to lighten up on the butt plugs, elvira, your brain seems to be running down your leg.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Oddball said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business provides jobs and generates tax revenue which keeps government running which keeps politicians in power.
> 
> Government should thank businesses for everything they have stuffed in their pockets over the years.
> 
> How dare the President mock the backbone of this country.
> Shame on him...
> 
> 
> 
> Whaddaya want?...He's a dick.
Click to expand...


Well, since you asked, I want him voted out of office and replaced.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are free to start a country of their own..you know..if they are so unhappy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the hell with that...most of us like businesses...You liberals should move and start that utopia of your own..see how long you last
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hell with what?
> 
> Liberals started this government. Got everything essentially up and running.
> 
> I'd like to see a country started by businesses.
> 
> It'd be kind of fun..it's never been done.
> 
> We can see how well "proprietary" material works when you are trying to establish a workable government.
Click to expand...


"Liberals started this government" . . . if you subscribe to the theory that anything people like must, by definition, have been liberal.

Meanwhile, as to "countries started by businesses", who do you think paid to send the early settlers here, and supported them once they were here?  Who do you think paid for the building of the first roads and towns and infrastructure here?


----------



## freedombecki

Oddball said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody benefits from our infrastructure whether they're in business or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
Click to expand...

Outta the park, Mr. Oddball.

<you must spread some reputation around before giving to Oddball again>


----------



## GoneBezerk

Idiot liberals believe Govt existed before people moved to an area and set up their farms and businesses. In ther fucked up minds, the taxman was there waiting for people before they even created a town with their businesses out of nothing.


----------



## regent

I don't think any of us can even begin to comprehend what the government has built in the United States, the railroads, TVA, Panama Canal, dams, dams that no private company would even look at. 
But take just one little unit created during the depression, the CCC. They built 125,000 miles of roads, 46,854 bridges 300,000 dams for erosion, planted 3 billion trees, and the list goes on. For years I traveled over one of these CCC bridges. Business needs government and government needs business. Maybe what we don't need is politicians always trying to split the nation into two political camps.


----------



## Cecilie1200

del said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are free to start a country of their own..you know..if they are so unhappy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They DID.  THIS one.  And I see no reason why they should leave it to greedy, freeloading sacks of shit like you just because you've decided you want it and they haven't done anything to deserve their success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> businesses started this country?
> 
> 
> 
> you might want to lighten up on the butt plugs, elvira, your brain seems to be running down your leg.
Click to expand...


You'll excuse me if I take the fact that I'm being disagreed with by a fucking moron as proof that I'm CORRECT.

Meanwhile, why don't you get your babysitter to look up who funded the various groups of settlers who came to what became the United States.  And then contemplate who paid for the building of roads and towns and infrastructure, and how.

I know you lazy leftist twits, sitting in Mom's basement and eating Cheetos, want to believe that business and commerce are somehow separate and divorced from "regular" human activity and existence, but the truth is, they're part and parcel of it.


----------



## del

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They DID.  THIS one.  And I see no reason why they should leave it to greedy, freeloading sacks of shit like you just because you've decided you want it and they haven't done anything to deserve their success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> businesses started this country?
> 
> 
> 
> you might want to lighten up on the butt plugs, elvira, your brain seems to be running down your leg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll excuse me if I take the fact that I'm being disagreed with by a fucking moron as proof that I'm CORRECT.
> 
> Meanwhile, why don't you get your babysitter to look up who funded the various groups of settlers who came to what became the United States.  And then contemplate who paid for the building of roads and towns and infrastructure, and how.
> 
> I know you lazy leftist twits, sitting in Mom's basement and eating Cheetos, want to believe that business and commerce are somehow separate and divorced from "regular" human activity and existence, but the truth is, they're part and parcel of it.
Click to expand...


you get more vapid by the post, dear.

try harder.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> I don't think any of us can even begin to comprehend what the government has built in the United States, the railroads, TVA, Panama Canal, dams, dams that no private company would even look at.
> But take just one little unit created during the depression, the CCC. They built 125,000 miles of roads, 46,854 bridges 300,000 dams for erosion, planted 3 billion trees, and the list goes on. For years I traveled over one of these CCC bridges. Business needs government and government needs business. Maybe what we don't need is politicians always trying to split the nation into two political camps.



Hey, regent, perhaps you could tell us where the government got the money for all their lovely little make-work programs, before you start singing paeons to the "glories" of government.

Human beings create government to perform those functions that are best accomplished as a community.  No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists, so please don't even try to pretend otherwise.

Nevertheless, there's a big difference between "society needs an organized structure" and "you owe your success to government", just as there's a big difference between a basic, rudimentary government which builds roads and dams and the godawful, bloated, micro-managing monolith we actually have, intruding into every aspect of our lives, getting in the way much, MUCH more often than it helps anyone, and then expecting applause and gratitude in the person of our narcissistic, hubristic "community organizing" President.


----------



## GoneBezerk

The Federal Govt built all those roads, bridges, etc thanks to taxpayers giving their money to the Federal Govt. Those taxpayers got their money and jobs from businesses, farms, etc. 

The idiot in the White House believes the Federal Govt just has magic money and can produce things left and right, then anyone that benefits from those things owes it all to the Federal Govt. He is so fucking stupid that he doesn't realize if businesses quit operating, it would be hard to get the taxes needed to build those roads, bridges, etc. 

Oh, businesses and their owners pay their fair share in taxes to benefit from the roads, bridges, etc. The idiots that were in Obamination's crowd during this speech most likely don't pay their fair share in taxes, so it is bullshit and hypocrisy as usual from liberals.



regent said:


> I don't think any of us can even begin to comprehend what the government has built in the United States, the railroads, TVA, Panama Canal, dams, dams that no private company would even look at.
> But take just one little unit created during the depression, the CCC. They built 125,000 miles of roads, 46,854 bridges 300,000 dams for erosion, planted 3 billion trees, and the list goes on. For years I traveled over one of these CCC bridges. Business needs government and government needs business. Maybe what we don't need is politicians always trying to split the nation into two political camps.


----------



## Cecilie1200

del said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> businesses started this country?
> 
> 
> 
> you might want to lighten up on the butt plugs, elvira, your brain seems to be running down your leg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll excuse me if I take the fact that I'm being disagreed with by a fucking moron as proof that I'm CORRECT.
> 
> Meanwhile, why don't you get your babysitter to look up who funded the various groups of settlers who came to what became the United States.  And then contemplate who paid for the building of roads and towns and infrastructure, and how.
> 
> I know you lazy leftist twits, sitting in Mom's basement and eating Cheetos, want to believe that business and commerce are somehow separate and divorced from "regular" human activity and existence, but the truth is, they're part and parcel of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you get more vapid by the post, dear.
> 
> try harder.
Click to expand...


In other words, you have no response other than personal attacks.  Gosh, I love that liberal "tolerance".  Do please tell me more about how "respectful" you are of alternative lifestyles.    You liberal hypocrites tolerate differences the way the Pope tolerates religion:  Only the ones who agree with you.


----------



## freedombecki

Sallow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that businesses have to adjust their prices to accommodate the taxes they pay for the services you want them to thank government for in no way changes the fact that they ARE paying taxes for those services, and thus owe government no thanks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses are free to start a country of their own..you know..if they are so unhappy.
Click to expand...

Christian businessmen and their associates already did. _This one_.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> In other words, you have no response other than personal attacks.



RATFLMAO!!! You mean there are posts of the Cesspit's that don't have personal attacks in them? Where? 



Cecilie1200 said:


> Gosh, I love that liberal "tolerance



And tolerance, too? Again, where?


----------



## del

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll excuse me if I take the fact that I'm being disagreed with by a fucking moron as proof that I'm CORRECT.
> 
> Meanwhile, why don't you get your babysitter to look up who funded the various groups of settlers who came to what became the United States.  And then contemplate who paid for the building of roads and towns and infrastructure, and how.
> 
> I know you lazy leftist twits, sitting in Mom's basement and eating Cheetos, want to believe that business and commerce are somehow separate and divorced from "regular" human activity and existence, but the truth is, they're part and parcel of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you get more vapid by the post, dear.
> 
> try harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no response other than personal attacks.  Gosh, I love that liberal "tolerance".  Do please tell me more about how "respectful" you are of alternative lifestyles.    You liberal hypocrites tolerate differences the way the Pope tolerates religion:  Only the ones who agree with you.
Click to expand...


i'm not a liberal, dearie.

try harder.


----------



## Dante

GoneBezerk said:


> Idiot liberals believe Govt existed before people moved to an area and set up their farms and businesses. In ther fucked up minds, the taxman was there waiting for people before they even created a town with their businesses out of nothing.



 thank you for sharing one of the most ignorant and uniformed opinions to grace these boards in quite some time. I was just discussing with a friend, the sad state of education in America today. Your post is a classic text book case of what I wanted to posit as proof of America's education system as a broken down relic, akin to America's sad health care system pre Obamacare.

One thing you may want to know: there is a class action lawsuit pending of Americans like you who have a case against the education establishment. You should easily be able to prove their liability in your case, and collect most all the monies either you and/or your family have paid into your supposed education.

peace out

dD


----------



## ABikerSailor

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the hell with that...most of us like businesses...You liberals should move and start that utopia of your own..see how long you last
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell with what?
> 
> Liberals started this government. Got everything essentially up and running.
> 
> I'd like to see a country started by businesses.
> 
> It'd be kind of fun..it's never been done.
> 
> We can see how well "proprietary" material works when you are trying to establish a workable government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Liberals started this government" . . . if you subscribe to the theory that anything people like must, by definition, have been liberal.
> 
> Meanwhile, as to "countries started by businesses", who do you think paid to send the early settlers here, and supported them once they were here?  Who do you think paid for the building of the first roads and towns and infrastructure here?
Click to expand...


Who paid?  I seem to remember something about the government offering homesteads and land grants to people that could make it there.  



> The Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889 was the first land run into the Unassigned Lands and included all or part of the 2005 modern day Canadian, Cleveland, Kingfisher, Logan, Oklahoma, and Payne counties of the U.S. state of Oklahoma.[1] The land run started at high noon on April 22, 1889, with an estimated 50,000 people lined up for their piece of the available two million acres (8,000 km²).[2]
> 
> The Unassigned Lands were considered some of the best unoccupied public land in the United States. The Indian Appropriations Bill of 1889 was passed and signed into law with an amendment by Illinois Representative William McKendree Springer, that authorized President Benjamin Harrison to open the two million acres (8,000 km²) for settlement. Due to the Homestead Act of 1862, signed by President Abraham Lincoln, legal settlers could claim lots up to 160 acres (0.65 km2) in size. Provided a settler lived on the land and improved it, the settler could then receive the title to the land.[2]



Land Run of 1889 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's just one example of how the government helped to foster the settling of the West.

And..............as far as who provided the infrastructure?  Well, up until Eisenhower, the roads kinda sucked and there were towns that didn't connect up with the rest of the country.  His highway system changed that.



> The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (commonly known as the Interstate Highway System, Interstate Freeway System or the Interstate) is a network of limited-access roads, including freeways, highways, and expressways, forming part of the National Highway System of the United States. The system is named for President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed its formation. Construction was authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, and the original portion was completed 35 years later. The network has since been extended, and as of 2010, it had a total length of 47,182 miles (75,932 km).[2] As of 2010, about one-quarter of all vehicle miles driven in the country use the Interstate system.[3] The cost of construction has been estimated at $425 billion (in 2006 dollars),[4] making it the "largest public works program since the Pyramids."[5]
> 
> The Interstate Highway System had been lobbied for by major U.S. automobile manufacturers and championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America.
> 
> Initial federal planning for a nationwide highway system began in 1921 when the Bureau of Public Roads asked the Army to provide a list of roads it considered necessary for national defense. This resulted in the Pershing Map.[6] Later that decade, highways such as the New York parkway system were built as part of local or state highway systems.
> 
> As automobile traffic increased, planners saw a need for such an interconnected national system to supplement the existing, largely non-freeway, United States Numbered Highways system. By the late 1930s, planning had expanded to a system of new superhighways.
> 
> In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave Thomas MacDonald, chief at the Bureau of Public Roads, a hand-drawn map of the U.S. marked with eight superhighway corridors for study.[6] In 1939, Bureau of Public Roads Division of Information chief Herbert S. Fairbank wrote a report entitled Toll Roads and Free Roads, "the first formal description of what became the interstate highway system," and in 1944 the similarly themed Interregional Highways.[7][8]
> 
> Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the German Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[9] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.
> 
> I-55 under construction in Mississippi, photo from May, 1972
> The publication in 1955 of the General Location of National System of Interstate Highways, informally known as the Yellow Book, mapped out what became the Interstate System.[10] Assisting in the planning was Charles Erwin Wilson, who was still head of General Motors when President Eisenhower selected him as Secretary of Defense in January 1953.



Interstate Highway System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep..............that's right..................the government built the roads too (at the request of the auto manufacturers btw........)


----------



## Cecilie1200

del said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you get more vapid by the post, dear.
> 
> try harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no response other than personal attacks.  Gosh, I love that liberal "tolerance".  Do please tell me more about how "respectful" you are of alternative lifestyles.    You liberal hypocrites tolerate differences the way the Pope tolerates religion:  Only the ones who agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not a liberal, dearie.
> 
> try harder.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because I'm going to take your word for it.  Dipshit, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sky was blue, and I SURE as fuck don't trust or respect the word of anyone so childish as to neg-rep for "revenge".  

By the way, shitforbrains, what makes you think someone who mocks every word out of your mouth in the thread is going to be the slightest bit interested in reading private messages from you?  Keep 'em to yourself and stop humping my leg.  Nothing short of a traumatic injury to my brain is going to make your drivel appear worthy of respect at this point.

You're a liberal, a hypocrite, and a bigot.  The fact that you delude yourself about it means nothing to me.  Deal.


----------



## Dante

regent said:


> I don't think any of us can even begin to comprehend what the government has built in the United States, the railroads, TVA, Panama Canal, dams, dams that no private company would even look at.
> 
> But take just one little unit created during the depression, the CCC. They built 125,000 miles of roads, 46,854 bridges 300,000 dams for erosion, planted 3 billion trees, and the list goes on.
> 
> For years I traveled over one of these CCC bridges. Business needs government and government needs business. Maybe what we don't need is politicians always trying to split the nation into two political camps.



  God Bless America and it's people, and government.


----------



## Dante

Cecilie1200 said:


> [perhaps you could tell us where the government got the money for all their lovely little make-work programs, before you start singing paeons to the "glories" of government.
> 
> Human beings create government to perform those functions that are best accomplished as a community.  *No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists*, so please don't even try to pretend otherwise.



No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists?

I was going to respond to more of your post, and then I realized...



.



.



.



.


.

.

.

.
this is your brain on auto pilot


----------



## del

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no response other than personal attacks.  Gosh, I love that liberal "tolerance".  Do please tell me more about how "respectful" you are of alternative lifestyles.    You liberal hypocrites tolerate differences the way the Pope tolerates religion:  Only the ones who agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not a liberal, dearie.
> 
> try harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because I'm going to take your word for it.  Dipshit, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sky was blue, and I SURE as fuck don't trust or respect the word of anyone so childish as to neg-rep for "revenge".
> 
> By the way, shitforbrains, what makes you think someone who mocks every word out of your mouth in the thread is going to be the slightest bit interested in reading private messages from you?  Keep 'em to yourself and stop humping my leg.  Nothing short of a traumatic injury to my brain is going to make your drivel appear worthy of respect at this point.
> 
> You're a liberal, a hypocrite, and a bigot.  The fact that you delude yourself about it means nothing to me.  Deal.
Click to expand...


if you don't want responses, don't rep me, dearie. 

have you considered numismatics?

you must be good at something, and you surely suck at this.

just some food for thought, twat.


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to thank everyone for their contributions to the success of my business.  But I want to thank appropriately, so I need to know just how much you contributed.   Shall I send a mere thank you card or did you contribute enough for a gift basket thank you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck a basket, I demand PROFIT-SHARING!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet a forward-thinking, intelligent CEO would include some form of profit-sharing with his or her employees....
Click to expand...


That's exactly why forward-thinking liberals should start their own damn company and profit-share with their own damn employees of their own damn free will!


----------



## Cecilie1200

del said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not a liberal, dearie.
> 
> try harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because I'm going to take your word for it.  Dipshit, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sky was blue, and I SURE as fuck don't trust or respect the word of anyone so childish as to neg-rep for "revenge".
> 
> By the way, shitforbrains, what makes you think someone who mocks every word out of your mouth in the thread is going to be the slightest bit interested in reading private messages from you?  Keep 'em to yourself and stop humping my leg.  Nothing short of a traumatic injury to my brain is going to make your drivel appear worthy of respect at this point.
> 
> You're a liberal, a hypocrite, and a bigot.  The fact that you delude yourself about it means nothing to me.  Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you don't want responses, don't rep me, dearie.
> 
> have you considered numismatics?
> 
> you must be good at something, and you surely suck at this.
> 
> just some food for thought, twat.
Click to expand...


No, "dearie", you don't understand.  I DON'T CARE if you "respond" or not.  That's the point.  You're ignorant vermin in my eyes, and your puerile "responses" only make it worse.  That's the point I'm trying to make here, and you're too stupid to grasp:  if I'm telling you what an object of ridicule I consider you to be in the thread, why in God's name would you think I'm even going to READ your private messages?  You're just mindlessly humping my leg, looking for some validation of your existence, and all it does is convince me that your thread posts deserve more contempt than I was already giving them.

"Food for thought"?  You seriously think anything dribbling from you makes people think about anything except the possibility that forced sterilization might not be such a bad idea, after all?    Keep flattering yourself, loser.  In the meantime, if you really want to waste your time composing incoherent private messages I'm going to delete so that you can pretend you matter, go ahead.  Far be it from me to sever the last tiny line between you and suicide.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck a basket, I demand PROFIT-SHARING!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet a forward-thinking, intelligent CEO would include some form of profit-sharing with his or her employees....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly why forward-thinking liberals should start their own damn company and profit-share with their own damn employees of their own damn free will!
Click to expand...


You know..........back in the 50's and 60's, companies actually did a kind of profit sharing with their employees.  It was retirement at 20-30 years.

It was one of the main reasons that people stayed at companies.

Now?  Too much of the money is going to the CEO pockets, resulting in lower or no pensions for working there.


----------



## del

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because I'm going to take your word for it.  Dipshit, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sky was blue, and I SURE as fuck don't trust or respect the word of anyone so childish as to neg-rep for "revenge".
> 
> By the way, shitforbrains, what makes you think someone who mocks every word out of your mouth in the thread is going to be the slightest bit interested in reading private messages from you?  Keep 'em to yourself and stop humping my leg.  Nothing short of a traumatic injury to my brain is going to make your drivel appear worthy of respect at this point.
> 
> You're a liberal, a hypocrite, and a bigot.  The fact that you delude yourself about it means nothing to me.  Deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't want responses, don't rep me, dearie.
> 
> have you considered numismatics?
> 
> you must be good at something, and you surely suck at this.
> 
> just some food for thought, twat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, "dearie", you don't understand.  I DON'T CARE if you "respond" or not.  That's the point.  You're ignorant vermin in my eyes, and your puerile "responses" only make it worse.  That's the point I'm trying to make here, and you're too stupid to grasp:  if I'm telling you what an object of ridicule I consider you to be in the thread, why in God's name would you think I'm even going to READ your private messages?  You're just mindlessly humping my leg, looking for some validation of your existence, and all it does is convince me that your thread posts deserve more contempt than I was already giving them.
> 
> "Food for thought"?  You seriously think anything dribbling from you makes people think about anything except the possibility that forced sterilization might not be such a bad idea, after all?    Keep flattering yourself, loser.  In the meantime, if you really want to waste your time composing incoherent private messages I'm going to delete so that you can pretend you matter, go ahead.  Far be it from me to sever the last tiny line between you and suicide.
Click to expand...


the only delusional one in this conversation is you chickentits.

carry on.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists?
> 
> I was going to respond to more of your post, and then I realized...
> 
> this is your brain on auto pilot



They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.


----------



## Cecilie1200

del said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't want responses, don't rep me, dearie.
> 
> have you considered numismatics?
> 
> you must be good at something, and you surely suck at this.
> 
> just some food for thought, twat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, "dearie", you don't understand.  I DON'T CARE if you "respond" or not.  That's the point.  You're ignorant vermin in my eyes, and your puerile "responses" only make it worse.  That's the point I'm trying to make here, and you're too stupid to grasp:  if I'm telling you what an object of ridicule I consider you to be in the thread, why in God's name would you think I'm even going to READ your private messages?  You're just mindlessly humping my leg, looking for some validation of your existence, and all it does is convince me that your thread posts deserve more contempt than I was already giving them.
> 
> "Food for thought"?  You seriously think anything dribbling from you makes people think about anything except the possibility that forced sterilization might not be such a bad idea, after all?    Keep flattering yourself, loser.  In the meantime, if you really want to waste your time composing incoherent private messages I'm going to delete so that you can pretend you matter, go ahead.  Far be it from me to sever the last tiny line between you and suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only delusional one in this conversation is you chickentits.
> 
> carry on.
Click to expand...


^
"Pay attention to me!  Validate me!  I'm IMPORTANT, damn it!"  ::yawn::


----------



## Dr Grump

del said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't want responses, don't rep me, dearie.
> 
> have you considered numismatics?
> 
> you must be good at something, and you surely suck at this.
> 
> just some food for thought, twat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, "dearie", you don't understand.  I DON'T CARE if you "respond" or not.  That's the point.  You're ignorant vermin in my eyes, and your puerile "responses" only make it worse.  That's the point I'm trying to make here, and you're too stupid to grasp:  if I'm telling you what an object of ridicule I consider you to be in the thread, why in God's name would you think I'm even going to READ your private messages?  You're just mindlessly humping my leg, looking for some validation of your existence, and all it does is convince me that your thread posts deserve more contempt than I was already giving them.
> 
> "Food for thought"?  You seriously think anything dribbling from you makes people think about anything except the possibility that forced sterilization might not be such a bad idea, after all?    Keep flattering yourself, loser.  In the meantime, if you really want to waste your time composing incoherent private messages I'm going to delete so that you can pretend you matter, go ahead.  Far be it from me to sever the last tiny line between you and suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only delusional one in this conversation is you chickentits.
> 
> carry on.
Click to expand...


I was thinking - for some brain dead moron that we all know she is, who claims she doesn't care, she sure spent some time responding to you..

The lady (ahem - i use that term VERY loosely) doth protest to much, methinks...


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists?
> 
> I was going to respond to more of your post, and then I realized...
> 
> this is your brain on auto pilot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.
Click to expand...


In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.

Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.


----------



## del

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, "dearie", you don't understand.  I DON'T CARE if you "respond" or not.  That's the point.  You're ignorant vermin in my eyes, and your puerile "responses" only make it worse.  That's the point I'm trying to make here, and you're too stupid to grasp:  if I'm telling you what an object of ridicule I consider you to be in the thread, why in God's name would you think I'm even going to READ your private messages?  You're just mindlessly humping my leg, looking for some validation of your existence, and all it does is convince me that your thread posts deserve more contempt than I was already giving them.
> 
> "Food for thought"?  You seriously think anything dribbling from you makes people think about anything except the possibility that forced sterilization might not be such a bad idea, after all?    Keep flattering yourself, loser.  In the meantime, if you really want to waste your time composing incoherent private messages I'm going to delete so that you can pretend you matter, go ahead.  Far be it from me to sever the last tiny line between you and suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only delusional one in this conversation is you chickentits.
> 
> carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^
> "Pay attention to me!  Validate me!  I'm IMPORTANT, damn it!"  ::yawn::
Click to expand...


^

has delusions of competence


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, "dearie", you don't understand.  I DON'T CARE if you "respond" or not.  That's the point.  You're ignorant vermin in my eyes, and your puerile "responses" only make it worse.  That's the point I'm trying to make here, and you're too stupid to grasp:  if I'm telling you what an object of ridicule I consider you to be in the thread, why in God's name would you think I'm even going to READ your private messages?  You're just mindlessly humping my leg, looking for some validation of your existence, and all it does is convince me that your thread posts deserve more contempt than I was already giving them.
> 
> "Food for thought"?  You seriously think anything dribbling from you makes people think about anything except the possibility that forced sterilization might not be such a bad idea, after all?    Keep flattering yourself, loser.  In the meantime, if you really want to waste your time composing incoherent private messages I'm going to delete so that you can pretend you matter, go ahead.  Far be it from me to sever the last tiny line between you and suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only delusional one in this conversation is you chickentits.
> 
> carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^
> "Pay attention to me!  Validate me!  I'm IMPORTANT, damn it!"  ::yawn::
Click to expand...


Oh, look...the pit talking to itself...

If anybody every had a narcisstic bone in its body "it's all about me, me, me" it would be the Cesspit.

Have pharmacies run out of lithium in Arizona, or does it need a stronger dose?


----------



## ABikerSailor

I've noticed that Cecilie1200 hasn't answered my post that is backed up with facts as to how the government actually built the roads and fostered the settling of the West.

Oh yeah...........that Lewis and Clark thing to find out about the Louisiana Purchase?  Government funded as well.


----------



## WillowTree

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because I'm going to take your word for it.  Dipshit, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sky was blue, and I SURE as fuck don't trust or respect the word of anyone so childish as to neg-rep for "revenge".
> 
> By the way, shitforbrains, what makes you think someone who mocks every word out of your mouth in the thread is going to be the slightest bit interested in reading private messages from you?  Keep 'em to yourself and stop humping my leg.  Nothing short of a traumatic injury to my brain is going to make your drivel appear worthy of respect at this point.
> 
> You're a liberal, a hypocrite, and a bigot.  The fact that you delude yourself about it means nothing to me.  Deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't want responses, don't rep me, dearie.
> 
> have you considered numismatics?
> 
> you must be good at something, and you surely suck at this.
> 
> just some food for thought, twat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, "dearie", you don't understand.  I DON'T CARE if you "respond" or not.  That's the point.  You're ignorant vermin in my eyes, and your puerile "responses" only make it worse.  That's the point I'm trying to make here, and you're too stupid to grasp:  if I'm telling you what an object of ridicule I consider you to be in the thread, why in God's name would you think I'm even going to READ your private messages?  You're just mindlessly humping my leg, looking for some validation of your existence, and all it does is convince me that your thread posts deserve more contempt than I was already giving them.
> 
> "Food for thought"?  You seriously think anything dribbling from you makes people think about anything except the possibility that forced sterilization might not be such a bad idea, after all?    Keep flattering yourself, loser.  In the meantime, if you really want to waste your time composing incoherent private messages I'm going to delete so that you can pretend you matter, go ahead.  Far be it from me to sever the last tiny line between you and suicide.
Click to expand...


stop calling del "ignorant vermin" he's a good egg. del, stop humping Cecille's leg.


----------



## WillowTree

ABikerSailor said:


> I've noticed that Cecilie1200 hasn't answered my post that is backed up with facts as to how the government actually built the roads and fostered the settling of the West.
> 
> Oh yeah...........that Lewis and Clark thing to find out about the Louisiana Purchase?  Government funded as well.



dummie,, how did the govermnet do that? that's right,, because 50% of we the people support the government with our TAX dollars. the precious government couldn't make jack shit unless 50% of we the people sent them our hard earned money.


----------



## WillowTree

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only delusional one in this conversation is you chickentits.
> 
> carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> "Pay attention to me!  Validate me!  I'm IMPORTANT, damn it!"  ::yawn::
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, look...the pit talking to itself...
> 
> If anybody every had a narcisstic bone in its body "it's all about me, me, me" it would be the Cesspit.
> 
> Have pharmacies run out of lithium in Arizona, or does it need a stronger dose?
Click to expand...


did he say chickentits?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Matter of fact, the US government is one of the primary factors in creating a multi-billion dollar business.....................it's called GPS.



> Timeline and modernization
> 
> In 1972, the USAF Central Inertial Guidance Test Facility (Holloman AFB), conducted developmental flight tests of two prototype GPS receivers over White Sands Missile Range, using ground-based pseudo-satellites.[citation needed]
> In 1978, the first experimental Block-I GPS satellite was launched.
> *In 1983, after Soviet interceptor aircraft shot down the civilian airliner KAL 007 that strayed into prohibited airspace because of navigational errors, killing all 269 people on board, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced that GPS would be made available for civilian uses once it was completed.,[*19][20] although it had been previously published [in Navigation magazine] that the CA code would be available to civilian users.
> By 1985, ten more experimental Block-I satellites had been launched to validate the concept. Command & Control of these satellites had moved from Onizuka AFS, CA and turned over to the 2nd Satellite Control Squadron (2SCS) located at Falcon Air Force Station in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[21][22]
> On February 14, 1989, the first modern Block-II satellite was launched.
> The Gulf War from 1990 to 1991, was the first conflict where GPS was widely used.[23]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps

Yep............that's right............government developed for the military, and eventually, released to the civilian sector that generates the multi billion dollar industry of keeping you from getting lost.


----------



## Dante

GoneBezerk said:


> *1)* he Federal Govt built all those roads, bridges, etc thanks to taxpayers giving their money to the Federal Govt. Those taxpayers got their money and jobs from businesses, farms, etc.
> 
> *2)* The idiot in the White House believes the Federal Govt just has magic money and can produce things left and right, then anyone that benefits from those things owes it all to the Federal Govt. He is so fucking stupid that he doesn't realize if businesses quit operating, it would be hard to get the taxes needed to build those roads, bridges, etc.
> *
> 3)* Oh, businesses and their owners pay their fair share in taxes to benefit from the roads, bridges, etc. The idiots that were in Obamination's crowd during this speech most likely don't pay their fair share in taxes, so it is bullshit and hypocrisy as usual from liberals.



*1)*  Thank you Captain Obvious. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude. The chow line forms outside next to the latrine. As with earlier experiences with you, we must again insist you avoid drinking the latrine water. 

*2)* Question: Do you know who the President's economic advisers are? Here's a clue: The President's Council of Economic Advisers *2a)* No one outside your imagination argues the government produces things the way you insist it does. *2b)* Governments print money. It's one of the reasons we have a Central Bank No reasonable, rational, and sane person argues getting rid of the Fed. *2c)* Nobody with any credibility argues the President and his economic team wants to get businesses to stop operating.

*3)* Lower income people pay their fair share. The tax breaks go to people like Willard Mitt Romney. It is one of the reasons I suspect he doesn't want to release more tax records. They will show how little he pays.


----------



## WillowTree

ABikerSailor said:


> Matter of fact, the US government is one of the primary factors in creating a multi-billion dollar business.....................it's called GPS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timeline and modernization
> 
> In 1972, the USAF Central Inertial Guidance Test Facility (Holloman AFB), conducted developmental flight tests of two prototype GPS receivers over White Sands Missile Range, using ground-based pseudo-satellites.[citation needed]
> In 1978, the first experimental Block-I GPS satellite was launched.
> *In 1983, after Soviet interceptor aircraft shot down the civilian airliner KAL 007 that strayed into prohibited airspace because of navigational errors, killing all 269 people on board, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced that GPS would be made available for civilian uses once it was completed.,[*19][20] although it had been previously published [in Navigation magazine] that the CA code would be available to civilian users.
> By 1985, ten more experimental Block-I satellites had been launched to validate the concept. Command & Control of these satellites had moved from Onizuka AFS, CA and turned over to the 2nd Satellite Control Squadron (2SCS) located at Falcon Air Force Station in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[21][22]
> On February 14, 1989, the first modern Block-II satellite was launched.
> The Gulf War from 1990 to 1991, was the first conflict where GPS was widely used.[23]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Global Positioning System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yep............that's right............government developed for the military, and eventually, released to the civilian sector that generates the multi billion dollar industry of keeping you from getting lost.
Click to expand...


like man couldn't navigate before GPS


----------



## del

WillowTree said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> "Pay attention to me!  Validate me!  I'm IMPORTANT, damn it!"  ::yawn::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, look...the pit talking to itself...
> 
> If anybody every had a narcisstic bone in its body "it's all about me, me, me" it would be the Cesspit.
> 
> Have pharmacies run out of lithium in Arizona, or does it need a stronger dose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did he say chickentits?
Click to expand...



yes, he did


----------



## Dr Grump

WillowTree said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> "Pay attention to me!  Validate me!  I'm IMPORTANT, damn it!"  ::yawn::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, look...the pit talking to itself...
> 
> If anybody every had a narcisstic bone in its body "it's all about me, me, me" it would be the Cesspit.
> 
> Have pharmacies run out of lithium in Arizona, or does it need a stronger dose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did he say chickentits?
Click to expand...


Yep, he did. Better than Vinegar Tits I guess...


----------



## del

WillowTree said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't want responses, don't rep me, dearie.
> 
> have you considered numismatics?
> 
> you must be good at something, and you surely suck at this.
> 
> just some food for thought, twat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, "dearie", you don't understand.  I DON'T CARE if you "respond" or not.  That's the point.  You're ignorant vermin in my eyes, and your puerile "responses" only make it worse.  That's the point I'm trying to make here, and you're too stupid to grasp:  if I'm telling you what an object of ridicule I consider you to be in the thread, why in God's name would you think I'm even going to READ your private messages?  You're just mindlessly humping my leg, looking for some validation of your existence, and all it does is convince me that your thread posts deserve more contempt than I was already giving them.
> 
> "Food for thought"?  You seriously think anything dribbling from you makes people think about anything except the possibility that forced sterilization might not be such a bad idea, after all?    Keep flattering yourself, loser.  In the meantime, if you really want to waste your time composing incoherent private messages I'm going to delete so that you can pretend you matter, go ahead.  Far be it from me to sever the last tiny line between you and suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stop calling del "ignorant vermin" he's a good egg. del, stop humping Cecille's leg.
Click to expand...


with all due respect, i'd rather hump concertina wire.


----------



## Pho_King

Dante said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* he Federal Govt built all those roads, bridges, etc thanks to taxpayers giving their money to the Federal Govt. Those taxpayers got their money and jobs from businesses, farms, etc.
> 
> *2)* The idiot in the White House believes the Federal Govt just has magic money and can produce things left and right, then anyone that benefits from those things owes it all to the Federal Govt. He is so fucking stupid that he doesn't realize if businesses quit operating, it would be hard to get the taxes needed to build those roads, bridges, etc.
> *
> 3)* Oh, businesses and their owners pay their fair share in taxes to benefit from the roads, bridges, etc. The idiots that were in Obamination's crowd during this speech most likely don't pay their fair share in taxes, so it is bullshit and hypocrisy as usual from liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1)*  Thank you Captain Obvious. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude. The chow line forms outside next to the latrine. As with earlier experiences with you, we must again insist you avoid drinking the latrine water.
> 
> *2)* Question: Do you know who the President's economic advisers are? Here's a clue: The President's Council of Economic Advisers *2a)* No one outside your imagination argues the government produces things the way you insist it does. *2b)* Governments print money. It's one of the reasons we have a Central Bank No reasonable, rational, and sane person argues getting rid of the Fed. *2c)* Nobody with any credibility argues the President and his economic team wants to get businesses to stop operating.
> 
> *3)* Lower income people pay their fair share. The tax breaks go to people like Willard Mitt Romney. It is one of the reasons I suspect he doesn't want to release more tax records. They will show how little he pays.
Click to expand...

Lots of lower income people are totally exempt from paying certain taxes simply by reason of their income.  Talk about a tax break....


----------



## Dante

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you get more vapid by the post, dear.
> 
> try harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no response other than personal attacks.  Gosh, I love that liberal "tolerance".  Do please tell me more about how "respectful" you are of alternative lifestyles.    You liberal hypocrites tolerate differences the way the Pope tolerates religion:  Only the ones who agree with you.
Click to expand...

del, USMB Liberal Extraordinaire!

added to Dante's collection


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists?
> 
> I was going to respond to more of your post, and then I realized...
> 
> this is your brain on auto pilot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.
> 
> Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.
Click to expand...



The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it.  This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.


----------



## del

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.
> 
> Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it.  This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
Click to expand...


tissue?


----------



## Dr Grump

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.
> 
> Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it.  This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
Click to expand...


Drama queen much?


----------



## P@triot

regent said:


> Asking US leaders to define communism is similar to asking posters to define communism.  Better and more accurate definitions might be found by asking political scientists, perhaps those that teach subjects like comparative economic systems, and even better than that, to read what Marx had to say about the political and economic facets of his system.



Seriously, you're making about as much sense as a stoned donkey right now. You have no idea what you're talking about, but it appears you're working very hard to convince people you do - and it's just coming out as nonsense.

First of all, Communism was just the term they used - nobody asked them to "define it" and claiming a "political scientist" (hilarious term by the way) can better define a term coined by leadership 50 years ago is absurd. It's like saying naming Microsoft Windows was the wrong name to use for Bill Gates product and he should have waited 30 years until he could ask YOU what to call it.



regent said:


> Did Marx believe that a dictators would force capitalistic nations into communism?



Almost certainly. Because only an asshole would voluntarily enter into the philosophy of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"



regent said:


> How was that transfer to take place?



Same way it always does. Same way it has through 10,000+ years. Through *force*.



regent said:


> What was the political system that Marx envisioned for his system?



Probably dictatorship as we already established.



regent said:


> I'll ask you another question one that I have asked numerous times, can you name a nation that has or is now practicing Marxian communism?



Also as we already established, Marxism is a part of the blanket term Communism, so this is like saying a Democratic Democracy. However, many nations are currently employing Communism and all are failing miserably. One must only look off the coast of the US at Cuba to see it.



regent said:


> And still another question, if our founders were liberals and used liberal ideas in the Constitution does that make the founders communists? They certainly advocated a political system that was pretty radical for its time and based on liberal ideas.



Well, if you sucked cock, would you swallow every time? Why ask a hypothetical question about people who have been dead for 200+ years? The reality is, our founders lived oppression first hand (not like the priviliged, spoiled, lazy, greedy liberal of today) and thus created a small government of limited powers to protect against the tyranny they knew all too well.

However, if they hypotheticlally HAD implemented the Communist policies of the left, then yes, they would have been Communists. But they didn't, so asking that question makes zero sense and seems like a desperate attempt to start framing a debate at some point that our founders did do somethign that stupid. Typical of the left.


----------



## Dante

Pho_King said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* he Federal Govt built all those roads, bridges, etc thanks to taxpayers giving their money to the Federal Govt. Those taxpayers got their money and jobs from businesses, farms, etc.
> 
> *2)* The idiot in the White House believes the Federal Govt just has magic money and can produce things left and right, then anyone that benefits from those things owes it all to the Federal Govt. He is so fucking stupid that he doesn't realize if businesses quit operating, it would be hard to get the taxes needed to build those roads, bridges, etc.
> *
> 3)* Oh, businesses and their owners pay their fair share in taxes to benefit from the roads, bridges, etc. The idiots that were in Obamination's crowd during this speech most likely don't pay their fair share in taxes, so it is bullshit and hypocrisy as usual from liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1)*  Thank you Captain Obvious. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude. The chow line forms outside next to the latrine. As with earlier experiences with you, we must again insist you avoid drinking the latrine water.
> 
> *2)* Question: Do you know who the President's economic advisers are? Here's a clue: The President's Council of Economic Advisers *2a)* No one outside your imagination argues the government produces things the way you insist it does. *2b)* Governments print money. It's one of the reasons we have a Central Bank No reasonable, rational, and sane person argues getting rid of the Fed. *2c)* Nobody with any credibility argues the President and his economic team wants to get businesses to stop operating.
> 
> *3)* Lower income people pay their fair share. The tax breaks go to people like Willard Mitt Romney. It is one of the reasons I suspect he doesn't want to release more tax records. They will show how little he pays.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of lower income people are _totally exempt from paying certain taxes simply by reason of their income_.  Talk about a tax break....
Click to expand...


And many wealthy people are exempt in ways that would embarrass them if word got out: Romney doesn't want Americans to see what he really pays after exemptions and shelters.

If you want to argue tax policy is legal .. D'Oh! The matter of the fact is many wealthy people and corporations complain about taxes they NEVER pay.


----------



## Dante

WillowTree said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that Cecilie1200 hasn't answered my post that is backed up with facts as to how the government actually built the roads and fostered the settling of the West.
> 
> Oh yeah...........that Lewis and Clark thing to find out about the Louisiana Purchase?  Government funded as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dummie,, how did the govermnet do that? that's right,, because 50% of we the people support the government with our TAX dollars. the precious government couldn't make jack shit unless 50% of we the people sent them our hard earned money.
Click to expand...


The federal government runs on more than federal income taxes. Poor people pay taxes to the federal government. Some wealthy people and corporations take so many exemptions they pay a fraction of what they publicly claim to pay. It is I suspect one of Romeny's main objections to releasing his tax records.

What does Romney really pay?


----------



## Dante

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck a basket, I demand PROFIT-SHARING!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet a forward-thinking, intelligent CEO would include some form of profit-sharing with his or her employees....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly why forward-thinking liberals should start their own damn company and profit-share with their own damn employees of their own damn free will!
Click to expand...


They do. You really need to get out more. Does your Scooter have new batteries? If not after 5 years I hear your privately funded Medicare will pay for a set.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists?
> 
> I was going to respond to more of your post, and then I realized...
> 
> this is your brain on auto pilot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.
Click to expand...


Arguments all suck? Are you insane?


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.
> 
> Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it.  This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
Click to expand...


That's only if we let them. If we force them to take personal responsibility and fend for themselves like big boys and big girls, then they won't be able to collapse our nation. If we keep pandering to them, then you are correct...


----------



## BDBoop

del said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not a liberal, dearie.
> 
> try harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because I'm going to take your word for it.  Dipshit, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sky was blue, and I SURE as fuck don't trust or respect the word of anyone so childish as to neg-rep for "revenge".
> 
> By the way, shitforbrains, what makes you think someone who mocks every word out of your mouth in the thread is going to be the slightest bit interested in reading private messages from you?  Keep 'em to yourself and stop humping my leg.  Nothing short of a traumatic injury to my brain is going to make your drivel appear worthy of respect at this point.
> 
> You're a liberal, a hypocrite, and a bigot.  The fact that you delude yourself about it means nothing to me.  Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you don't want responses, don't rep me, dearie.
> 
> have you considered numismatics?
> 
> you must be good at something, and you surely suck at this.
> 
> just some food for thought, twat.
Click to expand...


She got me, too. Devastated. Simply heartbroken. I swan.

WTF does that mean, anyway; I swan? I should go Google.


----------



## P@triot

Dante said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet a forward-thinking, intelligent CEO would include some form of profit-sharing with his or her employees....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why forward-thinking liberals should start their own damn company and profit-share with their own damn employees of their own damn free will!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do. You really need to get out more. Does your Scooter have new batteries? If not after 5 years I hear your privately funded Medicare will pay for a set.
Click to expand...


They do? Really? Then why of all of you parasite liberals here crying your little eyes out about the evil rich who won't give you money??? 

You're parasites - you're too fucking lazy to work, much less start your own business...


----------



## P@triot

BDBoop said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because I'm going to take your word for it.  Dipshit, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sky was blue, and I SURE as fuck don't trust or respect the word of anyone so childish as to neg-rep for "revenge".
> 
> By the way, shitforbrains, what makes you think someone who mocks every word out of your mouth in the thread is going to be the slightest bit interested in reading private messages from you?  Keep 'em to yourself and stop humping my leg.  Nothing short of a traumatic injury to my brain is going to make your drivel appear worthy of respect at this point.
> 
> You're a liberal, a hypocrite, and a bigot.  The fact that you delude yourself about it means nothing to me.  Deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't want responses, don't rep me, dearie.
> 
> have you considered numismatics?
> 
> you must be good at something, and you surely suck at this.
> 
> just some food for thought, twat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She got me, too. Devastated. Simply heartbroken. I swan.
> 
> WTF does that mean, anyway; I swan? I should go Google.
Click to expand...


As dumb and brainwashed as you are, you should Google a LOT of things...


----------



## Cecilie1200

WillowTree said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't want responses, don't rep me, dearie.
> 
> have you considered numismatics?
> 
> you must be good at something, and you surely suck at this.
> 
> just some food for thought, twat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, "dearie", you don't understand.  I DON'T CARE if you "respond" or not.  That's the point.  You're ignorant vermin in my eyes, and your puerile "responses" only make it worse.  That's the point I'm trying to make here, and you're too stupid to grasp:  if I'm telling you what an object of ridicule I consider you to be in the thread, why in God's name would you think I'm even going to READ your private messages?  You're just mindlessly humping my leg, looking for some validation of your existence, and all it does is convince me that your thread posts deserve more contempt than I was already giving them.
> 
> "Food for thought"?  You seriously think anything dribbling from you makes people think about anything except the possibility that forced sterilization might not be such a bad idea, after all?    Keep flattering yourself, loser.  In the meantime, if you really want to waste your time composing incoherent private messages I'm going to delete so that you can pretend you matter, go ahead.  Far be it from me to sever the last tiny line between you and suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stop calling del "ignorant vermin" he's a good egg. del, stop humping Cecille's leg.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Willow, but I don't stop calling 'em like I see 'em for ANYONE.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> As dumb and brainwashed as you are, you should Google a LOT of things...



Looks like you do....but you don't appear to even get that right...


----------



## del

Rottweiler said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why forward-thinking liberals should start their own damn company and profit-share with their own damn employees of their own damn free will!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do. You really need to get out more. Does your Scooter have new batteries? If not after 5 years I hear your privately funded Medicare will pay for a set.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do? Really? Then why of all of you parasite liberals here crying your little eyes out about the evil rich who won't give you money???
> 
> You're parasites - you're too fucking lazy to work, much less start your own business...
Click to expand...


you should really stick to the words on the screen and not the voices in your head.

otay?


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dante said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot liberals believe Govt existed before people moved to an area and set up their farms and businesses. In ther fucked up minds, the taxman was there waiting for people before they even created a town with their businesses out of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for sharing one of the most ignorant and uniformed opinions to grace these boards in quite some time. I was just discussing with a friend, the sad state of education in America today. Your post is a classic text book case of what I wanted to posit as proof of America's education system as a broken down relic, akin to America's sad health care system pre Obamacare.
> 
> One thing you may want to know: there is a class action lawsuit pending of Americans like you who have a case against the education establishment. You should easily be able to prove their liability in your case, and collect most all the monies either you and/or your family have paid into your supposed education.
> 
> peace out
> 
> dD
Click to expand...


And out of the OTHER side of your mouth comes the pronouncement that without 'government education, America's businesses wouldn't have such worthwhile employees...


----------



## del

GuyPinestra said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot liberals believe Govt existed before people moved to an area and set up their farms and businesses. In ther fucked up minds, the taxman was there waiting for people before they even created a town with their businesses out of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for sharing one of the most ignorant and uniformed opinions to grace these boards in quite some time. I was just discussing with a friend, the sad state of education in America today. Your post is a classic text book case of what I wanted to posit as proof of America's education system as a broken down relic, akin to America's sad health care system pre Obamacare.
> 
> One thing you may want to know: there is a class action lawsuit pending of Americans like you who have a case against the education establishment. You should easily be able to prove their liability in your case, and collect most all the monies either you and/or your family have paid into your supposed education.
> 
> peace out
> 
> dD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And out of the OTHER side of your mouth comes the pronouncement that without 'government education, America's businesses wouldn't have such worthwhile employees...
Click to expand...


i bet you thought you had a point.


----------



## Cecilie1200

WillowTree said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that Cecilie1200 hasn't answered my post that is backed up with facts as to how the government actually built the roads and fostered the settling of the West.
> 
> Oh yeah...........that Lewis and Clark thing to find out about the Louisiana Purchase?  Government funded as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dummie,, how did the govermnet do that? that's right,, because 50% of we the people support the government with our TAX dollars. the precious government couldn't make jack shit unless 50% of we the people sent them our hard earned money.
Click to expand...


I feel certain that Thomas Jefferson did *not *welcome Lewis & Clark back with, "You couldn't have done it without us."

And let's be serious.  What did "commissioned by the government" mean back then, as opposed to what it means today?  At most, the government bought them some horses (and they likely owned a couple of their own to start with), some guns and ammo (ditto), some non-perishable foodstuffs (nothing like everything they'd need all the way to wherever, because they wouldn't have been able to carry that much), and probably a small sack of money with which to buy things from fur traders and the like as they went along.  Everything else, they'd have been expected to manage for themselves as they traveled.

Not exactly the same as these days, when exploring anything would cost millions of dollars and include state-of-the-art all-terrain vehicles, communications devices, GPS tracking, portable computers, full meals provided every step of the way, etc. . . . oh, and cushy salaries for all members of the expedition, complete with medical benefits.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.
> 
> Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  *Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it. * This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
Click to expand...



Alarmist imbecility at it's most extreme


----------



## Cecilie1200

WillowTree said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> "Pay attention to me!  Validate me!  I'm IMPORTANT, damn it!"  ::yawn::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, look...the pit talking to itself...
> 
> If anybody every had a narcisstic bone in its body "it's all about me, me, me" it would be the Cesspit.
> 
> Have pharmacies run out of lithium in Arizona, or does it need a stronger dose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did he say chickentits?
Click to expand...


Just because they substitute insults for rebuttal doesn't mean they're GOOD at it.


----------



## GuyPinestra

ABikerSailor said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hell with what?
> 
> Liberals started this government. Got everything essentially up and running.
> 
> I'd like to see a country started by businesses.
> 
> It'd be kind of fun..it's never been done.
> 
> We can see how well "proprietary" material works when you are trying to establish a workable government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberals started this government" . . . if you subscribe to the theory that anything people like must, by definition, have been liberal.
> 
> Meanwhile, as to "countries started by businesses", who do you think paid to send the early settlers here, and supported them once they were here?  Who do you think paid for the building of the first roads and towns and infrastructure here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who paid?  I seem to remember something about the government offering homesteads and land grants to people that could make it there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889 was the first land run into the Unassigned Lands and included all or part of the 2005 modern day Canadian, Cleveland, Kingfisher, Logan, Oklahoma, and Payne counties of the U.S. state of Oklahoma.[1] The land run started at high noon on April 22, 1889, with an estimated 50,000 people lined up for their piece of the available two million acres (8,000 km²).[2]
> 
> The Unassigned Lands were considered some of the best unoccupied public land in the United States. The Indian Appropriations Bill of 1889 was passed and signed into law with an amendment by Illinois Representative William McKendree Springer, that authorized President Benjamin Harrison to open the two million acres (8,000 km²) for settlement. Due to the Homestead Act of 1862, signed by President Abraham Lincoln, legal settlers could claim lots up to 160 acres (0.65 km2) in size. Provided a settler lived on the land and improved it, the settler could then receive the title to the land.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Land Run of 1889 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> That's just one example of how the government helped to foster the settling of the West.
> 
> And..............as far as who provided the infrastructure?  Well, up until Eisenhower, the roads kinda sucked and there were towns that didn't connect up with the rest of the country.  His highway system changed that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (commonly known as the Interstate Highway System, Interstate Freeway System or the Interstate) is a network of limited-access roads, including freeways, highways, and expressways, forming part of the National Highway System of the United States. The system is named for President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed its formation. Construction was authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, and the original portion was completed 35 years later. The network has since been extended, and as of 2010, it had a total length of 47,182 miles (75,932 km).[2] As of 2010, about one-quarter of all vehicle miles driven in the country use the Interstate system.[3] The cost of construction has been estimated at $425 billion (in 2006 dollars),[4] making it the "largest public works program since the Pyramids."[5]
> 
> The Interstate Highway System had been lobbied for by major U.S. automobile manufacturers and championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America.
> 
> Initial federal planning for a nationwide highway system began in 1921 when the Bureau of Public Roads asked the Army to provide a list of roads it considered necessary for national defense. This resulted in the Pershing Map.[6] Later that decade, highways such as the New York parkway system were built as part of local or state highway systems.
> 
> *As automobile traffic increased, planners saw a need for such an interconnected national system to supplement the existing, largely non-freeway, United States Numbered Highways system. By the late 1930s, planning had expanded to a system of new superhighways.*
> 
> In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave Thomas MacDonald, chief at the Bureau of Public Roads, a hand-drawn map of the U.S. marked with eight superhighway corridors for study.[6] In 1939, Bureau of Public Roads Division of Information chief Herbert S. Fairbank wrote a report entitled Toll Roads and Free Roads, "the first formal description of what became the interstate highway system," and in 1944 the similarly themed Interregional Highways.[7][8]
> 
> Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the German Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[9] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.
> 
> I-55 under construction in Mississippi, photo from May, 1972
> The publication in 1955 of the General Location of National System of Interstate Highways, informally known as the Yellow Book, mapped out what became the Interstate System.[10] Assisting in the planning was Charles Erwin Wilson, who was still head of General Motors when President Eisenhower selected him as Secretary of Defense in January 1953.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interstate Highway System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yep..............that's right..................the government built the roads too (at the request of the auto manufacturers btw........)
Click to expand...


Let's look at just one small paragraph of your Wiki C&P, shall we? You'll see it highlighted above, assuming you know how to scroll. Nevermind, let me help you out.


> *As automobile traffic increased, planners saw a need for such an interconnected national system to supplement the existing, largely non-freeway, United States Numbered Highways system. By the late 1930s, planning had expanded to a system of new superhighways.*



Notice how the traffic increased BEFORE the 'planners saw a need'? How does that jibe with the meme that government was first, BEFORE the need?

I just don't see it, can you clear it up for me?


----------



## Dante

GuyPinestra said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot liberals believe Govt existed before people moved to an area and set up their farms and businesses. In ther fucked up minds, the taxman was there waiting for people before they even created a town with their businesses out of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for sharing one of the most ignorant and uniformed opinions to grace these boards in quite some time. I was just discussing with a friend, the sad state of education in America today. Your post is a classic text book case of what I wanted to posit as proof of America's education system as a broken down relic, akin to America's sad health care system pre Obamacare.
> 
> One thing you may want to know: there is a class action lawsuit pending of Americans like you who have a case against the education establishment. You should easily be able to prove their liability in your case, and collect most all the monies either you and/or your family have paid into your supposed education.
> 
> peace out
> 
> dD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And out of the OTHER side of your mouth comes the pronouncement that without 'government education, America's businesses wouldn't have such worthwhile employees...
Click to expand...


you can start here:  Famous and Noteworthy Texas Public Schools Alumni

then you can do your own search, but beware...your world view will come crashing down around your shit stained undies.


----------



## Dante

Rottweiler said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why forward-thinking liberals should start their own damn company and profit-share with their own damn employees of their own damn free will!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do. You really need to get out more. Does your Scooter have new batteries? If not after 5 years I hear your privately funded Medicare will pay for a set.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do? Really? Then why of all of you parasite liberals here crying your little eyes out about the evil rich who won't give you money???
> 
> You're parasites - you're too fucking lazy to work, much less start your own business...
Click to expand...


says the internet troll who lives on the internet(s)


----------



## regent

Rottweiler said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking US leaders to define communism is similar to asking posters to define communism.  Better and more accurate definitions might be found by asking political scientists, perhaps those that teach subjects like comparative economic systems, and even better than that, to read what Marx had to say about the political and economic facets of his system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, you're making about as much sense as a stoned donkey right now. You have no idea what you're talking about, but it appears you're working very hard to convince people you do - and it's just coming out as nonsense.
> 
> First of all, Communism was just the term they used - nobody asked them to "define it" and claiming a "political scientist" (hilarious term by the way) can better define a term coined by leadership 50 years ago is absurd. It's like saying naming Microsoft Windows was the wrong name to use for Bill Gates product and he should have waited 30 years until he could ask YOU what to call it.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Marx believe that a dictators would force capitalistic nations into communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost certainly. Because only an asshole would voluntarily enter into the philosophy of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
> 
> 
> 
> Same way it always does. Same way it has through 10,000+ years. Through *force*.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably dictatorship as we already established.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you another question one that I have asked numerous times, can you name a nation that has or is now practicing Marxian communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also as we already established, Marxism is a part of the blanket term Communism, so this is like saying a Democratic Democracy. However, many nations are currently employing Communism and all are failing miserably. One must only look off the coast of the US at Cuba to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still another question, if our founders were liberals and used liberal ideas in the Constitution does that make the founders communists? They certainly advocated a political system that was pretty radical for its time and based on liberal ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you sucked cock, would you swallow every time? Why ask a hypothetical question about people who have been dead for 200+ years? The reality is, our founders lived oppression first hand (not like the priviliged, spoiled, lazy, greedy liberal of today) and thus created a small government of limited powers to protect against the tyranny they knew all too well.
> 
> However, if they hypotheticlally HAD implemented the Communist policies of the left, then yes, they would have been Communists. But they didn't, so asking that question makes zero sense and seems like a desperate attempt to start framing a debate at some point that our founders did do somethign that stupid. Typical of the left.
Click to expand...


No nation has ever practiced Marxian communism, the USSR started on the path and dumped it early as unworkable. It doesn't work and has never worked.
Calling something communism doesn't make it communism, or as Lincoln said calling a horse's tail a leg doesn't mean the horse has five legs. All these terms have meaning and using them correctly is for a reason. 
Our framers took a government with no powers and minimal size and changed it to a  govenment of considerable size with considerable powers. And worse made the change using liberal ideas of government from the Age of Reason. As for asking questions about  those in the past, well that's just history.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dante said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that Cecilie1200 hasn't answered my post that is backed up with facts as to how the government actually built the roads and fostered the settling of the West.
> 
> Oh yeah...........that Lewis and Clark thing to find out about the Louisiana Purchase?  Government funded as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dummie,, how did the govermnet do that? that's right,, because 50% of we the people support the government with our TAX dollars. the precious government couldn't make jack shit unless 50% of we the people sent them our hard earned money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government runs on more than federal income taxes. Poor people pay taxes to the federal government. Some wealthy people and corporations take so many exemptions they pay a fraction of what they publicly claim to pay. It is I suspect one of Romeny's main objections to releasing his tax records.
> 
> What does Romney really pay?
Click to expand...


What did BoiKing's Jobs Czar pay? What did Immelt's company pay? How many GE jobs went to China?


----------



## GuyPinestra

del said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for sharing one of the most ignorant and uniformed opinions to grace these boards in quite some time. I was just discussing with a friend, the sad state of education in America today. Your post is a classic text book case of what I wanted to posit as proof of America's education system as a broken down relic, akin to America's sad health care system pre Obamacare.
> 
> One thing you may want to know: there is a class action lawsuit pending of Americans like you who have a case against the education establishment. You should easily be able to prove their liability in your case, and collect most all the monies either you and/or your family have paid into your supposed education.
> 
> peace out
> 
> dD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And out of the OTHER side of your mouth comes the pronouncement that without 'government education, America's businesses wouldn't have such worthwhile employees...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i bet you thought you had a point.
Click to expand...


I bet you thought you had a brain.


----------



## del

GuyPinestra said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> And out of the OTHER side of your mouth comes the pronouncement that without 'government education, America's businesses wouldn't have such worthwhile employees...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i bet you thought you had a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you thought you had a brain.
Click to expand...


i bet you thought that was a stunning comeback


----------



## freedombecki

Londoner said:


> Actually, the "Self-Made" myth was used by American families who climbed up the ladder using the full benefits of public investments but who - once they reached the top - no longer wanted to pay into the system that benefited them.
> 
> Ronald Reagan is a perfect example. He grew up in a poor family that was on the way to being crushed by the Great Depression. Reagan's father was saved by an FDR work program - a BIG Government work program literally saved Ronald Reagan. FDR's theory was that the American people had greatness inside them. And that all you needed to do was give them a leg-up during hdd times, than then they would survive and thrive. FDR called it an investment in human capital. Do you think this nation's public or government investment in the Reagan family paid off? But it wasn't just the Reagans. Countless returning veterans from WWII were put to work by Republican presidents like Eisenhower building this nation's interstate's and energy grids and water plants. Big Government put jobless people to work building modern industrial America - and all of today's profit makers are dependent on ll the advantages of a modern industrial state. Indeed, there was a massive public investment in turning America into the most technologically advanced nation earth. This had a huge multiplier effect enjoyed by business. Today, however, we don't invest in infrastructure; nope - we just sell it to China because of the free market logic of selling to the highest bidder. [You fucking morons. The market isn't patriotic. It will sell everything you own until you lose your country to outsiders]
> 
> *Private profits in the Southwest would not exist but for the Hoover Dam. The technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA. All the people who profit wildly because of these public investments use the self-made myth to avoid paying anything back. Therefore,, we have to cut education and let new infrastructureprojects go unfinished so that we can keep letting the wealthy walk away with everything. The country is dying because we have been taken over by an Ayn Rand narrative which 100% ignores how dependent business and the wealthy are on the Public. **
> 
> When America was at it's economic apex in the 50s and 60s, there was a proud and successful partnership between business and government. Indeed, business craves this partnership. This is why they build massive lobbying bases in Washington, so they can suckle at the public teet in the back of the room; and then they slither out of that dark room pockets stuffed with public money, and they use the "self-made" myth so they don't have to pay taxes on all the benefits they're sucking from the system.
> 
> The anti-tax revolution has always been about maximizing what you take from government and the public, but paying as little back as possible. This includes moving all your profits offshore, like Romney. The point is to suck this country dry. To use all it's free resources, and then not pay anything back to future. This has been going on for 30 years, It was the point of the Reagan Revolution: to increase what the private sector takes from the pubic (in terms of subsidies, bail-outs, and regulatory favors) while radically decreasing what they pay back.
> 
> And it was kind of funny to watch it happen. As the wealthy began to gain control over more and more wealth, they also gained control of the Republican Party, who now 100% works for this small collection of ultra wealthy corporate interests. They began shipping jobs to freedom-hating labor markets (mostly in communist China) in order to realize a higher return on investment. Companies like Bain were essential to this transfer of jobs to China on behalf of a small collection of American investors. All the while they'd say "give us tax cuts, and we'll give you more jobs." So we gave them more and more tax cuts and they'd ship more and more jobs to China. It was hoax, and only naive people who listened to talk radio and FOX News bought it.
> 
> This is not a complicated story. The wealthy took over this country. They bought Washington and mass media. They locked down our laws and then they used media to promote the "self-made" myth to keep from having to pay back all the resources and subsidies they sucked from the system. (You people have no idea how much they rely on publicly funded infrastructure and public subsidies and public FDIC laws and public regulations which provect their monopolies.) The only way they get away with this shit is because Republican voters don't know how to question their information sources. We are still living under the essential logic of the Reagan Revolution. Tax cuts and deregulation. The result has been to concentrate all the wealth and resources into the hands of avery smaller group. And then these fucking billionaires who own the political system and mass media claim to be John Gault so that we give them even more money and resources.
> 
> We call them job creators. This is such a fucking joke. They've been job shippers since Reagan.



Londoner,* * *The Hoover Dam project did not leave America with a $16 trillion dollar deficit.As a matter of fact, the power plant that was placed at Hoover Dam created revenue that paid for the project time and time again.


----------



## GuyPinestra

del said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i bet you thought you had a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you thought you had a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i bet you thought that was a stunning comeback
Click to expand...


Don't care if it was stunning, I KNOW it was 'on point'.


----------



## del

GuyPinestra said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you thought you had a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i bet you thought that was a stunning comeback
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care if it was stunning, I KNOW it was 'on point'.
Click to expand...


here's a list of all the things you know that are correct:


----------



## Dr Grump

del said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i bet you thought that was a stunning comeback
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care if it was stunning, I KNOW it was 'on point'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here's a list of all the things you know that are correct:
Click to expand...


Your list is too long....


----------



## GuyPinestra

del said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i bet you thought that was a stunning comeback
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care if it was stunning, I KNOW it was 'on point'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here's a list of all the things you know that are correct:
Click to expand...


Here, let me help you....


----------



## Cecilie1200

GuyPinestra said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberals started this government" . . . if you subscribe to the theory that anything people like must, by definition, have been liberal.
> 
> Meanwhile, as to "countries started by businesses", who do you think paid to send the early settlers here, and supported them once they were here?  Who do you think paid for the building of the first roads and towns and infrastructure here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who paid?  I seem to remember something about the government offering homesteads and land grants to people that could make it there.
> 
> 
> 
> Land Run of 1889 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> That's just one example of how the government helped to foster the settling of the West.
> 
> And..............as far as who provided the infrastructure?  Well, up until Eisenhower, the roads kinda sucked and there were towns that didn't connect up with the rest of the country.  His highway system changed that.
> 
> 
> 
> Interstate Highway System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yep..............that's right..................the government built the roads too (at the request of the auto manufacturers btw........)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's look at just one small paragraph of your Wiki C&P, shall we? You'll see it highlighted above, assuming you know how to scroll. Nevermind, let me help you out.
> 
> 
> 
> *As automobile traffic increased, planners saw a need for such an interconnected national system to supplement the existing, largely non-freeway, United States Numbered Highways system. By the late 1930s, planning had expanded to a system of new superhighways.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the traffic increased BEFORE the 'planners saw a need'? How does that jibe with the meme that government was first, BEFORE the need?
> 
> I just don't see it, can you clear it up for me?
Click to expand...


I was rather caught by the notion that the government paid someone for the land grants that it issued people.  Aren't these the same liberals who are always bemoaning the way the United States "stole" all the land from the Indians?  NOW, though, we're being told that they, in fact, had to pay for it in order to issue land grants.

Not that it matters, because the idea of the federal government during that time going to the homesteaders, out there breaking their backs and risking their lives just to scratch out a decent living, and telling them, "You couldn't have done it without us" just makes me laugh.


----------



## Dante

GuyPinestra said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> And out of the OTHER side of your mouth comes the pronouncement that without 'government education, America's businesses wouldn't have such worthwhile employees...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i bet you thought you had a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you thought you had a brain.
Click to expand...


you obviously have del confused with somebody else.


----------



## Moonglow

Dante said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do. You really need to get out more. Does your Scooter have new batteries? If not after 5 years I hear your privately funded Medicare will pay for a set.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do? Really? Then why of all of you parasite liberals here crying your little eyes out about the evil rich who won't give you money???
> 
> You're parasites - you're too fucking lazy to work, much less start your own business...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> says the internet troll who lives on the internet(s)
Click to expand...


oh no! he was a contract negotiator in finance, that's one of his many talents.
I'd take his ass to work with me, and laugh when he walks home cause the job is too physically demanding, and it's my own business, been running it 30 years.


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who paid?  I seem to remember something about the government offering homesteads and land grants to people that could make it there.
> 
> 
> 
> Land Run of 1889 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> That's just one example of how the government helped to foster the settling of the West.
> 
> And..............as far as who provided the infrastructure?  Well, up until Eisenhower, the roads kinda sucked and there were towns that didn't connect up with the rest of the country.  His highway system changed that.
> 
> 
> 
> Interstate Highway System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yep..............that's right..................the government built the roads too (at the request of the auto manufacturers btw........)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at just one small paragraph of your Wiki C&P, shall we? You'll see it highlighted above, assuming you know how to scroll. Nevermind, let me help you out.
> 
> 
> 
> *As automobile traffic increased, planners saw a need for such an interconnected national system to supplement the existing, largely non-freeway, United States Numbered Highways system. By the late 1930s, planning had expanded to a system of new superhighways.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the traffic increased BEFORE the 'planners saw a need'? How does that jibe with the meme that government was first, BEFORE the need?
> 
> I just don't see it, can you clear it up for me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was rather caught by the notion that the government paid someone for the land grants that it issued people.  Aren't these the same liberals who are always bemoaning the way the United States "stole" all the land from the Indians?  NOW, though, we're being told that they, in fact, had to pay for it in order to issue land grants.
> 
> Not that it matters, because the idea of the federal government during that time going to the homesteaders, out there breaking their backs and risking their lives just to scratch out a decent living, and telling them, "You couldn't have done it without us" just makes me laugh.
Click to expand...


what was the name of the private enterprise that bought the Louisiana Purchase? heck back then we(US govt.) had to keep rich people from raising armies to invade smaller nations.


----------



## del

Moonglow said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do? Really? Then why of all of you parasite liberals here crying your little eyes out about the evil rich who won't give you money???
> 
> You're parasites - you're too fucking lazy to work, much less start your own business...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> says the internet troll who lives on the internet(s)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh no! he was a contract negotiator in finance, that's one of his many talents.
> I'd take his ass to work with me, and laugh when he walks home cause the job is too physically demanding, and it's my own business, been running it 30 years.
Click to expand...


bullshit

everyone knows liberals don't work


----------



## Murf76

Oddball said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone 'splained how it is that Big Daddy Big Gubmint is pivotal in business success, but _*never ever*_ to blame for business failure?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothin' yet, huh?
Click to expand...


They can't explain that because they'd have to deal with some rather unpleasant facts, first and foremost that government gets IN THE WAY of commerce more often than not.

But that's not really the point of Obama's comments, which were misleading even before we  deal with the socialistic nature of the gaffe.  He KNOWS that they could confiscate every cent from "the rich" and maybe.. _maybe_ fund Washington's spending for a year, leaving nothing for any subsequent years.  He also knows, and hopes desperately that we will forget... that Democrats had A BULLET-PROOF MAJORITY in 2009.  THE BASTARDS COULD HAVE PASSED ANY LEGISLATION THEY LIKED AND THERE'S NOT DICK REPUBLICANS COULD'VE DONE TO STOP THEM.

That's how we know this whole class warfare gambit is just a political game.  They had ample opportunity to raise those taxes... but they didn't.  And they didn't because they KNOW that raising taxes in a down economy isn't smart and that they'd be crucified in the polls when the bottom fell out.  That situation hasn't changed dramatically, as the "recovery" is a bust and the "fiscal cliff" is before us. 

Obama is playing games.  There's REAL suffering in this country and REAL danger that we'll fall off that fiscal cliff.  But Obama's priority is Obama.  He's running for a job that he _could_ be doing today, right now... and chooses not to.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at just one small paragraph of your Wiki C&P, shall we? You'll see it highlighted above, assuming you know how to scroll. Nevermind, let me help you out.
> 
> 
> Notice how the traffic increased BEFORE the 'planners saw a need'? How does that jibe with the meme that government was first, BEFORE the need?
> 
> I just don't see it, can you clear it up for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was rather caught by the notion that the government paid someone for the land grants that it issued people.  Aren't these the same liberals who are always bemoaning the way the United States "stole" all the land from the Indians?  NOW, though, we're being told that they, in fact, had to pay for it in order to issue land grants.
> 
> Not that it matters, because the idea of the federal government during that time going to the homesteaders, out there breaking their backs and risking their lives just to scratch out a decent living, and telling them, "You couldn't have done it without us" just makes me laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was the name of the private enterprise that bought the Louisiana Purchase? heck back then we(US govt.) had to keep rich people from raising armies to invade smaller nations.
Click to expand...


So the United States DIDN'T steal the land from the Indians?  Well, damn, son!  Remind me to point this post out the next time you or one of your leftist butt-buddies tries to bemoan the "poor Native Americans" and how our evil nation screwed them over.

Meanwhile, what was the name of the government body that went out and built homesteads, planted crops, fought off raids and outlaws, started businesses, built up frontier towns, etc., and thus made the settlers successful?  Oh, and that wonderful paved road the government built for the covered wagons to take west, what was that called again?

Don't think you're going to wander off down tangents and avoid the main topic, which is that PEOPLE built this country by starting businesses and engaging in commerce and busting their asses; GOVERNMENT didn't build it, and those few occasions - far, FAR back in the past - when government did something helpful - because it rarely does anything of the sort NOW - are a long, sad cry away from entitling Obama to claim any sort of share for the government in people's success.


----------



## P@triot

Moonglow said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do? Really? Then why of all of you parasite liberals here crying your little eyes out about the evil rich who won't give you money???
> 
> You're parasites - you're too fucking lazy to work, much less start your own business...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> says the internet troll who lives on the internet(s)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh no! he was a contract negotiator in finance, that's one of his many talents.
> I'd take his ass to work with me, and laugh when he walks home cause the job is too physically demanding, and it's my own business, been running it 30 years.
Click to expand...


I'm suddenly a "contract negotiator in finance"??? Clearly you are confused. I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.

And congrats on being one of the few liberals who actually works. There's an exception to every rule. Now explain to us why you support an ideology that wants to punish you for your hard work and effort?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Romney said Obamas remarks were not just foolishness, but insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America.  He said he found it extraordinary that a philosophy of that nature would be spoken by a President of the United States.

And by the way, Romney continued, the Presidents logic doesnt just extend to the entrepreneurs that start a barber shop or a taxi operation or an oil field service business like this and a gas service business like this.  It also extends to everybody in America that wants to lift themselves up a little further, that goes back to school to get a degree and see if they can get a little better job, to somebody who wants to get some new skills and get a little higher income, to somebody who have may have dropped out that decides to get back in school and go for it.  People who reach to try and lift themselves up.  The President would say, Well you didnt do that. You couldnt have gotten to school without the roads that government built for you.  You couldnt have gone to school without teachers.  So you are not responsible for that success.

Well, there you go.  Thank God he didn't give us any of that incredibly irritating "He's really a nice guy; we can't attack our opponent" temporizing that the GOP so often puts out.


----------



## Dr Grump

Chihuahua said:


> I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.



I find that so easy to believe....I'm thinking - burger flipper? Stop/go signage holder at roadworks? Tire kicker at the Firestone factory?


----------



## Cecilie1200

_Twitchy.com collected a tidal wave of Twitter messages from small business owners firing back at the President.  One business owner asked the President, so who exactly built MY business?  You mean I could have just slept all those late nights while someone ELSE built it?  Another, colder response: I reject your assertion that others built my business and resent your cavalier attitude toward my efforts.

A few respondents drove home the point that Barack Obama knows absolutely nothing about running a business of any size, and apparently thinks entrepreneurs spend their days reclining on couches and sipping chardonnay while counting their profits: If someone else built my business, why am I the one who lays awake at night wondering how I am going to make payroll? asked one disgusted businessman, while another declared, Feel better now that I know the government built my business for me.  Ill let them stay up nights worrying about it.

Dan Danner, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, issued a scathing statement in response to the President: His unfortunate remarks over the weekend show an utter lack of understanding and appreciation for the people who take a huge personal risk and work endless hours to start a business and create jobs.  Im sure every small-business owner who took a second mortgage on their home, maxed out their credit cards or borrowed money from their own retirement savings to start their business disagrees strongly with President Obamas claim.  They know that hard work does matter.

David Chavern, chief operating officer of the Chamber of Commerce, said that in Obamas eyes, success is apparently a collective effort  but where was that collective during the periods of risk-taking and failure?  The vast majority of businesses fail, period.  Every day millions of people put their lives, savings, houses and families on the line and work 20 hours a day just to grab their small slice of the American dream. Where is the collective when all of this is going on?  And if the collective is really responsible for success, how come everyone isnt successful?_
By the way, all you lefties who are desperately backpedaling and trying to claim that Obama didn't REALLY mean to take credit for the government building people's businesses?  He really screwed you out of that argument when he added THIS line:  Im always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There's really no way to spin that away from him telling business owners that they aren't responsible for their own success.


----------



## Dr Grump

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...


----------



## Moonglow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was rather caught by the notion that the government paid someone for the land grants that it issued people.  Aren't these the same liberals who are always bemoaning the way the United States "stole" all the land from the Indians?  NOW, though, we're being told that they, in fact, had to pay for it in order to issue land grants.
> 
> Not that it matters, because the idea of the federal government during that time going to the homesteaders, out there breaking their backs and risking their lives just to scratch out a decent living, and telling them, "You couldn't have done it without us" just makes me laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what was the name of the private enterprise that bought the Louisiana Purchase? heck back then we(US govt.) had to keep rich people from raising armies to invade smaller nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the United States DIDN'T steal the land from the Indians?  Well, damn, son!  Remind me to point this post out the next time you or one of your leftist butt-buddies tries to bemoan the "poor Native Americans" and how our evil nation screwed them over.
> 
> Meanwhile, what was the name of the government body that went out and built homesteads, planted crops, fought off raids and outlaws, started businesses, built up frontier towns, etc., and thus made the settlers successful?  Oh, and that wonderful paved road the government built for the covered wagons to take west, what was that called again?
> intercontinental railroad was financed by the governemnt, making it easier to travel west and to increase produce shipping for markets. then in your imagination, business built up all infastructure and if there was no infastructure business in the US would not suffer.
> The Erie canal was the first govt. project to help transport goods. then came the military to help protect settlers and control the native poulation. The people back then wanted govt. to help establish themselves in hostile areas.
> Don't think you're going to wander off down tangents and avoid the main topic, which is that PEOPLE built this country by starting businesses and engaging in commerce and busting their asses; GOVERNMENT didn't build it, and those few occasions - far, FAR back in the past - when government did something helpful - because it rarely does anything of the sort NOW - are a long, sad cry away from entitling Obama to claim any sort of share for the government in people's success.
Click to expand...


No one has said that government did it all for business but you twisted fanatics. The main topic of the statement was collective commerce assistance to businesses for greater success. 
And yes the land was forcibly taken by the US many times. Happened in many parts of the world back then, should we still be doing it to other nations,no, manifest destiny had to stop at some time.

but you may fly off any tangent you would like. it's just a discussion thread, don't have a cow, man.


----------



## Moonglow

Rottweiler said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> says the internet troll who lives on the internet(s)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh no! he was a contract negotiator in finance, that's one of his many talents.
> I'd take his ass to work with me, and laugh when he walks home cause the job is too physically demanding, and it's my own business, been running it 30 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm suddenly a "contract negotiator in finance"??? Clearly you are confused. I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.
> 
> And congrats on being one of the few liberals who actually works. There's an exception to every rule. Now explain to us why you support an ideology that wants to punish you for your hard work and effort?
Click to expand...


every liberal I know works, and we work hard. i had a black tranny at a night club I bounce at tell me that she was suprised that a white man would be in construction. I told her/him/it that it would be an even bigger suprise to see a black man working at a job and not hanging on da curb selling dope.


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Chihuahua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that so easy to believe....I'm thinking - burger flipper? Stop/go signage holder at roadworks? Tire kicker at the Firestone factory?
Click to expand...


Says the Australian parasite who mooches off others and has them pay for his wife's surgery. Seriously, why don't you get the fuck off the *US* Message Board and make your ignorant, uneducated comments on an Australian site? What, do you suffer from American envy or something? You don't live here, you don't understand the issues, you don't understand what is going on - just go away.

Also, leave it to a liberal idiot to demean working. You mooch off the Australian government like the parasite you are while having the audacity to demean a person who works at a restaraunt, at a construction site, or at a factory? Unfuckingbelievable. What an *asshole*...


----------



## Moonglow

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chihuahua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that so easy to believe....I'm thinking - burger flipper? Stop/go signage holder at roadworks? Tire kicker at the Firestone factory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Australian parasite who mooches off others and has them pay for his wife's surgery. Seriously, why don't you get the fuck off the *US* Message Board and make your ignorant, uneducated comments on an Australian site? What, do you suffer from American envy or something? You don't live here, you don't understand the issues, you don't understand what is going on - just go away.
> 
> Also, leave it to a liberal idiot to demean working. You mooch off the Australian government like the parasite you are while having the audacity to demean a person who works at a restaraunt, at a construction site, or at a factory? Unfuckingbelievable. What an *asshole*...
Click to expand...


Australia has universal healthcare.And mandatory voting.


----------



## tjvh

Moonglow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh no! he was a contract negotiator in finance, that's one of his many talents.
> I'd take his ass to work with me, and laugh when he walks home cause the job is too physically demanding, and it's my own business, been running it 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm suddenly a "contract negotiator in finance"??? Clearly you are confused. I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.
> 
> And congrats on being one of the few liberals who actually works. There's an exception to every rule. Now explain to us why you support an ideology that wants to punish you for your hard work and effort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> every liberal I know works, and we work hard. i had a black tranny at a night club I bounce at tell me that she was suprised that a white man would be in construction. I told her/him/it that it would be an even bigger suprise to see a black man working at a job and not hanging on da curb selling dope.
Click to expand...


So is club "bouncing" actually a career choice?


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dr Grump said:


> Chihuahua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that so easy to believe....I'm thinking - burger flipper? Stop/go signage holder at roadworks? Tire kicker at the Firestone factory?
Click to expand...


Do you have any idea how much those stop/go signholders actually make? I'll give you a hint... Davis-Bacon


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> what was the name of the private enterprise that bought the Louisiana Purchase? heck back then we(US govt.) had to keep rich people from raising armies to invade smaller nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the United States DIDN'T steal the land from the Indians?  Well, damn, son!  Remind me to point this post out the next time you or one of your leftist butt-buddies tries to bemoan the "poor Native Americans" and how our evil nation screwed them over.
> 
> Meanwhile, what was the name of the government body that went out and built homesteads, planted crops, fought off raids and outlaws, started businesses, built up frontier towns, etc., and thus made the settlers successful?  Oh, and that wonderful paved road the government built for the covered wagons to take west, what was that called again?
> intercontinental railroad was financed by the governemnt, making it easier to travel west and to increase produce shipping for markets. then in your imagination, business built up all infastructure and if there was no infastructure business in the US would not suffer.
> The Erie canal was the first govt. project to help transport goods. then came the military to help protect settlers and control the native poulation. The people back then wanted govt. to help establish themselves in hostile areas.
> Don't think you're going to wander off down tangents and avoid the main topic, which is that PEOPLE built this country by starting businesses and engaging in commerce and busting their asses; GOVERNMENT didn't build it, and those few occasions - far, FAR back in the past - when government did something helpful - because it rarely does anything of the sort NOW - are a long, sad cry away from entitling Obama to claim any sort of share for the government in people's success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has said that government did it all for business but you twisted fanatics. The main topic of the statement was collective commerce assistance to businesses for greater success.
> And yes the land was forcibly taken by the US many times. Happened in many parts of the world back then, should we still be doing it to other nations,no, manifest destiny had to stop at some time.
> 
> but you may fly off any tangent you would like. it's just a discussion thread, don't have a cow, man.
Click to expand...


Actually, Sparkles, as hard as you leftist twits are trying to spin it, your beloved President/Messiah very much tried to claim an equal share of credit for building businesses with their owners.

As to the land, you need to make up your fucking mind.  Either the government paid for the land that the settlers settled on, making them partially responsible for the settlers' successes, or they stole the land, in which case they didn't pay shit for it, and did nothing to contribute to the settlers' success.

You can't have it both ways, sonny.


----------



## P@triot

Moonglow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh no! he was a contract negotiator in finance, that's one of his many talents.
> I'd take his ass to work with me, and laugh when he walks home cause the job is too physically demanding, and it's my own business, been running it 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm suddenly a "contract negotiator in finance"??? Clearly you are confused. I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.
> 
> And congrats on being one of the few liberals who actually works. There's an exception to every rule. Now explain to us why you support an ideology that wants to punish you for your hard work and effort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> every liberal I know works, and we work hard. i had a black tranny at a night club I bounce at tell me that she was suprised that a white man would be in construction. I told her/him/it that it would be an even bigger suprise to see a black man working at a job and not hanging on da curb selling dope.
Click to expand...


So I have to ask again - why would you support an ideology that punishes hard work and rewards unproductive parasites?


----------



## Moonglow

Rottweiler said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm suddenly a "contract negotiator in finance"??? Clearly you are confused. I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.
> 
> And congrats on being one of the few liberals who actually works. There's an exception to every rule. Now explain to us why you support an ideology that wants to punish you for your hard work and effort?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> every liberal I know works, and we work hard. i had a black tranny at a night club I bounce at tell me that she was suprised that a white man would be in construction. I told her/him/it that it would be an even bigger suprise to see a black man working at a job and not hanging on da curb selling dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I have to ask again - why would you support an ideology that punishes hard work and rewards unproductive parasites?
Click to expand...


I believe  that able bodied people receiving help should work for it. Even if you have to leave your family to do it. Like during the Great Depression.


----------



## buckeye45_73

I have a question if a teacher makes that much of a difference, how come all their students dont succeed?


----------



## Moonglow

buckeye45_73 said:


> I have a question if a teacher makes that much of a difference, how come all their students dont succeed?



many do succeed, but it is up to the individual to make a success with the education provided. 
i believe that more votech training should be included in school and a work study program to give youngsters training and experience.
here in our county the high school actually builds houses and sells them to support the votech section of the school. The jr college down the road builds houses that are alternative energy and takes them on tours to show to prospective buyers. The school was originally an engineer prep school for the NG engineer battalion attached to the college.
these kids get out of school with a trade and can build houses for a business.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chihuahua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that so easy to believe....I'm thinking - burger flipper? Stop/go signage holder at roadworks? Tire kicker at the Firestone factory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Australian parasite who mooches off others and has them pay for his wife's surgery. Seriously, why don't you get the fuck off the *US* Message Board and make your ignorant, uneducated comments on an Australian site? What, do you suffer from American envy or something? You don't live here, you don't understand the issues, you don't understand what is going on - just go away.
> 
> Also, leave it to a liberal idiot to demean working. You mooch off the Australian government like the parasite you are while having the audacity to demean a person who works at a restaraunt, at a construction site, or at a factory? Unfuckingbelievable. What an *asshole*...
Click to expand...


Well, what can I say, the internet has made the world smaller. And if you don't like it here, leave...shrug. I ain't going nowhere any time soon..

No, the govt paid for my wife's surgery using our tax dollars. I have no problem with it, and dont' call it mooching. I call it getting my money back. Between us, my wife and I have paid about $250,000 in taxes since arriving here 4 years ago. Her operation cost about $9500. We have not received any other form of govt assistance since arriving. I would say that the govt is more on the positive side of the ledger than us, no?

We don't call them restaurants down here. They're fast food outlets. Sure, the marketers and ad agencies like to call them a restaurant, but they don't qualify IMO. Next thing you'll be saying those that fry chicken at KFC are chefs.

And if you're only ambition is to kick tires or hold a stop/go sign, then you deserve any derision that comes your way Chihuahua Boy....


----------



## buckeye45_73

Moonglow said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question if a teacher makes that much of a difference, how come all their students dont succeed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many do succeed, but it *is up to the individual to make a success* with the education provided.
> i believe that more votech training should be included in school and a work study program to give youngsters training and experience.
> here in our county the high school actually builds houses and sells them to support the votech section of the school. The jr college down the road builds houses that are alternative energy and takes them on tours to show to prospective buyers. The school was originally an engineer prep school for the NG engineer battalion attached to the college.
> these kids get out of school with a trade and can build houses for a business.
Click to expand...

 
couldnt agree more with the highlight, which is why it's nice to have support, but if you make it you own it and if you dont, you only have yourself to blame


----------



## Dr Grump

GuyPinestra said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chihuahua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that so easy to believe....I'm thinking - burger flipper? Stop/go signage holder at roadworks? Tire kicker at the Firestone factory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how much those stop/go signholders actually make? I'll give you a hint... Davis-Bacon
Click to expand...


So having no ambition or schooling pays!


----------



## GuyPinestra

Cecilie1200 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the United States DIDN'T steal the land from the Indians?  Well, damn, son!  Remind me to point this post out the next time you or one of your leftist butt-buddies tries to bemoan the "poor Native Americans" and how our evil nation screwed them over.
> 
> Meanwhile, what was the name of the government body that went out and built homesteads, planted crops, fought off raids and outlaws, started businesses, built up frontier towns, etc., and thus made the settlers successful?  Oh, and that wonderful paved road the government built for the covered wagons to take west, what was that called again?
> intercontinental railroad was financed by the governemnt, making it easier to travel west and to increase produce shipping for markets. then in your imagination, business built up all infastructure and if there was no infastructure business in the US would not suffer.
> The Erie canal was the first govt. project to help transport goods. then came the military to help protect settlers and control the native poulation. The people back then wanted govt. to help establish themselves in hostile areas.
> Don't think you're going to wander off down tangents and avoid the main topic, which is that PEOPLE built this country by starting businesses and engaging in commerce and busting their asses; GOVERNMENT didn't build it, and those few occasions - far, FAR back in the past - when government did something helpful - because it rarely does anything of the sort NOW - are a long, sad cry away from entitling Obama to claim any sort of share for the government in people's success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has said that government did it all for business but you twisted fanatics. The main topic of the statement was collective commerce assistance to businesses for greater success.
> And yes the land was forcibly taken by the US many times. Happened in many parts of the world back then, should we still be doing it to other nations,no, manifest destiny had to stop at some time.
> 
> but you may fly off any tangent you would like. it's just a discussion thread, don't have a cow, man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Sparkles, as hard as you leftist twits are trying to spin it, your beloved President/Messiah very much tried to claim an equal share of credit for building businesses with their owners.
> 
> As to the land, you need to make up your fucking mind.  Either the government paid for the land that the settlers settled on, making them partially responsible for the settlers' successes, or they stole the land, in which case they didn't pay shit for it, and did nothing to contribute to the settlers' success.
> 
> You can't have it both ways, sonny.
Click to expand...


They 'stole' the land, gave land grants to the RR's and SOLD land to settlers. In other words, they took THEIR cut out of the little guy. They did pass a law to ALLOW it, God bless 'em, but it was the RR's themselves that financed it through the sale of bonds and land.


----------



## Moonglow

I was able to learn electronics provided by the military. I am grateful for the excellent training I received. They taught me many things in the military that i would not have done on my own. I had people there that was willing to teach you many things if you were willing to learn and apply it.
I came from a broken family, where my mother was married 5 times and we were basically working poor. wages paid to my mother was almost half of what I could earn as a laborer.
I went to college by the gracious gift of the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and 2% loans. I could not have accomplished all that alone.
I am very grateful to the USA for the many opprotunities I was able to have that I would not have accomplished alone.
While in the Army my wife left me, I was suddenly a single parent. the govt. allowed me to lay blocks for firewalls in storage areas to make enough to live, since my Army pay still put me 25 dollars from getting welfare.
While in the military I was able to CLEP out of college classes and it was paid for by  the govt. saving me time and money.


----------



## del

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chihuahua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never done anything even remotely similar to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that so easy to believe....I'm thinking - burger flipper? Stop/go signage holder at roadworks? Tire kicker at the Firestone factory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Australian parasite who mooches off others and has them pay for his wife's surgery. Seriously, why don't you get the fuck off the *US* Message Board and make your ignorant, uneducated comments on an Australian site? What, do you suffer from American envy or something? You don't live here, you don't understand the issues, you don't understand what is going on - just go away.
> 
> Also, leave it to a liberal idiot to demean working. You mooch off the Australian government like the parasite you are while having the audacity to demean a person who works at a restaraunt, at a construction site, or at a factory? Unfuckingbelievable. What an *asshole*...
Click to expand...


sensitive troll is crying.  

rottweiler 

more like a shit-tzu

tissue?


----------



## Moonglow

GuyPinestra said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has said that government did it all for business but you twisted fanatics. The main topic of the statement was collective commerce assistance to businesses for greater success.
> And yes the land was forcibly taken by the US many times. Happened in many parts of the world back then, should we still be doing it to other nations,no, manifest destiny had to stop at some time.
> 
> but you may fly off any tangent you would like. it's just a discussion thread, don't have a cow, man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Sparkles, as hard as you leftist twits are trying to spin it, your beloved President/Messiah very much tried to claim an equal share of credit for building businesses with their owners.
> 
> As to the land, you need to make up your fucking mind.  Either the government paid for the land that the settlers settled on, making them partially responsible for the settlers' successes, or they stole the land, in which case they didn't pay shit for it, and did nothing to contribute to the settlers' success.
> 
> You can't have it both ways, sonny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They 'stole' the land, gave land grants to the RR's and SOLD land to settlers. In other words, they took THEIR cut out of the little guy. They did pass a law to ALLOW it, God bless 'em, but it was the RR's themselves that financed it through the sale of bonds and land.
Click to expand...


The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
The US gave mostly all the land away to settlers for free in 160 acre tracts, if they agreed to stay on the land and improve it by agricultural means.


----------



## The Infidel

Wow... we are going all the way back to the FUCKING CIVIL WAR to justify what Obama said????

Are you kidding me????

WAKE THE FUCK UP


----------



## GuyPinestra

Moonglow said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Sparkles, as hard as you leftist twits are trying to spin it, your beloved President/Messiah very much tried to claim an equal share of credit for building businesses with their owners.
> 
> As to the land, you need to make up your fucking mind.  Either the government paid for the land that the settlers settled on, making them partially responsible for the settlers' successes, or they stole the land, in which case they didn't pay shit for it, and did nothing to contribute to the settlers' success.
> 
> You can't have it both ways, sonny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They 'stole' the land, gave land grants to the RR's and SOLD land to settlers. In other words, they took THEIR cut out of the little guy. They did pass a law to ALLOW it, God bless 'em, but it was the RR's themselves that financed it through the sale of bonds and land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
> The US gave mostly all the land away to settlers for free in 160 acre tracts, if they agreed to stay on the land and improve it by agricultural means.
Click to expand...


Shit dude, you were on the page, how'd you miss this part?? 



> Pacific Railroad Act
> Main article: Pacific Railroad Act
> 
> The Pony Express from 1860 to 1861 was to prove that the Central Nevada Route across Nevada and Utah and the sections of the Oregon Trail across Wyoming and Nebraska was viable during the winter. With the American Civil War raging and a secessionist movement in California gaining steam, the apparent need for the railroad became more urgent.
> 
> In 1861 Curtis again introduced a bill to establish the railroad, but it did not pass. After the secession of the southern states, the House of Representatives on May 6, 1862, and the Senate on June 20 finally approved it. Lincoln signed it into law on July 1. The act established the two main lines&#8212;the Central Pacific from the west and the Union Pacific from the mid-west. Other rail lines were encouraged to build feeder lines.
> 
> Each was required to build only 50 miles (80 km) in the first year; after that, only 50 miles (80 km) more were required each year. Each railroad received $16,000 per mile ($9,940/km) built over an easy grade, $32,000 per mile ($19,880/km) in the high plains, and $48,000 per mile ($29,830/km) in the mountains. This payment was in the form of government bonds that the companies could resell. To allow the railroads to raise additional money Congress provided additional assistance to the railroad companies in the form of land grants of federal lands. They were granted right-of-ways of 400 feet (100 m) plus 10 square miles (26 km2) of land (ten sections) adjacent to the track for every mile of track built. *To avoid a railroad monopoly on good land, the land was not given away in a continuous swath but in a "checkerboard" pattern leaving federal land in between that could be purchased from the government.* The land grant railroads, receiving millions of acres of public land, sold bonds based on the value of the lands, sold the land to settlers, used the money to build their railroads, and contributed to a rapid settlement of the West.[9] The total area of the land grants to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific was even larger than the area of the state of Texas: federal government land grants totaled about 5,261,000,000 square meters and state government land grants totaled about 1,983,000,000 square meters.[10] The race was on to see which railroad company could build the longest section of track and receive the most land and government bonds.
> 
> *The bonds and land grants have been frequently characterised as a government subsidy. However, historian Stephen Ambrose has argued against this since the companies repaid both the capital and interest.*[11] He also argues that although the companies were able to sell the land grants in the Sacramento Valley and Nebraska at "a good price", most of the land in Wyoming, Utah and Nevada was "virtually worthless".[12]


----------



## The Infidel

Moonglow said:


> I was able to learn electronics provided by the military. I am grateful for the excellent training I received. They taught me many things in the military that i would not have done on my own. I had people there that was willing to teach you many things if you were willing to learn and apply it.
> I came from a broken family, where my mother was married 5 times and we were basically working poor. wages paid to my mother was almost half of what I could earn as a laborer.
> I went to college by the gracious gift of the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and 2% loans. I could not have accomplished all that alone.
> I am very grateful to the USA for the many opprotunities I was able to have that I would not have accomplished alone.
> While in the Army my wife left me, I was suddenly a single parent. the govt. allowed me to lay blocks for firewalls in storage areas to make enough to live, since my Army pay still put me 25 dollars from getting welfare.
> While in the military I was able to CLEP out of college classes and it was paid for by  the govt. saving me time and money.




All that is good and fine, but NONE of it would be possible without the hard work, of your fellow Americans in the private sector... we pay for the military, we pay for the grants, we pay for everything the gov't "gives".
The gov't does not exist w/o us, the tax payers, and of course capitalism


----------



## Clementine

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



I think Obama is comparing his life to others.   He didn't get where he is on his own.   He should thank people, like Soros or Ayers, every day for his position.

He didn't earn the peace prize either and should thank others for handing to him for doing nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists?
> 
> I was going to respond to more of your post, and then I realized...
> 
> this is your brain on auto pilot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arguments all suck? Are you insane?
Click to expand...


No, I'm utterly rational.  It's a curse when you live in an insane society.


----------



## bripat9643

Rottweiler said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.
> 
> Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it.  This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only if we let them. If we force them to take personal responsibility and fend for themselves like big boys and big girls, then they won't be able to collapse our nation. If we keep pandering to them, then you are correct...
Click to expand...


They outnumber us.  The government takes your money and then uses it against us to promote its growth at our expense.  Once the process is set in motion, it's irreversible.  That's what the history of the 20th century shows.  That's why the idea of "limited government" is a farce.  It's purely a temporary state of affairs.  It's unstable.


----------



## Moonglow

The Infidel said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was able to learn electronics provided by the military. I am grateful for the excellent training I received. They taught me many things in the military that i would not have done on my own. I had people there that was willing to teach you many things if you were willing to learn and apply it.
> I came from a broken family, where my mother was married 5 times and we were basically working poor. wages paid to my mother was almost half of what I could earn as a laborer.
> I went to college by the gracious gift of the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and 2% loans. I could not have accomplished all that alone.
> I am very grateful to the USA for the many opprotunities I was able to have that I would not have accomplished alone.
> While in the Army my wife left me, I was suddenly a single parent. the govt. allowed me to lay blocks for firewalls in storage areas to make enough to live, since my Army pay still put me 25 dollars from getting welfare.
> While in the military I was able to CLEP out of college classes and it was paid for by  the govt. saving me time and money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that is good and fine, but NONE of it would be possible without the hard work, of your fellow Americans in the private sector... we pay for the military, we pay for the grants, we pay for everything the gov't "gives".
> The gov't does not exist w/o us, the tax payers, and of course capitalism
Click to expand...


Yes, but the government also works to help business.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  *Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it. * This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alarmist imbecility at it's most extreme
Click to expand...



The truth of the matter is obvious.  Conservatives and libertarians have been fighting the growth of government since the Wilson administration, and they've been losing.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Moonglow said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was able to learn electronics provided by the military. I am grateful for the excellent training I received. They taught me many things in the military that i would not have done on my own. I had people there that was willing to teach you many things if you were willing to learn and apply it.
> I came from a broken family, where my mother was married 5 times and we were basically working poor. wages paid to my mother was almost half of what I could earn as a laborer.
> I went to college by the gracious gift of the taxpayers in the form of grants, scholarships and 2% loans. I could not have accomplished all that alone.
> I am very grateful to the USA for the many opprotunities I was able to have that I would not have accomplished alone.
> While in the Army my wife left me, I was suddenly a single parent. the govt. allowed me to lay blocks for firewalls in storage areas to make enough to live, since my Army pay still put me 25 dollars from getting welfare.
> While in the military I was able to CLEP out of college classes and it was paid for by  the govt. saving me time and money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that is good and fine, but NONE of it would be possible without the hard work, of your fellow Americans in the private sector... we pay for the military, we pay for the grants, we pay for everything the gov't "gives".
> The gov't does not exist w/o us, the tax payers, and of course capitalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the government also works to help business.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't. 

It works to help ITSELF.



			
				George Washington said:
			
		

> Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.


----------



## Moonglow

bripat9643 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it.  This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's only if we let them. If we force them to take personal responsibility and fend for themselves like big boys and big girls, then they won't be able to collapse our nation. If we keep pandering to them, then you are correct...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They outnumber us.  The government takes your money and then uses it against us to promote its growth at our expense.  Once the process is set in motion, it's irreversible.  That's what the history of the 20th century shows.  That's why the idea of "limited government" is a farce.  It's purely a temporary state of affairs.  It's unstable.
Click to expand...



Every superpower has gone through this. Our trade deficit has destroyed jobs becuase of cheap imports.The economics of supply and demand are stagnant when consumers buy fewer products produced in the USA.
The devaluation of the dollar which happens during recessions is an attempt to lessen that debt and create jobs, by being more competetive in the price of consumer goods exported.
The fact that free trade agreements have severly hurt the economy and companies move to produce goods cheaper and send  them  here, so the companies that were here are part of the problem with trade imbalance and loss of jobs.
that is why reds and blues are both promoting made in the USA, trying to get people to buy more American made products to support our economy.


----------



## bripat9643

Moonglow said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Sparkles, as hard as you leftist twits are trying to spin it, your beloved President/Messiah very much tried to claim an equal share of credit for building businesses with their owners.
> 
> As to the land, you need to make up your fucking mind.  Either the government paid for the land that the settlers settled on, making them partially responsible for the settlers' successes, or they stole the land, in which case they didn't pay shit for it, and did nothing to contribute to the settlers' success.
> 
> You can't have it both ways, sonny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They 'stole' the land, gave land grants to the RR's and SOLD land to settlers. In other words, they took THEIR cut out of the little guy. They did pass a law to ALLOW it, God bless 'em, but it was the RR's themselves that financed it through the sale of bonds and land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
> The US gave mostly all the land away to settlers for free in 160 acre tracts, if they agreed to stay on the land and improve it by agricultural means.
Click to expand...


All the government transcontinental railroads went bankrupt shortly after they were completed.  They were rife with corruption and outright fraud.  The construction was so shoddy that most of the line had to be rebuilt before they could be operated profitably.


----------



## Moonglow

bripat9643 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> They 'stole' the land, gave land grants to the RR's and SOLD land to settlers. In other words, they took THEIR cut out of the little guy. They did pass a law to ALLOW it, God bless 'em, but it was the RR's themselves that financed it through the sale of bonds and land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
> The US gave mostly all the land away to settlers for free in 160 acre tracts, if they agreed to stay on the land and improve it by agricultural means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the government transcontinental railroads went bankrupt shortly after they were completed.  They were rife with corruption and outright fraud.  The construction was so shoddy that most of the line had to be rebuilt before they could be operated profitably.
Click to expand...


Thank the railroad companies.
it was around the time of when grant was a republican president and his administartion was rife with corruption and fraud also.


----------



## bripat9643

Moonglow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land.
> The US gave mostly all the land away to settlers for free in 160 acre tracts, if they agreed to stay on the land and improve it by agricultural means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the government transcontinental railroads went bankrupt shortly after they were completed.  They were rife with corruption and outright fraud.  The construction was so shoddy that most of the line had to be rebuilt before they could be operated profitably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank the railroad companies.
> it was around the time of when grant was a republican president and his administartion was rife with corruption and fraud also.
Click to expand...


Whenever government decides to subsidize private businesses, corruption is always the result, but somehow the liberal always finds a way to blame business.  Corruption is the inevitable result of giving away other people's money.  It goes along with government subsidies just as STDs go along with promiscuity.

The bottom line is that the government transcontinental railroads were financial disasters.  I always laugh whenever I see liberals touting them as great examples of the benefit of government subsidizing business and "investing" in infrastructure.


----------



## bripat9643

Moonglow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They outnumber us.  The government takes your money and then uses it against us to promote its growth at our expense.  Once the process is set in motion, it's irreversible.  That's what the history of the 20th century shows.  That's why the idea of "limited government" is a farce.  It's purely a temporary state of affairs.  It's unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every superpower has gone through this. Our trade deficit has destroyed jobs becuase of cheap imports.The economics of supply and demand are stagnant when consumers buy fewer products produced in the USA.
> The devaluation of the dollar which happens during recessions is an attempt to lessen that debt and create jobs, by being more competetive in the price of consumer goods exported.
> The fact that free trade agreements have severly hurt the economy and companies move to produce goods cheaper and send  them  here, so the companies that were here are part of the problem with trade imbalance and loss of jobs.
> that is why reds and blues are both promoting made in the USA, trying to get people to buy more American made products to support our economy.
Click to expand...



My point went right over your head.


----------



## Moonglow

bripat9643 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the government transcontinental railroads went bankrupt shortly after they were completed.  They were rife with corruption and outright fraud.  The construction was so shoddy that most of the line had to be rebuilt before they could be operated profitably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank the railroad companies.
> it was around the time of when grant was a republican president and his administartion was rife with corruption and fraud also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whenever government decides to subsidize private businesses, corruption is always the result, but somehow the liberal always finds a way to blame business.  Corruption is the inevitable result of giving away other people's money.  It goes along with government subsidies just as STDs go along with promiscuity.
> 
> The bottom line is that the government transcontinental railroads were financial disasters.  I always laugh whenever I see liberals touting them as great examples of the benefit of government subsidizing business and "investing" in infrastructure.
Click to expand...


Yes, you read where I blamed both, but do finish your tirade, it's your modus operandi.


----------



## Moonglow

bripat9643 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They outnumber us.  The government takes your money and then uses it against us to promote its growth at our expense.  Once the process is set in motion, it's irreversible.  That's what the history of the 20th century shows.  That's why the idea of "limited government" is a farce.  It's purely a temporary state of affairs.  It's unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every superpower has gone through this. Our trade deficit has destroyed jobs becuase of cheap imports.The economics of supply and demand are stagnant when consumers buy fewer products produced in the USA.
> The devaluation of the dollar which happens during recessions is an attempt to lessen that debt and create jobs, by being more competetive in the price of consumer goods exported.
> The fact that free trade agreements have severly hurt the economy and companies move to produce goods cheaper and send  them  here, so the companies that were here are part of the problem with trade imbalance and loss of jobs.
> that is why reds and blues are both promoting made in the USA, trying to get people to buy more American made products to support our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point went right over your head.
Click to expand...


No, you point is illogical. If the power of the US is to grow, the govt. will grow along with it.
your illogical fallicies are a tired redundancy of emotive replies without surveying the scene and making a rational statement.
And now the insults.


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  *Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it. * This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alarmist imbecility at it's most extreme
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is obvious.  Conservatives and libertarians have been fighting the growth of government since the Wilson administration, and they've been losing.
Click to expand...


Well, if they weren't all as stupid as you are, they might have a chance


----------



## Old Rocks

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe&#8217;s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe&#8217;s employer pays these standards because Joe&#8217;s employer doesn&#8217;t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he&#8217;ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn&#8217;t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe&#8217;s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe&#8217;s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn&#8217;t want to make rural loans. The house didn&#8217;t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn&#8217;t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican&#8217;s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn&#8217;t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host&#8217;s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn&#8217;t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)  Joe agrees, &#8220;We don&#8217;t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I&#8217;m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have&#8221;.

Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican


----------



## Dante

The Infidel said:


> Wow... we are going all the way back to the FUCKING CIVIL WAR to justify what Obama said????
> 
> Are you kidding me????
> 
> WAKE THE FUCK UP



Don't worry. Anyone that reads your alarmist posts will ignore you.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  *Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it. * This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alarmist imbecility at it's most extreme
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is obvious.  Conservatives and libertarians have been fighting the growth of government since the Wilson administration, and they've been losing.
Click to expand...


In many ways that is so arbitrary a time period as to make you sound like one of those internet intellectuals. not saying you are, just suggesting the most rational observation.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alarmist imbecility at it's most extreme
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is obvious.  Conservatives and libertarians have been fighting the growth of government since the Wilson administration, and they've been losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many ways that is so arbitrary a time period as to make you sound like one of those internet intellectuals. not saying you are, just suggesting the most rational observation.
Click to expand...


There's not the slightest thing "arbitrary" about the time period,  and I have no idea what it means to be an "internet intellectual" or why that's bad.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is obvious.  Conservatives and libertarians have been fighting the growth of government since the Wilson administration, and they've been losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In many ways that is so arbitrary a time period as to make you sound like one of those internet intellectuals. not saying you are, just suggesting the most rational observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's not the slightest thing "arbitrary" about the time period,  and I have no idea what it means to be an "internet intellectual" or why that's bad.
Click to expand...


Louisiana Purchase and much more afterwards...

No idea? Of course. If you were aware of what I speak of you'd hide your head in shame and embarrassment.


----------



## MuadDib

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> In many ways that is so arbitrary a time period as to make you sound like one of those internet intellectuals. not saying you are, just suggesting the most rational observation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's not the slightest thing "arbitrary" about the time period,  and I have no idea what it means to be an "internet intellectual" or why that's bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Louisiana Purchase and much more afterwards...
> 
> No idea? Of course. If you were aware of what I speak of you'd hide your head in shame and embarrassment.
Click to expand...


Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The Louisiana Purchase and Woodrow Wilson were about 100 years apart.


----------



## mudwhistle

OldUSAFSniper said:


> You know, when I heard this comment by Barry, all it did was cement what I already KNEW about him BEFORE he was elected.  The man is absolutely as CLUELESS about capatalism and free enterprise and is a student of socialism at its worst.
> 
> The simple fact is that if a small business man makes it, if he works HARD enough and LONG enough, he might (if he is really lucky) make a go of it DESPITE the federal government.  Because I am here to tell you that from the beginning of my business to the day that I shut the doors, the federal government was the BIGGEST roadblock to success.  For 20 years, from the moment I started, the nightmare that I had to deal with was "Hello, I'm from the federal government."  The second worst nightmare?  "Hello, I'm from the state government."
> 
> I have NOT met a small businessman who for an instant believes the crap that this man is dishing...



Yeah, but MSNBC is worried about that rich guy Romney not releasing his tax returns when asked. That's the single most important thing of this campaign they said this morning. They won't mention what Obama said. Obama thinks business owners are just plain lucky to have what they have. They should learn to appreciate the fact that Obama allows them to have anything. Just how fucked up this way of thinking is for every single American is not even an issue to them. They wanna know why Romney doesn't drop his pants and expose himself on national TV.


----------



## Mac1958

Dr Grump said:


> having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...




One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!

From the video you claim to have watched:

"If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
"I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
"'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"

Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to *people who have not the slightest clue *what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  *And *because he's *clearly *among that group.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts by our President would be nice.*

I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  Hey, perhaps you've never been insulted in your life.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.

Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?

.


----------



## mudwhistle

Mac1958 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to people who have no freakin' idea what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If you're sitting on the far right or far left everyone looks like a hack to you. 

If you're far right everyone appears like a communist or some brainless Obamabot. 

If you're far left everyone appears like a mouth breathing knuckle dragger clinging to his guns and his religion. You're just not cool. 

It's just a matter of perception. 


I agree with you. This topic is the very reason I despise Obama. What you're seeing finally is the office suckup in Obama that I've always seen.

His smarmy attitude comes out whenever he goes off teleprompter. He's never worked hard in his life yet he feels he has the right to mock those who do. Under normal circumstances that would get someone's ass kicked. I know there are tons of people out there that worked 18 hr days to get their business going and keep it going that would be up in his face for what he said. 

While in the Senate Obama never worked hard. He earned a reputation as a *bill thief.* He would screw off for months and then as soon as a piece of legislation was ready to go to the floor he'd walk in and try to jump in and take some of the credit for it. He never worked along with everyone else. Never did the hard work it took to push it through. He wanted it dumped into his lap ready to go. This is why he doesn't appreciate a work ethic. This is why he's had his records sealed. He doesn't have any real accomplishments that he's really proud of.


----------



## Mac1958

mudwhistle said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to people who have no freakin' idea what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're sitting on the far right or far left everyone looks like a hack to you.
> 
> If you're far right everyone appears like a communist or some brainless Obamabot.
> 
> If you're far left everyone appears like a mouth breathing knuckle dragger clinging to his guns and his religion. You're just not cool.
> 
> It's just a matter of perception.
> 
> 
> I agree with you. This topic is the very reason I despise Obama. What you're seeing finally is the office suckup in Obama that I've always seen.
> 
> His smarmy attitude comes out whenever he goes off teleprompter. He's never worked hard in his life yet he feels he has the right to mock those who do. Under normal circumstances that would get someone's ass kicked. I know there are tons of people out there that worked 18 hr days to get their business going and keep it going that would be up in his face for what he said.
> 
> While in the Senate Obama never worked hard. He earned a reputation as a *bill thief.* He would screw off for months and then as soon as a piece of legislation was ready to go to the floor he'd walk in and try to jump in and take some of the credit for it. He never worked along with everyone else. Never did the hard work it took to push it through. He wanted it dumped into his lap ready to go. This is why he doesn't appreciate a work ethic. This is why he's had is records sealed. He doesn't have any real accomplishments that he's really proud of.
Click to expand...



I'd definitely rather have him voting "present" on my efforts rather than mocking them.

.


----------



## Dr Grump

Mac1958 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to *people who have not the slightest clue *what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  *And *because he's *clearly *among that group.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts by our President would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  Hey, perhaps you've never been insulted in your life.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm not a leftie by any stretch. Only in neocon, whackjob America am I a leftie. I'm a centrist and my voting record backs that up. On hot button issues I am for the death penalty in certain circumstances, against affirmative action, for gun control and for the gays to be married. I am against abortion but believe a woman has the right to choose.

I can cherry pick quotes too, if you like. We can all do that. What I see is a man saying that he earns more than enough and is more than happy to pay more taxes. He believes that those who earn as much as he does, and more, can afford to pay more. He is happy to do so, and his political beliefs are that those like him should and if you believe the same, vote for him. If not, don't.

What he is also doing is drawing a line - if you will - and trying to intercept the negative reactions and typical conservative backlash of "Why should I pay more. I did it on my own. I deserve what I have made. The govt should get none of it. In fact, I should get more tax breaks because that helps create jobs"...yadda, yadda, yadda. 

Now, you say you have started small businesses etc. Well done, you! Now, have they been one-man bands - ie, are you a plumber or electrician who works for yourself? More power to you!

However, if any of your businesses have needed more labour than yourself to run them, then he is right. You didn't do it on your own. Again, if you hired people to help you, but they were totally unnecessary, but you hired them only to make life easy for yourself, but in reality, you didn't need them, then more power to you. However, if you hired people that were critical to the success of your business and without them you would have failed, then he is right - you didn't do it on your own. And that is all I see him saying. I hear no talking down to you, just him stating a fact.


----------



## BillyV

Old Rocks said:


> Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.
> 
> All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joes bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
> 
> Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
> 
> Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joes employer pays these standards because Joes employer doesnt want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed hell get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didnt think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
> 
> Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joes deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joes money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.
> 
> Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.
> 
> Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didnt want to make rural loans. The house didnt have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didnt belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark)
> 
> He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldnt have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
> 
> He turns on a radio talk show, the hosts keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesnt tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)  Joe agrees, We dont need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, Im a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.
> 
> Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican



Maybe some balance is needed?



> A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE DEMOCRAT
> Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffee pot with water to prepare his morning coffee. Joe can afford the coffee because corporate loving rich Republicans supported free trade through NAFTA and CAFTA.
> With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications work because money-grubbing Republicans refuse to place price controls on drugs, thereby allowing pharmaceutical companies to earn enough money to pay for the extensive R&D and take the risks necessary to create miracle drugs. But the drugs still cost too much because government mandated health insurance has artificially increased the demand for medications with no one to police the prices, but thats OK since Joes Republican-supporting bossman pays all but $10 of Joe's medications.
> In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient, none of which are damaging to his skin because some animal-hating sadistic corporations paid some scientists to swab the shampoo in some poor rabbits eyes. Just for kicks.
> Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some dollar-worshipping conservative developers built some nice houses with pretty yards 15 miles from the industrial sector of the city, and Joe drives his comfortable and affordable Japanese car made in Georgia without the inflated cost of union labor, and Joe can stop on his way home to pick up a package of reasonably priced T-shirts at the evil Wal-Mart, instead of having to park his car and take a filthy subway to pay twice as much downtown.
> Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because his parents instilled in him the value of hard work so he studied when he was in school and learned that he could get by just fine without relying on the government. Joe's employer pays these benefits because Joe's employer knows Joe is a valuable employee and Joes employer doesnt want him to go work for his competitor. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get another job pretty quick because hes a self-starting go getter who has a lot of friends at church and from college that he can call to find more work.
> It's noontime and Joe would need to make a bank deposit but doesnt need to go to a bank because evil monopolist Bill Gates helped make computers useable to the general public and he can automatically pay bills thanks to the economies of scale of Bank of America or Wachovia installing the expensive equipment to allow Joe this convenience..
> Joe can afford a nice home, not only just because of the low mortgage rates, but also because he gets to keep more of his hard earned money because Republican Presidents in the 1980s and in 2001 cut his taxes.
> After work this evening, Joe plans to visit his father at his farm home in the country that Joes dad still owns because his landed-gentry Republican County Commissioners have refused to steal his land in the name of a higher tax base.
> Joe gets in his car for the drive because the government added additional lanes to the local highways that people actually use instead of throwing money away on a regional rail system that studies project people would little use. Joe gets to his house in record time because death-loving Republicans allow you to go 65 and 70 mph, and you can because pollution loving Republicans dont make you plug your car in overnight so you can drive for 2 hours at a maximum speed of 20 mph.
> Joe arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house, but he doesnt because when his grandparents moved to the United States they learned to speak English and didnt spend their time complaining about how the government wasnt doing enough for them. The house didn't have electricity until some military-industrial power company plopped a big ol nuclear power plant over by the river.
> Joe is happy to see his father, so they go to the local bar and enjoy a beer and a cigar, where Joes dad tells him that if it werent for the estate tax, Joe could keep the farm in the family for a fourth generation and wouldnt have to sell it to pay the taxes.
> Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on NPR. The reporters keep telling stories about how bad corporations only care about profit and that higher taxes will allow the government to invest in our future. They dont mention that the beloved Democrats have vilified the very people who have provided us jobs, good and services from their small businesses and big companies.
> Joe agrees: "Those evil corporations dont care about the little guy, all they want is to pay their executives huge salaries and steal oil from the middle east. Why cant we be like Europe where we can work 30 hour weeks and get a month vacation? Bastard rich people only care about themselves."
> 
> 
> A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE DEMOCRAT


----------



## Stephanie

Dr Grump said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to *people who have not the slightest clue *what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  *And *because he's *clearly *among that group.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts by our President would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  Hey, perhaps you've never been insulted in your life.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a leftie by any stretch. Only in neocon, whackjob America am I a leftie. I'm a centrist and my voting record backs that up. On hot button issues I am for the death penalty in certain circumstances, against affirmative action, for gun control and for the gays to be married. I am against abortion but believe a woman has the right to choose.
> 
> I can cherry pick quotes too, if you like. We can all do that. What I see is a man saying that he earns more than enough and is more than happy to pay more taxes. He believes that those who earn as much as he does, and more, can afford to pay more. He is happy to do so, and his political beliefs are that those like him should and if you believe the same, vote for him. If not, don't.
> 
> What he is also doing is drawing a line - if you will - and trying to intercept the negative reactions and typical conservative backlash of "Why should I pay more. I did it on my own. I deserve what I have made. The govt should get none of it. In fact, I should get more tax breaks because that helps create jobs"...yadda, yadda, yadda.
> 
> Now, you say you have started small businesses etc. Well done, you! Now, have they been one-man bands - ie, are you a plumber or electrician who works for yourself? More power to you!
> 
> However, if any of your businesses have needed more labour than yourself to run them, then he is right. You didn't do it on your own. Again, if you hired people to help you, but they were totally unnecessary, but you hired them only to make life easy for yourself, but in reality, you didn't need them, then more power to you. However, if you hired people that were critical to the success of your business and without them you would have failed, then he is right - you didn't do it on your own. And that is all I see him saying. I hear no talking down to you, just him stating a fact.
Click to expand...


oh brother..that Obama is just so brilliant. the little people never understand what he MEANS..


----------



## Luddly Neddite

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are finally admitting they're Socialists/Communists!
> 
> Praise Allah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> I think the foundational issue is...
> 
> All, hell with it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The foundational issue is that Democrats are economically to the left of the Vietnam Communists who have embraced Free Enterprise
Click to expand...


Prove it.

Prove any of the idiotic crap you sling around. 

You can't because you don't even know what your words mean.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Stephanie said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to *people who have not the slightest clue *what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  *And *because he's *clearly *among that group.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts by our President would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  Hey, perhaps you've never been insulted in your life.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a leftie by any stretch. Only in neocon, whackjob America am I a leftie. I'm a centrist and my voting record backs that up. On hot button issues I am for the death penalty in certain circumstances, against affirmative action, for gun control and for the gays to be married. I am against abortion but believe a woman has the right to choose.
> 
> I can cherry pick quotes too, if you like. We can all do that. What I see is a man saying that he earns more than enough and is more than happy to pay more taxes. He believes that those who earn as much as he does, and more, can afford to pay more. He is happy to do so, and his political beliefs are that those like him should and if you believe the same, vote for him. If not, don't.
> 
> What he is also doing is drawing a line - if you will - and trying to intercept the negative reactions and typical conservative backlash of "Why should I pay more. I did it on my own. I deserve what I have made. The govt should get none of it. In fact, I should get more tax breaks because that helps create jobs"...yadda, yadda, yadda.
> 
> Now, you say you have started small businesses etc. Well done, you! Now, have they been one-man bands - ie, are you a plumber or electrician who works for yourself? More power to you!
> 
> However, if any of your businesses have needed more labour than yourself to run them, then he is right. You didn't do it on your own. Again, if you hired people to help you, but they were totally unnecessary, but you hired them only to make life easy for yourself, but in reality, you didn't need them, then more power to you. However, if you hired people that were critical to the success of your business and without them you would have failed, then he is right - you didn't do it on your own. And that is all I see him saying. I hear no talking down to you, just him stating a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh brother..that Obama is just so brilliant. the little people never understand what he MEANS..
Click to expand...


Oh great. This thread starts with really stupid crap from "crusader" Frank and ends with really stupid crap from Stephanie.


----------



## Dr Grump

Stephanie said:


> oh brother..that Obama is just so brilliant. the little people never understand what he MEANS..



Going by the tone of the OP, and the difference of tone of the video link, you are on the money...

You probably don't get that though...


----------



## Stephanie

Dr Grump said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother..that Obama is just so brilliant. the little people never understand what he MEANS..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going by the tone of the OP, and the difference of tone of the video link, you are on the money...
> 
> You probably don't get that though...
Click to expand...


oh yeah, we need you people to TRANSLATE for us..we just don't understand that brilliant Obama...


----------



## Dr Grump

Stephanie said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother..that Obama is just so brilliant. the little people never understand what he MEANS..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going by the tone of the OP, and the difference of tone of the video link, you are on the money...
> 
> You probably don't get that though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh yeah, we need you people to TRANSLATE for us..we just don't understand that brilliant Obama...
Click to expand...


Well, at least you understand that...some don't ya know...


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> In many ways that is so arbitrary a time period as to make you sound like one of those internet intellectuals. not saying you are, just suggesting the most rational observation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's not the slightest thing "arbitrary" about the time period,  and I have no idea what it means to be an "internet intellectual" or why that's bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Louisiana Purchase and much more afterwards....
Click to expand...


Is that supposed to mean something?  Apparently you believe others understand your secret code.



Dante said:


> No idea? Of course. If you were aware of what I speak of you'd hide your head in shame and embarrassment.



ROFL!  In other words, if I don't understand you can't be bothered to explain it.

You're proving to be one of the all time dolts of this forum.


----------



## bripat9643

MuadDib said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's not the slightest thing "arbitrary" about the time period,  and I have no idea what it means to be an "internet intellectual" or why that's bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana Purchase and much more afterwards...
> 
> No idea? Of course. If you were aware of what I speak of you'd hide your head in shame and embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The Louisiana Purchase and Woodrow Wilson were about 100 years apart.
Click to expand...


No, he doesn't.  He just mutters these magical liberal code words and believes he's made a point of some kind.


----------



## naturegirl

bripat9643 said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana Purchase and much more afterwards...
> 
> No idea? Of course. If you were aware of what I speak of you'd hide your head in shame and embarrassment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The Louisiana Purchase and Woodrow Wilson were about 100 years apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't.  He just mutters these magical liberal code words and believes he's made a point of some kind.
Click to expand...


Wow, just think if the government had spent more money on history how smart he could be.


----------



## Sallow

Mac1958 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to *people who have not the slightest clue *what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  *And *because he's *clearly *among that group.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts by our President would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  Hey, perhaps you've never been insulted in your life.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Here's the thing.

He wasn't talking to you.

He was speaking in general terms.

Right now there's a gap between executive compensation and employer compensation in this country that is unique amoung most modern industrialized nations.

It's something like 400:1.

That really makes absolutely no sense.

It also makes absolutely no sense that tax breaks resulted in off shoring and not hiring. You'd think these folks would be grateful for the breaks and increase the tax base.

But that's not what happened.

I think the President has been rather mild to the "Captains of Industry" considering what happened.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dr Grump said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to *people who have not the slightest clue *what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  *And *because he's *clearly *among that group.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts by our President would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  Hey, perhaps you've never been insulted in your life.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a leftie by any stretch. Only in neocon, whackjob America am I a leftie. I'm a centrist and my voting record backs that up. On hot button issues I am for the death penalty in certain circumstances, against affirmative action, for gun control and for the gays to be married. I am against abortion but believe a woman has the right to choose.
> 
> I can cherry pick quotes too, if you like. We can all do that. What I see is a man saying that he earns more than enough and is more than happy to pay more taxes. He believes that those who earn as much as he does, and more, can afford to pay more. He is happy to do so, and his political beliefs are that those like him should and if you believe the same, vote for him. If not, don't.
> 
> What he is also doing is drawing a line - if you will - and trying to intercept the negative reactions and typical conservative backlash of "Why should I pay more. I did it on my own. I deserve what I have made. The govt should get none of it. In fact, I should get more tax breaks because that helps create jobs"...yadda, yadda, yadda.
> 
> Now, you say you have started small businesses etc. Well done, you! Now, have they been one-man bands - ie, are you a plumber or electrician who works for yourself? More power to you!
> 
> However, if any of your businesses have needed more labour than yourself to run them, then he is right. You didn't do it on your own. Again, if you hired people to help you, but they were totally unnecessary, but you hired them only to make life easy for yourself, but in reality, you didn't need them, then more power to you. However, if you hired people that were critical to the success of your business and without them you would have failed, then he is right - you didn't do it on your own. And that is all I see him saying. I hear no talking down to you, just him stating a fact.
Click to expand...


That's not what he's saying. The subject has come up before. They ask use who do we owe our success to. Then they talk about who built the roads. 

It's a bullshit argument. They want us to have to get used to the idea of relying on government to solve our problems for us. They want all of us to be beholding to Big Brother. A massive centralized government that tells us how to wipe our asses. They don't believe in rugged individualism. 

In a nut-shell, take our shit and learn to like it. 

Also, Obama believes that a rich man never pays enough taxes. Every one of them got rich from screwing someone else, so he's more into punishment rather than fairness. 

Of course if he or a campaign donor is rich they're excluded from his fairness doctrine. He's a firm believer in double-standards.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> Being top 10% of his law school class?



Was he?

Since he refuses to release transcripts, we have no way of verifying the claim.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Stephanie said:


> No the hell with that...most of us like businesses...You liberals should move and start that utopia of your own..see how long you last



They did. It's called "North Korea." We just need them to hurry up and move to the paradise they created.


----------



## mudwhistle

Sallow said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to *people who have not the slightest clue *what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  *And *because he's *clearly *among that group.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts by our President would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  Hey, perhaps you've never been insulted in your life.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.
> 
> He wasn't talking to you.
> 
> He was speaking in general terms.
> 
> Right now there's a gap between executive compensation and employer compensation in this country that is unique amoung most modern industrialized nations.
> 
> It's something like 400:1.
> 
> That really makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> It also makes absolutely no sense that tax breaks resulted in off shoring and not hiring. You'd think these folks would be grateful for the breaks and increase the tax base.
> 
> But that's not what happened.
> 
> I think the President has been rather mild to the "Captains of Industry" considering what happened.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. 

Mexico has almost no Middle-class. There are the land-owners and the unwashed masses. Why do you think so many are flooding across the border? 

It's not because of income inequality in America.


----------



## Sallow

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to *people who have not the slightest clue *what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  *And *because he's *clearly *among that group.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts by our President would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  Hey, perhaps you've never been insulted in your life.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.
> 
> He wasn't talking to you.
> 
> He was speaking in general terms.
> 
> Right now there's a gap between executive compensation and employer compensation in this country that is unique amoung most modern industrialized nations.
> 
> It's something like 400:1.
> 
> That really makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> It also makes absolutely no sense that tax breaks resulted in off shoring and not hiring. You'd think these folks would be grateful for the breaks and increase the tax base.
> 
> But that's not what happened.
> 
> I think the President has been rather mild to the "Captains of Industry" considering what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Mexico has almost no Middle-class. There are the land-owners and the unwashed masses. Why do you think so many are flooding across the border?
> 
> It's not because of income inequality in America.
Click to expand...


What does Mexico have to do with anything? Other then to prove my point?


----------



## freedombecki

Obama Job Czar, GE CEO Jeff Imelt exports US jobs as GE gives tech secrets to China

Obama lectures OTHER candidates companies for votes, while he hires people to "protect" US jobs with a history of exporting American jobs.

It's hard to hear what Obama's saying when he's pointing that long finger from a Bully Pulpit that does something a lot worse.

Why should communist China bankrupt its own mega-multibillionaires developing technology when Obama's Czar gives it away for a small fee along with American jobs?

Obama *is* the problem he's complaining about, and his believers are willing to overlook his fiascoes, swallowing one episode after another of truth stretched so thin you can see amoebic particles through it.

_Sere interesant, mon amie._


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> The hell with what?
> 
> Liberals started this government. Got everything essentially up and running.



Yep, Tom Jefferson and Rev. Madison were touting "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" all right.



> I'd like to see a country started by businesses.



Thomas Jefferson, business man, ran a tobacco company
George Washington, business man, ran a cotton company and a textile empire
Samuel Adams, business man, brewer
Ben Franklin, business man, newspaper publisher


Shallow, simpering moron.



> It'd be kind of fun..it's never been done.



Gee you're dumb....



> We can see how well "proprietary" material works when you are trying to establish a workable government.



North Korea beckons to you. No need to change the USA, just move to the paradise you dream of.

Take Obama with you.


----------



## Jarhead

Sallow said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to *people who have not the slightest clue *what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  *And *because he's *clearly *among that group.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts by our President would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  Hey, perhaps you've never been insulted in your life.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.
> 
> He wasn't talking to you.
> 
> He was speaking in general terms.
> 
> Right now there's a gap between executive compensation and employer compensation in this country that is unique amoung most modern industrialized nations.
> 
> It's something like 400:1.
> 
> That really makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> It also makes absolutely no sense that tax breaks resulted in off shoring and not hiring. You'd think these folks would be grateful for the breaks and increase the tax base.
> 
> But that's not what happened.
> 
> I think the President has been rather mild to the "Captains of Industry" considering what happened.
Click to expand...


First of all, he WAS talking to me....he was talking to business owners and I was a business owner. He was not talking to the few larger companies that game the game....for if he were he would hjave said "this is to the few larger companies that game the game"...instead he referred to 'business owners'.....and small businesses make up 80% of business owners outr there.

The gap between executive pay and the employees is none of the governments business. No one says "you MUST take this job" for one of those mega companies. People do it becuase they like the benefits or the vacation time or the status of working for a "mega company"....

Tax breaks didnt result in off shoring. That statement makes no sense. Tax breaks gacve companies more money to re-invest in the company and thanks to excessive government regfulations, it is a poor investment to expand in the US when it can be done much cheaper outsiode the US. It is known as maximizing the power of ones investment dollar.

You need to get off the jealousy train and start thinking like a business owner.

What Obama said was a slap in the face of every American who sacrificed personal money, personal time, persaonal security and personal health to start a business.


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Thomas Jefferson, business man, ran a tobacco company
> .



With slaves.
Next



Uncensored2008 said:


> [
> George Washington, business man, ran a cotton company and a textile empire
> .



With slaves

Now, you were saying about being dumb....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> If he did that, you would be right. He didn't, so you're wrong



Here's what Coulter actually looks like, you sheep fucking moron.


----------



## Dr Grump

Jarhead said:


> First of all, he WAS talking to me....he was talking to business owners and I was a business owner. He was not talking to the few larger companies that game the game....for if he were he would hjave said "this is to the few larger companies that game the game"...instead he referred to 'business owners'.....and small businesses make up 80% of business owners outr there.
> 
> The gap between executive pay and the employees is none of the governments business. No one says "you MUST take this job" for one of those mega companies. People do it becuase they like the benefits or the vacation time or the status of working for a "mega company"....
> 
> Tax breaks didnt result in off shoring. That statement makes no sense. Tax breaks gacve companies more money to re-invest in the company and thanks to excessive government regfulations, it is a poor investment to expand in the US when it can be done much cheaper outsiode the US. It is known as maximizing the power of ones investment dollar.
> 
> You need to get off the jealousy train and start thinking like a business owner.
> 
> What Obama said was a slap in the face of every American who sacrificed personal money, personal time, persaonal security and personal health to start a business.



Actually, if you watched the whole video he was trying to be inclusive by saying that people needed to work together to accomplish things, but you are so desperate to hate the guy you see what you want to see..

There was no slap in the face...at all...


----------



## mudwhistle

Sallow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.
> 
> He wasn't talking to you.
> 
> He was speaking in general terms.
> 
> Right now there's a gap between executive compensation and employer compensation in this country that is unique amoung most modern industrialized nations.
> 
> It's something like 400:1.
> 
> That really makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> It also makes absolutely no sense that tax breaks resulted in off shoring and not hiring. You'd think these folks would be grateful for the breaks and increase the tax base.
> 
> But that's not what happened.
> 
> I think the President has been rather mild to the "Captains of Industry" considering what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Mexico has almost no Middle-class. There are the land-owners and the unwashed masses. Why do you think so many are flooding across the border?
> 
> It's not because of income inequality in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Mexico have to do with anything? Other then to prove my point?
Click to expand...


Mexico is an example of harmful income inequality. It is so bad it harms the economy. Incime inequality in this country works because the rich provide jobs. In Mexico there aren't any jobs. You cannot sell this shit here in America because expecting total income equality is a pipe-dream designed to create division. It's not realistic. It is simply a way to rationalize tax increases. It is government sponsored theft, and I'm not gonna go along with it as long as government refuses to stop wasting our tax dollars on superfluous bullshit.


----------



## clevergirl

Obama either does not understand Free Markets or he hates them...

And again, politicians are not the government- we the people are. Business owners contributed to teachers salaries; roads; bridges etc. when they pay their taxes. The risk they make when they go into business is all their own- fuck this president and his arrogant bullshit! After his inane lecture to business owners I officially despise him.


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he did that, you would be right. He didn't, so you're wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what Coulter actually looks like, you sheep fucking moron.
Click to expand...


Still has an Adam's apple dipshit...or does he...


----------



## Jarhead

Dr Grump said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, he WAS talking to me....he was talking to business owners and I was a business owner. He was not talking to the few larger companies that game the game....for if he were he would hjave said "this is to the few larger companies that game the game"...instead he referred to 'business owners'.....and small businesses make up 80% of business owners outr there.
> 
> The gap between executive pay and the employees is none of the governments business. No one says "you MUST take this job" for one of those mega companies. People do it becuase they like the benefits or the vacation time or the status of working for a "mega company"....
> 
> Tax breaks didnt result in off shoring. That statement makes no sense. Tax breaks gacve companies more money to re-invest in the company and thanks to excessive government regfulations, it is a poor investment to expand in the US when it can be done much cheaper outsiode the US. It is known as maximizing the power of ones investment dollar.
> 
> You need to get off the jealousy train and start thinking like a business owner.
> 
> What Obama said was a slap in the face of every American who sacrificed personal money, personal time, persaonal security and personal health to start a business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you watched the whole video he was trying to be inclusive by saying that people needed to work together to accomplish things, but you are so desperate to hate the guy you see what you want to see..
> 
> There was no slap in the face...at all...
Click to expand...


When we hit hard times, I paid my employees regardl;ess and took no money out of the company. I had no persoanl income.
Did my employees share that sacrifice?
Did the government share that sacrifice?

No. We did not all do it together. I offered people a job and they took it. I paid them. They did what they were paid to do.
They NEVER said "oh, let me pay for that"...or...."let me sacrifice my vacation so I can assist you with preparing for that audit.

Nope. I PAID for that...AND I was the one who sacrificed my personal time to prepare for the audit.

Sharing in the success is not sharing in the burden.

Sharing in the burden...is working together to accomplish things.

And an FYI...I dont hate the guy. I disagree with his vision and his policies. And I take offense to what he said...as most business owners will.


----------



## Some Guy

Jarhead said:


> First of all, he WAS talking to me....he was talking to business owners and I was a business owner. He was not talking to the few larger companies that game the game...



In fairness to Obama, he was talking to the big businesses.  Thing is, when he says "business owners", in his head, there's only big business that screws over every single American during the day and kills puppies and kittens at night.  It's not his fault: that's what he was raised to believe.


----------



## Jarhead

Dr Grump said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he did that, you would be right. He didn't, so you're wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what Coulter actually looks like, you sheep fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still has an Adam's apple dipshit...or does he...
Click to expand...



your level of maturity is frightening.


----------



## Jarhead

Some Guy said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, he WAS talking to me....he was talking to business owners and I was a business owner. He was not talking to the few larger companies that game the game...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he was talking to the big businesses.  Thing is, when he says "business owners", in his head, there's only big business that screws over every single American during the day and kills puppies and kittens at night.  It's not his fault: that's what he was raised to believe.
Click to expand...


The President of the United States is not aware that small businesses make up 80% of the bsuinesses in the US?

Biden was right...the WH is not a training ground.


----------



## Uncensored2008

del said:


> businesses started this country?




Oh no, this country was started by government. Remember when the Mayflower sailed so that department heads would have the freedom to require form 144.3A Section 2.1.3.4.B?

Remember Patrick Henry bravely declaring "Give me planning committees or give me death." 

"No matter what others my choose, as for me and my posterity, I choose bureaucracy." - George Mason/

ROFL

You really put the fucknut in retard, del.

You should give ctrl and alt a chance at the keyboard..



> you might want to lighten up on the butt plugs, elvira, your brain seems to be running down your leg.



You might want to be less of a moron - but we prefer you staying stupid.


----------



## Mac1958

Sallow said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> having just watched the piece in your link (something I should have done at the outset), I see it ressembles nothing you say in the OP...just partisan hackery on your part...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day I'm called a "commie" by a right-winger, the next I'm called a "partisan hack" by a left-winger.  Back and forth, too funny.  This board is a hoot, and it's consistent!
> 
> From the video you claim to have watched:
> 
> "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own"
> "I'm always struck be people who say, 'well, it must have been because I'm so smart'"
> "'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'"
> "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. SOMEBODY ELSE made that happen"
> 
> Now, I'm sure you agree with all that, but those are the quotes to which I was referring.  As a person who has started and run multiple businesses, I was insulted.  Not because I'd claim to have done 100% of everything in my businesses, but because he was so flippant and condescending about it, and because he was clearly playing to *people who have not the slightest clue *what it takes to conceive, start, build, run and maintain a business.  No idea of the risks, sacrifices, endless hours, constant frustrations.  *And *because he's *clearly *among that group.  I'm not asking for a "thanks" or a "well done",  I don't give a crap there, but *perhaps a bit less ignorant mockery of my efforts by our President would be nice.*
> 
> I'm sure you're not insulted at all.  Hey, perhaps you've never been insulted in your life.  After all, Obama has a (D) after his name, and all business owners are rich and evil, and they shouldn't have more money than you.  Or, if you're a business owner, the (D) after his name is enough.  I get it.  But I just wanted to make things nice and clear for you.
> 
> Partisan hack?  No mirrors in your house, I take it?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.
> 
> He wasn't talking to you.
> 
> He was speaking in general terms.
> 
> Right now there's a gap between executive compensation and employer compensation in this country that is unique amoung most modern industrialized nations.
> 
> It's something like 400:1.
> 
> That really makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> It also makes absolutely no sense that tax breaks resulted in off shoring and not hiring. You'd think these folks would be grateful for the breaks and increase the tax base.
> 
> But that's not what happened.
> 
> I think the President has been rather mild to the "Captains of Industry" considering what happened.
Click to expand...



I may have missed it, but I didn't see him making any distinction between the big guys and the rest of us.   400:1?  Yes.  Madness.  But he may want to make the distinction a little more clear than he has.  This wasn't even close.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

del said:


> the only delusional one in this conversation is you chickentits.
> 
> carry on.



You have to admit though, "ignorant vermin" is a completely accurate description of you. Overly kind, perhaps, but still apt.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> I was thinking -



With what? 



> for some brain dead moron that we all know she is, who claims she doesn't care, she sure spent some time responding to you..
> 
> The lady (ahem - i use that term VERY loosely) doth protest to much, methinks...



Thinking isn't your forte', Gump. Leave the thinking to the sheep you fuck, they are better equipped for it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

WillowTree said:


> did he say chickentits?



del thought it was clever.

Yes, that actually IS what substitutes as thought with del....


----------



## Katzndogz

What obama was clearly saying is that no matter how smart you are, how hard you work or how much you sacrifice, the government GAVE you everything you have an now you OWE the government.  After all, didn't the government LET you be smart, work hard and sacrifice?  

This country was started by businesses.  Gigantic trading companies.   The British Government didn't finance the Mayflower.  Private companies did.

To finance their journey and settlement the Pilgrims had organized a joint-stock venture. Capital was provided by a group of London businessmen who expected--erroneously--to profit from the colony. During the first winter, more than half of the settlers died, as a result of poor nutrition and inadequate housing, but the colony survived due in part to the able leadership of John Carver, William Bradford, William Brewster, Edward Winslow, and Myles Standish. Squanto, a local Indian, taught the Pilgrims how to plant corn and where to fish and trap beaver.  Plymouth became a colony of subsistence farming on small private holdings once the original communal labor system was ended in 1623. In 1627 eight Pilgrim leaders assumed the settlement's obligations to the investors in exchange for a 6-year monopoly of the fur trade and offshore fishing.

If you get down to it.  The country was founded by men like Mitt Romney more than obama.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Still has an Adam's apple dipshit...or does he...




Hur hur, lefty come dun say sheezzz gotz du atoms appel -- hur hur, lefty shore is clevor..






Hey stupidfuck, is she a man too?


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for some brain dead moron that we all know she is, who claims she doesn't care, she sure spent some time responding to you..
> 
> The lady (ahem - i use that term VERY loosely) doth protest to much, methinks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thinking isn't your forte', Gump. Leave the thinking to the sheep you fuck, they are better equipped for it.
Click to expand...


Nosense
I wouldn't get on the 'thinking' thang if I was you. You and intelligence go together like George Bush Jr and intelligence....nice concept, but not reality...


----------



## naturegirl

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still has an Adam's apple dipshit...or does he...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hur hur, lefty come dun say sheezzz gotz du atoms appel -- hur hur, lefty shore is clevor..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her stupidfuck, is she a man too?
Click to expand...



:snort:  

How about this one??  Is she a man???


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still has an Adam's apple dipshit...or does he...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hur hur, lefty come dun say sheezzz gotz du atoms appel -- hur hur, lefty shore is clevor..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her stupidfuck, is she a man too?
Click to expand...



Man, how long did it take you and your circle jerk to come up with that one?

Going into Nosense mode:
"Jeez, you shore ez funni Nosense....hur, hur, hur" ....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Nosense
> I wouldn't get on the 'thinking' thang if I was you.



Gump, you're not going to get on the "thinking thing" no matter who you are. The brain damage resulting in your severe retardation may not be your fault, but the way you parade it around is.



> You and intelligence go together like George Bush Jr and intelligence....



Hey, what a clever riposte, Gump.

Now see if it were me, I would have written something like "You and intelligence go together like Tupac and baby lane" or "You and intelligence go together like Bill Clinton and integrity."  or even "You and intelligence go together like Justin Bieber and musical talent." 

But then, I'm smart, and well you, aren't.




> nice concept, but not reality...



Stick to fucking sheep, you know, your core competence.


----------



## barry1960

Katzndogz said:


> What obama was clearly saying is that no matter how smart you are, how hard you work or how much you sacrifice, the government GAVE you everything you have an now you OWE the government.  After all, didn't the government LET you be smart, work hard and sacrifice?



Obama was NOT clearly saying this. You are reading a whole lot into this that is not there to feed your own perceptions of Obama.

Success in life is a combination of opportunity and hard work.


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nosense
> I wouldn't get on the 'thinking' thang if I was you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gump, you're not going to get on the "thinking thing" no matter who you are. The brain damage resulting in your severe retardation may not be your fault, but the way you parade it around it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and intelligence go together like George Bush Jr and intelligence....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, what a clever riposte, Gump.
> 
> Now see if it were me, I would have written something like "You and intelligence go together like Tupac and baby lane" or "You and intelligence go together like Bill Clinton and integrity."  or even "You and intelligence go together like Justin Bieber and musical talent."
> 
> But then, I'm smart, and well you, aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice concept, but not reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick to fucking sheep, you know, your core competence.
Click to expand...


You really should have just gone "I was pwned" and retired gracefully.

Your replies reek of "try hard"....

S'ok..thank me later by PM if you feel inclined...

If not, no harm, no foul...now go back to sucking on your brisket....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Man, how long did it take you and your circle jerk to come up with that one?



You know Gump, leftism is a symptom of stupidity. You are a leftist because you're stupid - seriously.

The left is bereft of ideas, so you toss shit like a troop of feral baboons. The left cannot debate Coulter, she tears you to shreds. She has a razor sharp wit and a tongue to match. 

Now Gump, you couldn't stand toe to toe intellectually with a developmentally disabled 5 year old, so someone like Coulter leaves you no choice but to spew "tranny" or some other childish rant.

I mean, come on, you're a fucking retard and she practically defines "clever." It's not like _you_ could refute what she writes.



> Going into Nosense mode:
> "Jeez, you shore ez funni Nosense....hur, hur, hur" ....



So Gump, is Sandra Bullock a "tranny?"


----------



## Buford




----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> You really should have just gone "I was pwned" and retired gracefully.



Why?

Because humiliating you the way I did is mean?



> Your replies reek of "try hard"....



Your replies reek of "retard."



> S'ok..thank me later by PM if you feel inclined...



Thank you for the entertainment value you offer with your retard antics? 



> If not, no harm, no foul...now go back to sucking on your brisket....



I've always assumed you were born with a birth defect, but was it actually drug abuse that left you like this?


----------



## Sallow

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Mexico has almost no Middle-class. There are the land-owners and the unwashed masses. Why do you think so many are flooding across the border?
> 
> It's not because of income inequality in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mexico have to do with anything? Other then to prove my point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is an example of harmful income inequality. It is so bad it harms the economy. Incime inequality in this country works because the rich provide jobs. In Mexico there aren't any jobs. You cannot sell this shit here in America because expecting total income equality is a pipe-dream designed to create division. It's not realistic. It is simply a way to rationalize tax increases. It is government sponsored theft, and I'm not gonna go along with it as long as government refuses to stop wasting our tax dollars on superfluous bullshit.
Click to expand...


We are fast moving into a space where the income inequality isn't good..like Mexico.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> We are fast moving into a space where the income inequality isn't good..like Mexico.



And you think that's due to small business? If only government is more involved then income will stabilize.

I have a question Shallow; match the following.

1.) The Rich

2.) The Poor

Are

A.) Most entangled with government.

B.) Least entangled with government.

If you can grasp how to match the above, describe whether more government will increase or decrease the gap between the two groups?


----------



## JoeNormal

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Mexico has almost no Middle-class. There are the land-owners and the unwashed masses. Why do you think so many are flooding across the border?
> 
> It's not because of income inequality in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mexico have to do with anything? Other then to prove my point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is an example of harmful income inequality. It is so bad it harms the economy. Incime inequality in this country works because the rich provide jobs. In Mexico there aren't any jobs. You cannot sell this shit here in America because expecting total income equality is a pipe-dream designed to create division. It's not realistic. It is simply a way to rationalize tax increases. It is government sponsored theft, and I'm not gonna go along with it as long as government refuses to stop wasting our tax dollars on superfluous bullshit.
Click to expand...


Who's asking for total income equality?  A little greater income equality would be nice.  Our income inequality is approaching that of the second and third world shit holes that produce these desperate people.  The American people have been pretty patient up to this point if you ask me but there's no guarantee it'll stay that way.  And by superfluous bullshit, are you refering to our bloated military?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Dr Grump said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still has an Adam's apple dipshit...or does he...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hur hur, lefty come dun say sheezzz gotz du atoms appel -- hur hur, lefty shore is clevor..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her stupidfuck, is she a man too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Man, how long did it take you and your circle jerk to come up with that one?
> 
> Going into Nosense mode:
> "Jeez, you shore ez funni Nosense....hur, hur, hur" ....
Click to expand...



Both men and women have "adam apples".


Education is a good thing!


----------



## BDBoop

mudwhistle said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Mexico has almost no Middle-class. There are the land-owners and the unwashed masses. Why do you think so many are flooding across the border?
> 
> It's not because of income inequality in America.



They 'flood across the borders' because we're not them. 

Yet.

Once our middle class is eradicated (shouldn't take long, what with the 400:1 wage inequality, and Willard's plans for more) *Damn unions! Get rid of 'em!* America will be Mexico lite, and the incoming will stop.


----------



## salem.hills

naturegirl said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still has an Adam's apple dipshit...or does he...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hur hur, lefty come dun say sheezzz gotz du atoms appel -- hur hur, lefty shore is clevor..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her stupidfuck, is she a man too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> :snort:
> 
> How about this one??  Is she a man???
Click to expand...



it wants to be


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lonestar_logic said:


> Both men and women have "adam apples".
> 
> 
> Education is a good thing!



The only education Gump has ever sought is instruction on how to seduce a sheep.

True story.


----------



## Murf76

clevergirl said:


> Obama either does not understand Free Markets or he hates them...
> 
> And again, politicians are not the government- we the people are. Business owners contributed to teachers salaries; roads; bridges etc. when they pay their taxes. The risk they make when they go into business is all their own- fuck this president and his arrogant bullshit! After his inane lecture to business owners I officially despise him.



You know what's thought-provoking about the question of whether Obama hates free markets or not?...  he'd have no way to know.  

We DON'T HAVE free markets.  There's no way we can describe what we have today, with any shred of honesty or credibility, as "free".  Of course, laissez faire markets don't really exist and wouldn't be desirable if they did.  There's always some semblance of control and consumer protection.  But even so, we could still describe our system as "free", as it was open to all citizens and not difficult to access.  I don't think that can be said anymore.  In terms of making legal purchases, sure we have access for everyone, but in terms of making legal sales... not so much.  

kwc57 put on this really compelling post earlier, #298, which featured a perspective entrepreneur selling his wife's homemade tamales.  But, as I mentioned earlier, that scenario can't happen in this country anymore.  The truth is... the market is limited in this country in terms of legal sales, allowing only those people who can raise the "start-up" costs and overcome the strenuous hurdles of an overly litigious and overly regulated system.  IOW, poor folks don't have access.  

It's not "the rich" holding them down.  "The rich" can't do that without the force of government.  The big corporations that libs complain about USE tax and regulatory law to limit small and mid-sized competitors through politicians.  And while everyone has a constitutional right to lobby Congress, politicians can't give more than what they have access to in terms of power.  IOW, when we hold politicians to the LIMITED GOVERNMENT intended by our Framers, they don't have the power necessary to abuse us as they have.

We've got the Executive Branch _legislating_ through regulatory law.  We've got the Judicial Branch _legislating_ from the bench.  We've got Legislative Branch abusing their powers to tax and to regulate commerce to such an extent that federal law touches every aspect of our lives.  This was NOT intended by the U.S. Constitution.

Libs... you need to understand, that by empowering government and rejecting the ideal of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, you create the cronyism which keeps people poor.  Jose doesn't need government assistance if he's simply allowed to sell his tamales.  The opportunity for self-improvement and success is denied to him by limiting his access to the marketplace.

I'm not suggesting that we let Jose make people sick.  What I'm suggesting is that we use the power of governance to give him consequences if he does, and NOT preemptively as if our lawmakers were all Miss Cleo wannabes trying to forecast potential problems.  Punish people if they do something wrong.  Don't limit their access to the market.


----------



## naturegirl

Murf76 said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama either does not understand Free Markets or he hates them...
> 
> And again, politicians are not the government- we the people are. Business owners contributed to teachers salaries; roads; bridges etc. when they pay their taxes. The risk they make when they go into business is all their own- fuck this president and his arrogant bullshit! After his inane lecture to business owners I officially despise him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what's thought-provoking about the question of whether Obama hates free markets or not?...  he'd have no way to know.
> 
> We DON'T HAVE free markets.  There's no way we can describe what we have today, with any shred of honesty or credibility, as "free".  Of course, laissez faire markets don't really exist and wouldn't be desirable if they did.  There's always some semblance of control and consumer protection.  But even so, we could still describe our system as "free", as it was open to all citizens and not difficult to access.  I don't think that can be said anymore.  In terms of making legal purchases, sure we have access for everyone, but in terms of making legal sales... not so much.
> 
> kwc57 put on this really compelling post earlier, #298, which featured a perspective entrepreneur selling his wife's homemade tamales.  But, as I mentioned earlier, that scenario can't happen in this country anymore.  The truth is... the market is limited in this country in terms of legal sales, allowing only those people who can raise the "start-up" costs and overcome the strenuous hurdles of an overly litigious and overly regulated system.  IOW, poor folks don't have access.
> 
> It's not "the rich" holding them down.  "The rich" can't do that without the force of government.  The big corporations that libs complain about USE tax and regulatory law to limit small and mid-sized competitors through politicians.  And while everyone has a constitutional right to lobby Congress, politicians can't give more than what they have access to in terms of power.  IOW, when we hold politicians to the LIMITED GOVERNMENT intended by our Framers, they don't have the power necessary to abuse us as they have.
> 
> We've got the Executive Branch _legislating_ through regulatory law.  We've got the Judicial Branch _legislating_ from the bench.  We've got Legislative Branch abusing their powers to tax and to regulate commerce to such an extent that federal law touches every aspect of our lives.  This was NOT intended by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Libs... you need to understand, *that by empowering government and rejecting the ideal of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, you create the cronyism which keeps people poor. * Jose doesn't need government assistance if he's simply allowed to sell his tamales.  The opportunity for self-improvement and success is denied to him by limiting his access to the marketplace.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that we let Jose make people sick.  What I'm suggesting is that we use the power of governance to give him consequences if he does, and NOT preemptively as if our lawmakers were all Miss Cleo wannabes trying to forecast potential problems.  Punish people if they do something wrong.  Don't limit their access to the market.
Click to expand...



This entire post is great, the bolded sentence is right on!!


----------



## Katzndogz

Liberals believe that Jose, selling his tamales, WANTS to make people sick and only the government prevents him from making people sick.  The point of business is not to provide goods and services that people need, the point of business is to provide poor service, poor quality goods, and steal.  Only the government keeps them from doing that.


----------



## rightwinger

Katzndogz said:


> Liberals believe that Jose, selling his tamales, WANTS to make people sick and only the government prevents him from making people sick.  The point of business is not to provide goods and services that people need, the point of business is to provide poor service, poor quality goods, and steal.  Only the government keeps them from doing that.



The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards. 
The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits


----------



## Murf76

Katzndogz said:


> Liberals believe that Jose, selling his tamales, WANTS to make people sick and only the government prevents him from making people sick.  The point of business is not to provide goods and services that people need, the point of business is to provide poor service, poor quality goods, and steal.  Only the government keeps them from doing that.



The thing is though, it wouldn't be easy for Jose to build trust in the community and convince people that his tamales were worth buying.  It would be hard work and he'd have to offer a quality product.  But we don't even allow him the opportunity to try.

So often we pat ourselves on the back, talking about what a "Land of Opportunity" we have.. but that's just not the case anymore.  The poor DON'T have access to that kind of opportunity.  Libs seem to think that opportunity springs from government-funded education.  It doesn't.  It comes from having full access to the marketplace.


----------



## naturegirl

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe that Jose, selling his tamales, WANTS to make people sick and only the government prevents him from making people sick.  The point of business is not to provide goods and services that people need, the point of business is to provide poor service, poor quality goods, and steal.  Only the government keeps them from doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards.
> The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits
Click to expand...


Makes me wonder, should this be a state issue or a federal issue? Is this an overreach by the Fed, monitoring tacos??  How many people do you think the feds will put on this to make sure Jose's tacos are clean??  I'm thinking at least 5, one to do the inspection, one to type up the inspection, one to interpret what the inspection report actually says, one to find which laws he might actually be breaking and one to make sure he pays his taxes.


----------



## mudwhistle

Murf76 said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama either does not understand Free Markets or he hates them...
> 
> And again, politicians are not the government- we the people are. Business owners contributed to teachers salaries; roads; bridges etc. when they pay their taxes. The risk they make when they go into business is all their own- fuck this president and his arrogant bullshit! After his inane lecture to business owners I officially despise him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what's thought-provoking about the question of whether Obama hates free markets or not?...  he'd have no way to know.
> 
> We DON'T HAVE free markets.  There's no way we can describe what we have today, with any shred of honesty or credibility, as "free".  Of course, laissez faire markets don't really exist and wouldn't be desirable if they did.  There's always some semblance of control and consumer protection.  But even so, we could still describe our system as "free", as it was open to all citizens and not difficult to access.  I don't think that can be said anymore.  In terms of making legal purchases, sure we have access for everyone, but in terms of making legal sales... not so much.
> 
> kwc57 put on this really compelling post earlier, #298, which featured a perspective entrepreneur selling his wife's homemade tamales.  But, as I mentioned earlier, that scenario can't happen in this country anymore.  The truth is... the market is limited in this country in terms of legal sales, allowing only those people who can raise the "start-up" costs and overcome the strenuous hurdles of an overly litigious and overly regulated system.  IOW, poor folks don't have access.
> 
> It's not "the rich" holding them down.  "The rich" can't do that without the force of government.  The big corporations that libs complain about USE tax and regulatory law to limit small and mid-sized competitors through politicians.  And while everyone has a constitutional right to lobby Congress, politicians can't give more than what they have access to in terms of power.  IOW, when we hold politicians to the LIMITED GOVERNMENT intended by our Framers, they don't have the power necessary to abuse us as they have.
> 
> We've got the Executive Branch _legislating_ through regulatory law.  We've got the Judicial Branch _legislating_ from the bench.  We've got Legislative Branch abusing their powers to tax and to regulate commerce to such an extent that federal law touches every aspect of our lives.  This was NOT intended by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Libs... you need to understand, that by empowering government and rejecting the ideal of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, you create the cronyism which keeps people poor.  Jose doesn't need government assistance if he's simply allowed to sell his tamales.  The opportunity for self-improvement and success is denied to him by limiting his access to the marketplace.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that we let Jose make people sick.  What I'm suggesting is that we use the power of governance to give him consequences if he does, and NOT preemptively as if our lawmakers were all Miss Cleo wannabes trying to forecast potential problems.  Punish people if they do something wrong.  Don't limit their access to the market.
Click to expand...


Obama likes to invent problems. 

If you created the problem it's easier to act like you have the solution.


----------



## chanel

And the "solution" is always "mo money".


----------



## Murf76

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe that Jose, selling his tamales, WANTS to make people sick and only the government prevents him from making people sick.  The point of business is not to provide goods and services that people need, the point of business is to provide poor service, poor quality goods, and steal.  Only the government keeps them from doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards.
> The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits
Click to expand...


None of that happens because Jose can't raise the start-up costs and he can't get a loan since he has no collateral.  Instead, Jose needs government assistance to take care of his family.

You know, liberals have NO PROBLEM understanding that preemptive war is a bad thing.  But they can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that preemptive regulatory law is keeping people poor by limiting their access to the sales end of the marketplace.  There's no profit in Jose poisoning his customers.  His business can't grow unless he offers a quality product that people are willing to buy.  And... on the off-chance that he _does_ make someone sick, there are legal consequences for his crime.

Don't be such sissies.  Nobody's going to MAKE you buy a tamale from a guy you don't know.  Oh.... wait.  Maybe they will, with Congresses new power to tax if you don't do as you're told. 

You see how unlimited government can hurt both you and Jose yet?


----------



## Conservative

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe that Jose, selling his tamales, WANTS to make people sick and only the government prevents him from making people sick.  The point of business is not to provide goods and services that people need, the point of business is to provide poor service, poor quality goods, and steal.  Only the government keeps them from doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards.
> The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits
Click to expand...


Did the government give him the recipe for his wonderful tamales? Did they give him the idea to start a tamale business? Did they give him the drive and initiative to start a tamale business? Did they pick just the right location for him? Did they tell him where to buy his supplies and ingredients? Did they pay for his advertising? Did the government give him his marketing strategy?


----------



## The T

mudwhistle said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama either does not understand Free Markets or he hates them...
> 
> And again, politicians are not the government- we the people are. Business owners contributed to teachers salaries; roads; bridges etc. when they pay their taxes. The risk they make when they go into business is all their own- fuck this president and his arrogant bullshit! After his inane lecture to business owners I officially despise him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what's thought-provoking about the question of whether Obama hates free markets or not?... he'd have no way to know.
> 
> We DON'T HAVE free markets. There's no way we can describe what we have today, with any shred of honesty or credibility, as "free". Of course, laissez faire markets don't really exist and wouldn't be desirable if they did. There's always some semblance of control and consumer protection. But even so, we could still describe our system as "free", as it was open to all citizens and not difficult to access. I don't think that can be said anymore. In terms of making legal purchases, sure we have access for everyone, but in terms of making legal sales... not so much.
> 
> kwc57 put on this really compelling post earlier, #298, which featured a perspective entrepreneur selling his wife's homemade tamales. But, as I mentioned earlier, that scenario can't happen in this country anymore. The truth is... the market is limited in this country in terms of legal sales, allowing only those people who can raise the "start-up" costs and overcome the strenuous hurdles of an overly litigious and overly regulated system. IOW, poor folks don't have access.
> 
> It's not "the rich" holding them down. "The rich" can't do that without the force of government. The big corporations that libs complain about USE tax and regulatory law to limit small and mid-sized competitors through politicians. And while everyone has a constitutional right to lobby Congress, politicians can't give more than what they have access to in terms of power. IOW, when we hold politicians to the LIMITED GOVERNMENT intended by our Framers, they don't have the power necessary to abuse us as they have.
> 
> We've got the Executive Branch _legislating_ through regulatory law. We've got the Judicial Branch _legislating_ from the bench. We've got Legislative Branch abusing their powers to tax and to regulate commerce to such an extent that federal law touches every aspect of our lives. This was NOT intended by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Libs... you need to understand, that by empowering government and rejecting the ideal of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, you create the cronyism which keeps people poor. Jose doesn't need government assistance if he's simply allowed to sell his tamales. The opportunity for self-improvement and success is denied to him by limiting his access to the marketplace.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that we let Jose make people sick. What I'm suggesting is that we use the power of governance to give him consequences if he does, and NOT preemptively as if our lawmakers were all Miss Cleo wannabes trying to forecast potential problems. Punish people if they do something wrong. Don't limit their access to the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama likes to invent problems.
> 
> If you created the problem it's easier to act like you have the solution.
Click to expand...

 
And a good synopsis of where we are. ALL problems we have for the most part are Government meddling...and all for ultimate control.


----------



## Uncensored2008

chanel said:


> And the "solution" is always "mo money".



On in the case of Obama, the solution is always "yo money."


----------



## Pho_King

So, even the parasitic OWS class deserves a pat on the back for the successes of the businesses they would like to destroy.   Sounds like, in life, libbies believe that everyone deserves a blue ribbon, regardless of their accomplishments.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

So Liberals are grateful to the Crown for our Founding and had no reason to rebel.

That's what we've been trying to tell you!


----------



## Pho_King

One has to wonder what motivated obammy to speak so flippantly about us ungrateful business owners.    Hmmmm.    What could that motivation be?


----------



## teapartysamurai

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
Click to expand...

 
Of course the cost gets spread into the price.  DUH!

Which is ANOTHER REASON Obama's call for higher taxes for businesses is so cynical.

He KNOWS the poor and middle class will really end up paying those higher taxes IN PRICES!!!!!

More fair my ass!  It will cause this economy to go into such inflation it will toss a lot of people into government assistanc just to survive, WHICH IS WHAT OBAMA WANTS!!!!


----------



## teapartysamurai

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who profit off it benefit more.
> 
> 
> 
> And they often end up paying more.
> 
> Ever paid commercial truck apportionment, tolls, fees and/or commercial real estate taxes?
> 
> Next red herring, anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than business does. But Republicans think that money earned by passive activity should be taxed at a lower rate than money earned by working or by producing a good or service.
> 
> 
> So think about that.
Click to expand...

 
So does George Soros, moron!

It's called the difference between capital gains and corporate tax.

If you libs had half a brain, you might not be so pathetic.


----------



## The T

CrusaderFrank said:


> So Liberals are grateful to the Crown for our Founding and had no reason to rebel.
> 
> That's what we've been trying to tell you!


 
Took 'Em 230+ years to re-install a king...


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge that business pass the cost on to the consumer, yet you suppport a Communist government punishing businesses and success with higher and higher taxes? Then you people wonder why the economy tanks under your policies?
> 
> God almighty are you stupid! You realize that business is not going to eat the loss, that they will pass it on to you, and still you sit here supporting that stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under communism there is no business tax, cause all he businesses belong to the state. You fail again.
Click to expand...

 
Oh my gosh you guys are IDIOTS!

You think that will keep the "peasants" from PAYING TAXES?????

I guess that explains all that starvation under Stalin and Mao, the communists were sooooooooooo much more efficient in moving food to the people who need it.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Sallow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got this one binky.
> 
> As a former truck driver..most of that cost gets spread to the consumer.
> 
> It's a theory called "Spreading the Cost".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge that business pass the cost on to the consumer, yet you suppport a Communist government punishing businesses and success with higher and higher taxes? Then you people wonder why the economy tanks under your policies?
> 
> God almighty are you stupid! You realize that business is not going to eat the loss, that they will pass it on to you, and still you sit here supporting that stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies don't pay taxes.
> 
> Dog almighty you are stupid.
> 
> And either a commie or an anarchist.
> 
> Your choice.
Click to expand...

 
Commies don't pay taxes???????????


----------



## Murf76

Pho_King said:


> One has to wonder what motivated obammy to speak so flippantly about us ungrateful business owners.    Hmmmm.    What could that motivation be?



His handlers are weaning him off the teleprompter.  That was a classic "gaffe".  He said what he actually thinks, similar to his "spread the wealth around" and his "bitter-clingers" comments last election.  Without the TOTUS... Obama's collectivist ideology shines through.


----------



## The T

teapartysamurai said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge that business pass the cost on to the consumer, yet you suppport a Communist government punishing businesses and success with higher and higher taxes? Then you people wonder why the economy tanks under your policies?
> 
> God almighty are you stupid! You realize that business is not going to eat the loss, that they will pass it on to you, and still you sit here supporting that stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under communism there is no business tax, cause all he businesses belong to the state. You fail again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my gosh you guys are IDIOTS!
> 
> You think that will keep the "peasants" from PAYING TAXES?????
> 
> I guess that explains all that starvation under Stalin and Mao, the communists were sooooooooooo much more efficient in moving food to the people who need it.
Click to expand...

 
Or banishing them to Mongolia...Siberia...or Hell? Why not just dig a hole and shoot them and bury? Problem solved.


----------



## teapartysamurai

regent said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way that FDR's hands were tied by Congress he did a good job of secretly and openly increasing military aid to England.
> So yes FDR was responsible for reviving the war industry well before war broke out in '41.
> If the repubs had their way,, The rising sun and swastika flags would still be waving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If FDR had his way, he would have packed the court.
> 
> And what are you talking about reviving the industry? The US was in woeful STRAIGHTS when they entered the war, because they were unprepared!
> 
> They were terribly unprepared for WWII!
> 
> That's why Pearl Harbor happened you moron!
> 
> My grandfather was over the production of the B-25 for North American in Columbus, Ohio.
> 
> If he were still alive he could tell you. FDR didn't do jack! Not until the war broke out.
> 
> FDR PROMISED THE COUNTRY WHEN HE RAN AGAIN TO KEEP US OUT OF THE WAR!
> 
> Good grief what history books did you read?
> 
> Some leftist revisionism, obviously!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When posters indicate it took the spending of WWII to cure the depression they in effect are saying it took war-time spending to stop the depression, so FDR simply didn't spend enough. As for prepardness the Republicans fought FDR on rearming America. Check out the "America Firsters." Still FDR's peacetime draft had been in operation for a year before Pearl Harbor. One month before Pearl it was repassed by one vote in the House. FDR made decisions without Congressional approval for rearming America and helping Britain survive. Check out the fifty destroyer deal, Lend Lease. Good for your grandfather, I lived through that period, and still remember the first draft number, 158, and even the songs, "Goodbye Dear, I'll be back in a year cause im in the army now." That first draft peacetime draft of America's was for a year, until the extension added in 1941. In 1936 economic indications pointed to a recovery and FDR stopped the New Deal. A mistake because we slid back into another smaller recession. As for the Court packing, it was a political failure but the Court saw the light and as pundits said, "a stich in time saved nine."
> Ever wonder how America got into the Great Depression? What kind of history books do you read?
Click to expand...

 
If government spending was the answer, FDR's "New Deal" would have worked.

But it didn't.  Unemployment remained 14% and higher.

Nor, did I say prosperity came from WWII.  I said, UNEMPLOYMENT sank because of so many men being DRAFTED for WWII and so many women working in factories.  

There was also strict rationing.  That wasn't prosperity.

I SAID prosperity didn't happen until the 50s.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Some Guy said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, he WAS talking to me....he was talking to business owners and I was a business owner. He was not talking to the few larger companies that game the game...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he was talking to the big businesses.  Thing is, when he says "business owners", in his head, there's only big business that screws over every single American during the day and kills puppies and kittens at night.  It's not his fault: that's what he was raised to believe.
Click to expand...


Considering that the President is our nation's number one diplomat, "He was just being inarticulate" is not an excuse that really excuses him.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> , it's over for Obama and even he knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, you are maybe the winner of the funniest post of the day...
> 
> Real world: conz cant ever win a national election when everyone votes, not ever, simple fact of mathematics
> 
> Con world: Obama has no chance
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid bigot, the ONLY way you get close to winning is by stealing the election by preventing millions of us from voting...better not, or you will have a problem on your hands you will not like...
Click to expand...

 
I guess that explains Ronald Reagan, George Bush 41, and George Bush 43.  

In the last 30 years we have only had two Democrats in the Whitehouse.  Clinton was elected because he promised a tax cut (he lied about) and Obama because he again promised a tax cut (WHICH HE LIED ABOUT, SUPRISE SURPRISE).

Clinton was only reelected because he benefited from the good economy the Republicans winning in 94, put on the economy--including a middle class tax cut, which caused the country to balance the budget)

Obama has had no such success.  He has failed badly at the economy.  His reelection is FAR from certain.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good thing with this speech is the people got to see the MASK come completely off of obama and how he really views us and the country he hates and wants to TRANFORM..
> 
> VOTE this ugly man out..
> 
> he's put us down enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots are so upset, this reminds me of that idiot joe the plumber who didnt own jack...
> 
> i am running out of things to say to you guys, what do you say to someone who is wrong on absolutely everything they say, shaking my head, i may finally be speechless
Click to expand...

 
There's a reason this guy's rep is in the read.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

teapartysamurai said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> , it's over for Obama and even he knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, you are maybe the winner of the funniest post of the day...
> 
> Real world: conz cant ever win a national election when everyone votes, not ever, simple fact of mathematics
> 
> Con world: Obama has no chance
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid bigot, the ONLY way you get close to winning is by stealing the election by preventing millions of us from voting...better not, or you will have a problem on your hands you will not like...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that explains Ronald Reagan, George Bush 41, and George Bush 43.
> 
> In the last 30 years we have only had two Democrats in the Whitehouse.  Clinton was elected because he promised a tax cut (he lied about) and Obama because he again promised a tax cut (WHICH HE LIED ABOUT, SUPRISE SURPRISE).
> 
> Clinton was only reelected because he benefited from the good economy the Republicans winning in 94, put on the economy--including a middle class tax cut, which caused the country to balance the budget)
> 
> Obama has had no such success.  He has failed badly at the economy.  His reelection is FAR from certain.
Click to expand...


Don't confuse them with facts.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> I am glad to see all the twisted concepts of what Obama said. I thought it was just my wife that acted in a demented fashion of interpretation.


 
In other words your wife is a lot smarter than you.

No surprise!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way that FDR's hands were tied by Congress he did a good job of secretly and openly increasing military aid to England.
> So yes FDR was responsible for reviving the war industry well before war broke out in '41.
> If the repubs had their way,, The rising sun and swastika flags would still be waving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If FDR had his way, he would have packed the court.
> 
> And what are you talking about reviving the industry?  The US was in woeful STRAIGHTS when they entered the war, because they were unprepared!
> 
> They were terribly unprepared for WWII!
> 
> That's why Pearl Harbor happened you moron!
> 
> My grandfather was over the production of the B-25 for North American in Columbus, Ohio.
> 
> If he were still alive he could tell you.  FDR didn't do jack!  Not until the war broke out.
> 
> FDR PROMISED THE COUNTRY WHEN HE RAN AGAIN TO KEEP US OUT OF THE WAR!
> 
> Good grief what history books did you read?
> 
> Some leftist revisionism, obviously!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When posters indicate it took the spending of WWII to cure the depression they in effect are saying it took war-time spending to stop the depression, so FDR simply didn't spend enough. As for prepardness the Republicans fought FDR on rearming America. Check out the "America Firsters."  Still FDR's peacetime draft had been in operation for a year before Pearl Harbor. One month before Pearl it was repassed by one vote in the House.  FDR made  decisions without Congressional approval for rearming America and helping Britain survive.  Check out the fifty destroyer deal, Lend Lease. Good for your grandfather, I lived through that period, and still remember the first draft number, 158, and even the songs, "Goodbye Dear, I'll be back in a year cause im in the army now." That first draft peacetime draft of America's was for a year, until the extension added in 1941. In 1936 economic indications pointed to a recovery and FDR stopped the New Deal. A mistake because we slid back into another smaller recession. As for the Court packing, it was a political failure but the Court saw the light and as pundits said, "a stich in time saved nine."
> Ever wonder how America got into the Great Depression? What kind of history books do you read?
Click to expand...


We got into the Depression because the Federal Reserve bled 1/3 of the money out of the economy and then rather than stepping up and acting as lender of last resort like they were supposed to, they allowed banks to fail

Personally, I think it was intentional financial sabotage.


----------



## Cecilie1200

naturegirl said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still has an Adam's apple dipshit...or does he...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hur hur, lefty come dun say sheezzz gotz du atoms appel -- hur hur, lefty shore is clevor..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her stupidfuck, is she a man too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> :snort:
> 
> How about this one??  Is she a man???
Click to expand...



I'm always amazed by the vast ignorance that passes for biological education amongst liberals.  Someone should tell these anatomical geniuses that EVERYONE has an Adam's apple, and how prominent it is varies according to genetics and how skinny one happens to be.  This whole "only men have visible Adam's apples" schtick of theirs smacks of an old wives' tale.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you want Mac? Big tears because you started a business? Wasn't it your choice? Did you not reap the rewards that you thought were yours because you started a business?
> 
> Damn man. If you are a successful business man, quit whining.
> 
> Oh and btw, you need a better HR department. I read where your employees were ripping you off. Fire the HR manager and start over. Or is the HR manager YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could be wrong, but I think what he wants is for dipshits like you and Obama to stop acting like the effort he put into building his business was no great shakes, and like you and Obama contributed just as much, and are just as entitled - if not more entitled - to the profits from that business.
> 
> And I don't think there's anything "whining" about saying, "Where the fuck do you get off taking credit for my work?" There IS, however, a large element of whining in "How dare you object to supporting other people?" which is such a constant and popular theme with Obama and his worshippers. I also find a lot of whining in Obama's new line, to which his worshippers are fervently rallying, of "How dare you think YOU'VE accomplished anything, you arrogant, conceited plebian? We did everything for you, and you just got lucky."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well talk about extemist views.
Click to expand...

 
Liberal speak, "extremist views"  = "I CAN'T BELEIVE WE HAVEN'T INTIMIDATED FREE SPEECH ENOUGH TO STOP THE EXRESSION OF SUCH VIEWS!!!!!!"


----------



## teapartysamurai

ConzHateUSA said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to see all the twisted concepts of what Obama said. I thought it was just my wife that acted in a demented fashion of interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, it's always everybody just didn't understand what he said..
> we heard it loud and clear...and I hope they show up to vote.......him OUT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, everybody heard it loud and clear, he correctly stated that NOBODY ever made it ENTIRELY on their own, to argue the reverse proves you to be incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

 
I think we all see who is incredibly stupid.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Stephanie said:


> I see someone is have a melt down..OH WELL
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA This user is on your Ignore List.


 
I agree.  He's an idiot. He's like Mr. Shaman.  Not worth bothering with.

I'm putting him on ignore as well.  I'd advise everyone else to, as well, and improve the intelligence of this discussion.

(although, debating with liberals, improving the intelligence of discussion, is a forlorn hope)


----------



## Cecilie1200

barry1960 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What obama was clearly saying is that no matter how smart you are, how hard you work or how much you sacrifice, the government GAVE you everything you have an now you OWE the government.  After all, didn't the government LET you be smart, work hard and sacrifice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was NOT clearly saying this. You are reading a whole lot into this that is not there to feed your own perceptions of Obama.
> 
> Success in life is a combination of opportunity and hard work.
Click to expand...


Isn't it amazing how everyone in the country EXCEPT for Obama's most ardent worshippers is coincidentally "reading into this" the EXACT SAME "whole lot"?  It's almost like that's actually what his words meant, and you dipshits are just desperately trying to spin it away, or something.  

Face it, Sparkles.  When everyone's heard the quote, and THEN heard the allegedly "mitigating" full quote and context, and THEN heard the frantic explanations, and STILL thinks that's what the guy said . . . that's what he really said.  Deal with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sallow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mexico have to do with anything? Other then to prove my point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is an example of harmful income inequality. It is so bad it harms the economy. Incime inequality in this country works because the rich provide jobs. In Mexico there aren't any jobs. You cannot sell this shit here in America because expecting total income equality is a pipe-dream designed to create division. It's not realistic. It is simply a way to rationalize tax increases. It is government sponsored theft, and I'm not gonna go along with it as long as government refuses to stop wasting our tax dollars on superfluous bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are fast moving into a space where the income inequality isn't good..like Mexico.
Click to expand...


Only a damned fool thinks our nation and its economy is ANYTHING like Mexico . . . oh, wait.  Forgot who I was talking to.

Never mind.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Lakhota said:


> *Does President Obama Think You Didnt Build Your Business? No.*
> 
> _By Benjy Sarlin_
> 
> Heres the full passage:
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for president  because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Does President Obama Think You Didnt Build Your Business? No. | TPM2012
Click to expand...

 
Oh, here comes the usual libs to tell us, Obama didn't say, what Obama said!


----------



## Cecilie1200

naturegirl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe that Jose, selling his tamales, WANTS to make people sick and only the government prevents him from making people sick.  The point of business is not to provide goods and services that people need, the point of business is to provide poor service, poor quality goods, and steal.  Only the government keeps them from doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards.
> The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder, should this be a state issue or a federal issue? Is this an overreach by the Fed, monitoring tacos??  How many people do you think the feds will put on this to make sure Jose's tacos are clean??  I'm thinking at least 5, one to do the inspection, one to type up the inspection, one to interpret what the inspection report actually says, one to find which laws he might actually be breaking and one to make sure he pays his taxes.
Click to expand...


Technically, it's not even a state issue.  It's a city/county issue (depending on whether Jose and his customers live within the city limits).


----------



## Sallow

teapartysamurai said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge that business pass the cost on to the consumer, yet you suppport a Communist government punishing businesses and success with higher and higher taxes? Then you people wonder why the economy tanks under your policies?
> 
> God almighty are you stupid! You realize that business is not going to eat the loss, that they will pass it on to you, and still you sit here supporting that stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commies don't pay taxes.
> 
> Dog almighty you are stupid.
> 
> And either a commie or an anarchist.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies don't pay taxes???????????
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## The T

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> If FDR had his way, he would have packed the court.
> 
> And what are you talking about reviving the industry? The US was in woeful STRAIGHTS when they entered the war, because they were unprepared!
> 
> They were terribly unprepared for WWII!
> 
> That's why Pearl Harbor happened you moron!
> 
> My grandfather was over the production of the B-25 for North American in Columbus, Ohio.
> 
> If he were still alive he could tell you. FDR didn't do jack! Not until the war broke out.
> 
> FDR PROMISED THE COUNTRY WHEN HE RAN AGAIN TO KEEP US OUT OF THE WAR!
> 
> Good grief what history books did you read?
> 
> Some leftist revisionism, obviously!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When posters indicate it took the spending of WWII to cure the depression they in effect are saying it took war-time spending to stop the depression, so FDR simply didn't spend enough. As for prepardness the Republicans fought FDR on rearming America. Check out the "America Firsters." Still FDR's peacetime draft had been in operation for a year before Pearl Harbor. One month before Pearl it was repassed by one vote in the House. FDR made decisions without Congressional approval for rearming America and helping Britain survive. Check out the fifty destroyer deal, Lend Lease. Good for your grandfather, I lived through that period, and still remember the first draft number, 158, and even the songs, "Goodbye Dear, I'll be back in a year cause im in the army now." That first draft peacetime draft of America's was for a year, until the extension added in 1941. In 1936 economic indications pointed to a recovery and FDR stopped the New Deal. A mistake because we slid back into another smaller recession. As for the Court packing, it was a political failure but the Court saw the light and as pundits said, "a stich in time saved nine."
> Ever wonder how America got into the Great Depression? What kind of history books do you read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We got into the Depression because the Federal Reserve bled 1/3 of the money out of the economy and then rather than stepping up and acting as lender of last resort like they were supposed to, they allowed banks to fail
> 
> Personally, I think it was intentional financial sabotage.
Click to expand...

 
I Like this Answer^^

And they're still manipulating...Look for QE III


----------



## Sallow

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is an example of harmful income inequality. It is so bad it harms the economy. Incime inequality in this country works because the rich provide jobs. In Mexico there aren't any jobs. You cannot sell this shit here in America because expecting total income equality is a pipe-dream designed to create division. It's not realistic. It is simply a way to rationalize tax increases. It is government sponsored theft, and I'm not gonna go along with it as long as government refuses to stop wasting our tax dollars on superfluous bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are fast moving into a space where the income inequality isn't good..like Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a damned fool thinks our nation and its economy is ANYTHING like Mexico . . . oh, wait.  Forgot who I was talking to.
> 
> Never mind.
Click to expand...


Only a damn fool doesn't see why the "Citizen's United" ruling makes us MORE like Mexico. Oh wait. Forgot who I was talking to .

Never mind.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Conservative said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe that Jose, selling his tamales, WANTS to make people sick and only the government prevents him from making people sick.  The point of business is not to provide goods and services that people need, the point of business is to provide poor service, poor quality goods, and steal.  Only the government keeps them from doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards.
> The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the government give him the recipe for his wonderful tamales? Did they give him the idea to start a tamale business? Did they give him the drive and initiative to start a tamale business? Did they pick just the right location for him? Did they tell him where to buy his supplies and ingredients? Did they pay for his advertising? Did the government give him his marketing strategy?
Click to expand...


Apparently, now when football teams win a game, they're supposed to give the credit to the guy who mowed the grass on the playing field so nice and evenly.

(For the thinking-impaired among us, that was what we call "an analogy".)


----------



## Jackson

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards.
> The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the government give him the recipe for his wonderful tamales? Did they give him the idea to start a tamale business? Did they give him the drive and initiative to start a tamale business? Did they pick just the right location for him? Did they tell him where to buy his supplies and ingredients? Did they pay for his advertising? Did the government give him his marketing strategy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, now when football teams win a game, they're supposed to give the credit to the guy who mowed the grass on the playing field so nice and evenly.
> 
> (For the thinking-impaired among us, that was what we call "an analogy".)
Click to expand...


Not to mention, thank thier teachers!  And Be grateeful for the roads to get them to the stadium!  No to mention the Concession Stands, By Golly!  No effort on their part!


----------



## Misty

"You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn&#8217;t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory &#8212; and hire someone to protect against this &#8212; because of the work the rest of us did."

I paid the taxes for the roads and cops. I built the factory and employed people. Who in turn paid more taxes so not only did I get here on my own I provided work for so many other people. So fuck you Obama

Trickle down.


----------



## BDBoop

Lakhota said:


>



Exactly.


----------



## Stephanie

Steven King..

upward mobility, something which Obama can speak on with AUTHORITY of EXPERINCE

OMG



He should stick to writing horror novels


----------



## rightwinger

naturegirl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe that Jose, selling his tamales, WANTS to make people sick and only the government prevents him from making people sick.  The point of business is not to provide goods and services that people need, the point of business is to provide poor service, poor quality goods, and steal.  Only the government keeps them from doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards.
> The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder, should this be a state issue or a federal issue? Is this an overreach by the Fed, monitoring tacos??  How many people do you think the feds will put on this to make sure Jose's tacos are clean??  I'm thinking at least 5, one to do the inspection, one to type up the inspection, one to interpret what the inspection report actually says, one to find which laws he might actually be breaking and one to make sure he pays his taxes.
Click to expand...


Why do you guys always jump on the state, federal or local issue?  It is still government


----------



## Misty

Misty said:


> "You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didnt have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory  and hire someone to protect against this  because of the work the rest of us did."
> 
> I paid the taxes for the roads and cops. I built the factory and employed people. Who in turn paid more taxes so not only did I get here on my own I provided work for so many other people. So fuck you Obama
> 
> Trickle down.



Rant continues; not only did i start my company on my own the government made me jump through hoops and put barrier after barrier in my way to make it 10 times harder to start my business.


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards.
> The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder, should this be a state issue or a federal issue? Is this an overreach by the Fed, monitoring tacos??  How many people do you think the feds will put on this to make sure Jose's tacos are clean??  I'm thinking at least 5, one to do the inspection, one to type up the inspection, one to interpret what the inspection report actually says, one to find which laws he might actually be breaking and one to make sure he pays his taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you guys always jump on the state, federal or local issue?  It is still government
Click to expand...


only you wouldn't see the difference


----------



## rightwinger

Murf76 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe that Jose, selling his tamales, WANTS to make people sick and only the government prevents him from making people sick.  The point of business is not to provide goods and services that people need, the point of business is to provide poor service, poor quality goods, and steal.  Only the government keeps them from doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards.
> The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that happens because Jose can't raise the start-up costs and he can't get a loan since he has no collateral.  Instead, Jose needs government assistance to take care of his family.
> 
> You know, liberals have NO PROBLEM understanding that preemptive war is a bad thing.  But they can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that preemptive regulatory law is keeping people poor by limiting their access to the sales end of the marketplace.  There's no profit in Jose poisoning his customers.  His business can't grow unless he offers a quality product that people are willing to buy.  And... on the off-chance that he _does_ make someone sick, there are legal consequences for his crime.
> 
> Don't be such sissies.  Nobody's going to MAKE you buy a tamale from a guy you don't know.  Oh.... wait.  Maybe they will, with Congresses new power to tax if you don't do as you're told.
> 
> You see how unlimited government can hurt both you and Jose yet?
Click to expand...


Actually, Jose can't get started because huge conglomerate Taco Bell down the street sends the police after him because he is undercutting their profit


----------



## Katzndogz

One of the few responsibilities of government is to protect property rights.   Stopping tainted food, or unfair business practices does NOT build business.  It might create an environment allowing business to grow, but it doesn't create the business.  It doesn't grow the business.   It certainly won't keep business open.


----------



## Murf76

BDBoop said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...


Stephen King is a moron, politically speaking.  He ignores the fact that the top 20% of earners pay 94% of income taxes.  So... they're already paying MORE than their "fair share".  He also ignores the fact that it's GOVERNMENT which is clogging "the channels which make upward mobility possible".  It's GOVERNMENT which prevents the poor but industrious having meaningful access to the marketplace.

The guy needs to go back to writing cheesy horror novels since he's clearly not willing to apply actual critical thinking to politics.


----------



## The T

Misty said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didnt have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory  and hire someone to protect against this  because of the work the rest of us did."
> 
> I paid the taxes for the roads and cops. I built the factory and employed people. Who in turn paid more taxes so not only did I get here on my own I provided work for so many other people. So fuck you Obama
> 
> Trickle down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rant continues; not only did i start my company on my own the *government made me jump through hoops and put barrier after barrier in my way to make it 10 times harder to start my business*.
Click to expand...

 
Precisely what they Shouldn't be doing. Instead of creating more taxpayers? Put more on unemployment...make is impossible for business to start up, and harder for business to stay in business.

The Agenda is clear. And then TAX the Hell out of them.

Obama has ZERO clue. Remember/ he said it was 'like being behind enemy lines'...


----------



## Katzndogz

Stephanie said:


> Steven King..
> 
> upward mobility, something which Obama can speak on with AUTHORITY of EXPERINCE
> 
> OMG
> 
> 
> 
> He should stick to writing horror novels



Stephen King has not been the same since he got his head bashed in.


----------



## The T

Misty said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didnt have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory  and hire someone to protect against this  because of the work the rest of us did."
> 
> I paid the taxes for the roads and cops. I built the factory and employed people. Who in turn paid more taxes so not only did I get here on my own I provided work for so many other people. So fuck you Obama
> 
> Trickle down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rant continues; not only did i start my company on my own the government made me jump through hoops and put barrier after barrier in my way to make it 10 times harder to start my business.
Click to expand...

 
YOU hang in there!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> Only a damn fool doesn't see why the "Citizen's United" ruling makes us MORE like Mexico. Oh wait. Forgot who I was talking to .
> 
> Never mind.



ROFL

Alright champ, explain how "Citizens United," allowing corporations and unions to contribute to election campaigns, "Makes us more like Mexico?"

Something more that "Because ThinkProgress told me" would be preferable.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Stephanie said:


> Steven King..
> 
> upward mobility, something which Obama can speak on with AUTHORITY of EXPERINCE
> 
> OMG
> 
> 
> 
> He should stick to writing horror novels



Why?

He hasn't written anything worth a shit in 30 years.


----------



## Murf76

rightwinger said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government helps two ways. They prevent Jose from selling cheap but unsafe tamales. They also ensure that the meat that he buys is safe for the public to consume. The Government will also make sure that Jose's carts meet cleanliness standards.
> The government will protect Jose from unfair business practices of competitors as well as from theives who want to steal his days profits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that happens because Jose can't raise the start-up costs and he can't get a loan since he has no collateral.  Instead, Jose needs government assistance to take care of his family.
> 
> You know, liberals have NO PROBLEM understanding that preemptive war is a bad thing.  But they can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that preemptive regulatory law is keeping people poor by limiting their access to the sales end of the marketplace.  There's no profit in Jose poisoning his customers.  His business can't grow unless he offers a quality product that people are willing to buy.  And... on the off-chance that he _does_ make someone sick, there are legal consequences for his crime.
> 
> Don't be such sissies.  Nobody's going to MAKE you buy a tamale from a guy you don't know.  Oh.... wait.  Maybe they will, with Congresses new power to tax if you don't do as you're told.
> 
> You see how unlimited government can hurt both you and Jose yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Jose can't get started because huge conglomerate Taco Bell down the street sends the police after him because he is undercutting their profit
Click to expand...


Taco Bell doesn't have the authority to write law or police powers with which to enforce it.  All they can do is report somebody for breaking laws imposed by GOVERNMENT.  Now, if government is limited as intended by the Framers, the political class is not in a position to pick winners and losers.


----------



## Stephanie

You find it funny Democrats-Liberals-Progressives don't see a damn thing wrong with UNIONS donating union dues from workers to the fund of the Democrat campaigns, usually against the wishes of whether those workers want it to go to a Democrat candidate.

but corporations, they yell about


----------



## The T

Lakhota said:


>


 
More Cult of Personality LaDorka? Really?

DUPE.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Actually, Jose can't get started because huge conglomerate Taco Bell down the street sends the police after him because he is undercutting their profit



You've never been one that would be considered particularly bright, but the level of retardation from you lately is beyond the pale.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Murf76 said:


> Taco Bell doesn't have the authority to write law or police powers with which to enforce it.



RW is a retard. He spews insane idiocy. He's reached the level of Mr. Shaman, where nothing he posts has any merit at all.



> All they can do is report somebody for breaking laws imposed by GOVERNMENT.  Now, if government is limited as intended by the Framers, the political class is not in a position to pick winners and losers.



I can imagine a cop called by Taco Bell.

It's not even a criminal matter, cops don't enforce business license issue. Rightwinger is simply a retard, not for what he said, but for thinking anyone would believe his bullshit.


----------



## Too Tall

Cecilie1200 said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hur hur, lefty come dun say sheezzz gotz du atoms appel -- hur hur, lefty shore is clevor..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her stupidfuck, is she a man too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :snort:
> 
> How about this one??  Is she a man???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm always amazed by the vast ignorance that passes for biological education amongst liberals.  Someone should tell these anatomical geniuses that EVERYONE has an Adam's apple, and how prominent it is varies according to genetics and how skinny one happens to be.  This whole "only men have visible Adam's apples" schtick of theirs smacks of an old wives' tale.
Click to expand...

Good science, but bad example.  Maddow WANTS to be a man if you get my drift.


----------



## mudwhistle

Sallow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mexico have to do with anything? Other then to prove my point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is an example of harmful income inequality. It is so bad it harms the economy. Incime inequality in this country works because the rich provide jobs. In Mexico there aren't any jobs. You cannot sell this shit here in America because expecting total income equality is a pipe-dream designed to create division. It's not realistic. It is simply a way to rationalize tax increases. It is government sponsored theft, and I'm not gonna go along with it as long as government refuses to stop wasting our tax dollars on superfluous bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are fast moving into a space where the income inequality isn't good..like Mexico.
Click to expand...


Oh, really?

Is that the change Obama wanted, cuz he's been prez for almost 4 years. If what you say is true he had something to do with it. Business owners didn't build that.


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven King..
> 
> upward mobility, something which Obama can speak on with AUTHORITY of EXPERINCE
> 
> OMG
> 
> 
> 
> He should stick to writing horror novels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> He hasn't written anything worth a shit in 30 years.
Click to expand...

 
i've always loathed Stephen King. He's over-rated, seriously.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Now they loathe literature, no surprise.


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> i've always loathed Stephen King. He's over-rated, seriously.



There was a time when he was good. He wrote "The Stand," "Carrie," and "Pet Cemetery;" but in the last 20 years what he's written is crap. "Deloris Claiborn" was crap, as was everything after it.


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> Now they loathe literature, no surprise.


 
No, stupid...just Certain usual suspects. Some of us have minds of our own and can think for ourselves,_ differentiate_ between REAL and fantasy, and aren't so quick to "go with the flow...and aren't part of the 'Cult Of Personailty' Like _*you*_ ignat.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0"]Living Colour - Cult Of Personality - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> i've always loathed Stephen King. He's over-rated, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when he was good. He wrote "The Stand," "Carrie," and "Pet Cemetery;" but in the last 20 years what he's written is crap. "Deloris Claiborn" was crap, as was everything after it.
Click to expand...

 
I could never get into him. That's just me.


----------



## The T

I find Edgar Allan Poe far more talented.


----------



## Skull Pilot

ConzHateUSA said:


> Now they loathe literature, no surprise.



The shit King writes is not literature.


----------



## Bloodline

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



Why didn't you just take this from Rush's latest screed? He said the same thing

Barack Obama's Declaration of War Against the Way America was Founded and Built - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Let's ALL little CONservative sheeple get in line behind the latest talking point now!

If we're going to twist people's words we all need to be on the same page with our message!


----------



## Skull Pilot

Uncensored2008 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> i've always loathed Stephen King. He's over-rated, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when he was good. He wrote "The Stand," "Carrie," and "Pet Cemetery;" but in the last 20 years what he's written is crap. "Deloris Claiborn" was crap, as was everything after it.
Click to expand...


The The Stand was a long winded predictable and boring story with a deus ex machina ending.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Yeah, conz never, not once, not ever, never ever, think for themselves. 

they have an opinion ONLY after Rush or Karl tells them what that opinion is...

Otherwise how could they always repeat lies and misinformation 100% of the time...think about it.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now they loathe literature, no surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us have minds of our own and can think for ourselves,
Click to expand...





Oh god



That isnt fair, my stomach hurts so bad right now, havent laughed that hard in years.

(the whole planet is laughing with me, moron...and that isnt an exaggeration)


----------



## Cecilie1200

Katzndogz said:


> One of the few responsibilities of government is to protect property rights.   Stopping tainted food, or unfair business practices does NOT build business.  It might create an environment allowing business to grow, but it doesn't create the business.  It doesn't grow the business.   It certainly won't keep business open.



And, as so many of us keep saying, we ALL have the EXACT SAME government "help" as our basis to start from, so it's as ludicrous to try to credit that general, ubiquitous starting point for the success SOME - but by no means all - people subsequently achieve as it is to credit the field in the football stadium with the team's victory.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Katzndogz said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven King..
> 
> upward mobility, something which Obama can speak on with AUTHORITY of EXPERINCE
> 
> OMG
> 
> 
> 
> He should stick to writing horror novels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen King has not been the same since he got his head bashed in.
Click to expand...


As a child of the Vietnam era, King has always been fairly liberal politically, meaning he tends to embrace whatever view is officially politically correct on "the issues", while tending to act more like a conservative in his personal life.  As I've said, he's been known frequently in the past to complain about how high his own tax rate is, but like many kneejerk lefties, he has recently absorbed Obama's dogma of "good people LIKE paying taxes; only BAD, SELFISH people object."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Uncensored2008 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven King..
> 
> upward mobility, something which Obama can speak on with AUTHORITY of EXPERINCE
> 
> OMG
> 
> 
> 
> He should stick to writing horror novels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> He hasn't written anything worth a shit in 30 years.
Click to expand...


Untrue.  "Bag of Bones" was excellent, as was "Just After Sunset".


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> Oh god
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt fair, my stomach hurts so bad right now,



That's what you get for swallowing so much cum....



> havent laughed that hard in years.
> 
> (the whole planet is laughing with me, moron...and that isnt an exaggeration)



I'm just saying....


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Uncensored2008 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt fair, my stomach hurts so bad right now,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you get for swallowing so much cum....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> havent laughed that hard in years.
> 
> (the whole planet is laughing with me, moron...and that isnt an exaggeration)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just saying....
Click to expand...


Do your parents charge you rent?


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now they loathe literature, no surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us have minds of our own and can think for ourselves,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt fair, my stomach hurts so bad right now, havent laughed that hard in years.
> 
> (the whole planet is laughing with me, moron...and that isnt an exaggeration)
Click to expand...

 
So YOU post a redacted version of my entire post? Really?

WHY didn't you address the entire post COWARD?

Fucking child neophyte.


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt fair, my stomach hurts so bad right now,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you get for swallowing so much cum....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> havent laughed that hard in years.
> 
> (the whole planet is laughing with me, moron...and that isnt an exaggeration)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just saying....
Click to expand...

 
Note he didn't post the entire quote. He's a COWARD.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Uncensored2008 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt fair, my stomach hurts so bad right now,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you get for swallowing so much cum....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> havent laughed that hard in years.
> 
> (the whole planet is laughing with me, moron...and that isnt an exaggeration)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just saying....
Click to expand...


Someone should teach HateUSA the difference between "laughing with you" and "laughing AT you".


----------



## Foxfyre

Cecilie1200 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the few responsibilities of government is to protect property rights.   Stopping tainted food, or unfair business practices does NOT build business.  It might create an environment allowing business to grow, but it doesn't create the business.  It doesn't grow the business.   It certainly won't keep business open.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, as so many of us keep saying, we ALL have the EXACT SAME government "help" as our basis to start from, so it's as ludicrous to try to credit that general, ubiquitous starting point for the success SOME - but by no means all - people subsequently achieve as it is to credit the field in the football stadium with the team's victory.
Click to expand...


Yes, the school does not do the homework for the student or study for his/her exams.  And the school cannot take credit for the effort the student put into earning a high gradepoint average.

The government risks nothing with whatever services or infrastructure it provides, nor can it do anything without resources provided by the people for which the government had little or nothing to do with.    In most cases, the government does not come up with the idea of a product or service to be provided, it does not do the initial planning, pay for whatever licenses and permits are necessary, does not risk a dime in obtaining the infrastructure, supplies, raw materials, tools, equipment, and staff necessary to provide the service or product.   Even when the government provides business loans or grants for new business start ups, it had to first take the money from other productive people or obligate them for the money the government borrows to do that.

Before Mr. Foxfyre and I closed down our business and fully retired last year, pray tell who provided us with the tools, equipment, marketing, and resources necessary to do our business?  I could swear we paid for every nickle of it out of our bank account financed with money we had earned working for others.   Who are we obligated to for doing that?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Cecilie1200 said:


> Untrue.  "Bag of Bones" was excellent, as was "Just After Sunset".



"Bag of Bones" is 15 years ago. It was okay. "Hearts in Atlantis" was all kinds of suck.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

As the Oligarchs take more and more of your money, while telling you to hate your fellow Americans, you keep following them and that is sad.

If you had a brain, and some of you do, that is the confusing part of this, you would know.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> Do your parents charge you rent?



That would be rude of them, since my name is on the title of the house.

Not everyone lives in the basement, like you do, Sparky.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Uncensored2008 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do your parents charge you rent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be rude of them, since my name is on the title of the house.
> 
> Not everyone lives in the basement, like you do, Sparky.
Click to expand...


this is worse, you are an adult and are so full of hate and ignorance?

shame


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> Note he didn't post the entire quote. He's a COWARD.



I have no issue with snipping, provided context is maintained. Sometimes, if I am only replying to a specific point of a long post, I'll snip it down to just the section I'm responding to.


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note he didn't post the entire quote. He's a COWARD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no issue with snipping, provided context is maintained. Sometimes, if I am only replying to a specific point of a long post, I'll snip it down to just the section I'm responding to.
Click to expand...

 
And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> this is worse, you are an adult and are so full of hate and ignorance?
> 
> shame



Unintentional irony, the best kind...


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.



He failed to GRASP the point.

You're dealing with a poorly educated prepubescent.


----------



## mudwhistle

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now they loathe literature, no surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us have minds of our own and can think for ourselves,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt fair, my stomach hurts so bad right now, havent laughed that hard in years.
> 
> (the whole planet is laughing with me, moron...and that isnt an exaggeration)
Click to expand...


You're like Michael Scott (Steve Carrol) from """The Office" thinking he's so clever. 

BTW,......We're not parroting MSNBC that still thinks the most important issue on the planet is "What's In Mitt Romney's tax-returns".

With Sarah Palin they had her torched by now. It a real struggle making shit up about Mitt. Not much to work with I guess.


----------



## The T

mudwhistle said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us have minds of our own and can think for ourselves,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt fair, my stomach hurts so bad right now, havent laughed that hard in years.
> 
> (the whole planet is laughing with me, moron...and that isnt an exaggeration)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're like Michael Scott (Steve Carrol) from """The Office" thinking he's so clever.
> 
> We're not parroting MSNBC that still thinks the most important issue on the planet is "What's In Mitt Romney's tax-returns".
Click to expand...

 
More focused on Obama's failures and why HE and the Statists are AT WAR with the Taxpayers?


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He failed to GRASP the point.
> 
> You're dealing with a poorly educated prepubescent.
Click to expand...

 

I noted that the day he came here and have asked if he relinquishes control of the computer when his mommy gets home.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note he didn't post the entire quote. He's a COWARD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no issue with snipping, provided context is maintained. Sometimes, if I am only replying to a specific point of a long post, I'll snip it down to just the section I'm responding to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.
Click to expand...


stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic

as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...

cant do it


----------



## Murf76

Uncensored2008 said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taco Bell doesn't have the authority to write law or police powers with which to enforce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RW is a retard. He spews insane idiocy. He's reached the level of Mr. Shaman, where nothing he posts has any merit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All they can do is report somebody for breaking laws imposed by GOVERNMENT.  Now, if government is limited as intended by the Framers, the political class is not in a position to pick winners and losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can imagine a cop called by Taco Bell.
> 
> It's not even a criminal matter, cops don't enforce business license issue. Rightwinger is simply a retard, not for what he said, but for thinking anyone would believe his bullshit.
Click to expand...


Aww... I'm not bugged by RW.  I like to think guys like him are learning in spite of themselves, even if they can't admit it. 
Not to say that I don't have some  pointlessly belligerent lefties stuffed into the echo chamber of iggy already though.


----------



## Some Guy

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no issue with snipping, provided context is maintained. Sometimes, if I am only replying to a specific point of a long post, I'll snip it down to just the section I'm responding to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic
> 
> as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...
> 
> cant do it
Click to expand...


...and you can't seem to figure out where the shift button on your keyboard is.


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no issue with snipping, provided context is maintained. Sometimes, if I am only replying to a specific point of a long post, I'll snip it down to just the section I'm responding to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic
> 
> as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...
> 
> cant do it
Click to expand...

 


No whining. Just calling YOU OUT for your dishonesty. 

JACKASS CHILD


----------



## jillian

and?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic
> 
> as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...
> 
> cant do it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No whining. Just calling YOU OUT for your dishonesty.
> 
> JACKASS CHILD
Click to expand...


no, nothing dishonest, you do not and cannot (well maybe you could if you tried) think for yourself, you simply cannot be a middle class or lower middle class person and vote republiklan and insist that you think for yourself

absolutely impossible


----------



## mudwhistle

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no issue with snipping, provided context is maintained. Sometimes, if I am only replying to a specific point of a long post, I'll snip it down to just the section I'm responding to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic
> 
> as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...
> 
> cant do it
Click to expand...


Sock Puppet Alert!!!!!!!!!


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic
> 
> as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...
> 
> cant do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No whining. Just calling YOU OUT for your dishonesty.
> 
> JACKASS CHILD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, nothing dishonest, you do not and cannot (well maybe you could if you tried) think for yourself, you simply cannot be a middle class or lower middle class person and vote republiklan and insist that you think for yourself
> 
> absolutely impossible
Click to expand...

 
Son? I was defending this nation when you were a cell swimming around in your mommy.


----------



## The T

mudwhistle said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic
> 
> as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...
> 
> cant do it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sock Puppet Alert!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

 
yeah, I made that note a week ago.


----------



## Foxfyre

Gentlemen, please stop.  You have allowed a professional internet troll, probably a paid one, to derail the thread and thereby are allowing him a great deal of satisfaction and private snickering at how easily that is accomplished.

Let's refocus on the topic which is an excellent topic and has thus far generated some thought provoking discussion.  Our task is to educate minds full of mush.  We can't do that if we allow people to turn our thoughts any way they choose to do so.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> Gentlemen, please stop. You have allowed a professional internet troll, probably a paid one, to derail the thread and thereby are allowing him a great deal of satisfaction and private snickering at how easily that is accomplished.
> 
> Let's refocus on the topic which is an excellent topic and has thus far generating some thought provoking discussion. Our task is to educate minds full of mush. We can't do that if we allow people to turn our thoughts any way they choose to do so.


 
Fair enough.


----------



## Pho_King

Dante said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)*  Thank you Captain Obvious. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude. The chow line forms outside next to the latrine. As with earlier experiences with you, we must again insist you avoid drinking the latrine water.
> 
> *2)* Question: Do you know who the President's economic advisers are? Here's a clue: The President's Council of Economic Advisers *2a)* No one outside your imagination argues the government produces things the way you insist it does. *2b)* Governments print money. It's one of the reasons we have a Central Bank No reasonable, rational, and sane person argues getting rid of the Fed. *2c)* Nobody with any credibility argues the President and his economic team wants to get businesses to stop operating.
> 
> *3)* Lower income people pay their fair share. The tax breaks go to people like Willard Mitt Romney. It is one of the reasons I suspect he doesn't want to release more tax records. They will show how little he pays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of lower income people are _totally exempt from paying certain taxes simply by reason of their income_.  Talk about a tax break....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many wealthy people are exempt in ways that would embarrass them if word got out: Romney doesn't want Americans to see what he really pays after exemptions and shelters.
> 
> If you want to argue tax policy is legal .. D'Oh! The matter of the fact is many wealthy people and corporations complain about taxes they NEVER pay.
Click to expand...


Lots of poor people- OWS parasite types like you, also complain a.bout taxes theY never pay.


----------



## mudwhistle

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic
> 
> as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...
> 
> cant do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No whining. Just calling YOU OUT for your dishonesty.
> 
> JACKASS CHILD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, nothing dishonest, you do not and cannot (well maybe you could if you tried) think for yourself, you simply cannot be a middle class or lower middle class person and vote republiklan and insist that you think for yourself
> 
> absolutely impossible
Click to expand...


Illogical. 

Uh.....the fact that you can choose who you want to vote for means you're thinking for yourself rather than joining the rest of the Lemmings running over a cliff. It is the very expression of individuality rather than your Pack-mentality.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> and?



11:46 and you're already drunk to incoherence....


----------



## Foxfyre

Pho_King said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of lower income people are _totally exempt from paying certain taxes simply by reason of their income_.  Talk about a tax break....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many wealthy people are exempt in ways that would embarrass them if word got out: Romney doesn't want Americans to see what he really pays after exemptions and shelters.
> 
> If you want to argue tax policy is legal .. D'Oh! The matter of the fact is many wealthy people and corporations complain about taxes they NEVER pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of poor people- OWS parasite types like you, also complain a.bout taxes theY never pay.
Click to expand...


Still dragging the topic back onto the tracks here. . . .

Mitt Romney earned his millions.  Yes he was fortunate to be born into an affluent family and that family certainly gave him some values, work ethic, ability to obtain a top quality education, and probably some encouragement and tutoring on how to put it to work for fun and profit.  He did NOT keep ANY of his inheritance from his father, however, as he didn't need it so he gave it all away.  Probably proportionately he doesn't pay as much in taxes as he would pay if he were more middle class, but if he was more middle class he would not be running for high office because he would be focused on supporting his family.

So long as he is paying the taxes he owes, why should it matter to anybody how much in taxes he pays.  There is no suggestion he is cheating on his taxes.   You can be damn sure the IRS has looked at Romney's taxes very closely by now.

How is it NOT class warfare to try to diminish and smear him re what he pays in taxes?  Why are his accomplishments somehow less worthy than a rock star or movie actor or sports figure who also earn millions and millions of dollars?   Do you think the left would be clamoring for Oprah (last reported to be worth more than 2 billion) to open up years and years of her tax returns if she decided to run for high office?  Did they do that to John Kerry or ANY other affluent Democrat who has run for office?   The record would not suggest that they did.


----------



## Foxfyre

And how that is pertinent to the topic goes back to the President's remarks that would suggest that nobody who is really rich got there by any means other than with subsidy and help from others.


----------



## Pho_King

Foxfyre said:


> And how that is pertinent to the topic goes back to the President's remarks that would suggest that nobody who is really rich got there by any means other than with subsidy and help from others.



Because, in order for obammy to implement his utopian country where the ACA is a money makin machine, where rich people and businesses finally ay a fair share (which always means more), where artists don't have to worry about gainful employment, and where unicorns prance in verdant fields of poppies, he is gonna need a shitload mo' money.


----------



## mudwhistle

Obama is essentially saying Freedom Is Overrated.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many wealthy people are exempt in ways that would embarrass them if word got out: Romney doesn't want Americans to see what he really pays after exemptions and shelters.
> 
> If you want to argue tax policy is legal .. D'Oh! The matter of the fact is many wealthy people and corporations complain about taxes they NEVER pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of poor people- OWS parasite types like you, also complain a.bout taxes theY never pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still dragging the topic back onto the tracks here. . . .
> 
> Mitt Romney earned his millions. Yes he was fortunate to be born into an affluent family and that family certainly gave him some values, work ethic, ability to obtain a top quality education, and probably some encouragement and tutoring on how to put it to work for fun and profit. He did NOT keep ANY of his inheritance from his father, however, as he didn't need it so he gave it all away. Probably proportionately he doesn't pay as much in taxes as he would pay if he were more middle class, but if he was more middle class he would not be running for high office because he would be focused on supporting his family.
> 
> So long as he is paying the taxes he owes, why should it matter to anybody how much in taxes he pays. There is no suggestion he is cheating on his taxes. You can be damn sure the IRS has looked at Romney's taxes very closely by now.
> 
> How is it NOT class warfare to try to diminish and smear him re what he pays in taxes? Why are his accomplishments somehow less worthy than a rock star or movie actor or sports figure who also earn millions and millions of dollars? Do you think the left would be clamoring for Oprah (last reported to be worth more than 2 billion) to open up years and years of her tax returns if she decided to run for high office? Did they do that to John Kerry or ANY other affluent Democrat who has run for office? The record would not suggest that they did.
Click to expand...

 





So Obama saying Romneyis a Felon has zero traction. ALL of the bain attacks are debunked. Obama is out there still foisting it, repeating it...taking the Saul Alensky line...Repeat, rinse Repeat until belived.

it's backfiring.

YES the IRS would have now called FOUL.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pho_King said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how that is pertinent to the topic goes back to the President's remarks that would suggest that nobody who is really rich got there by any means other than with subsidy and help from others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, in order for obammy to implement his utopian country where the ACA is a money makin machine, where rich people and businesses finally ay a fair share (which always means more), where artists don't have to worry about gainful employment, and where unicorns prance in verdant fields of poppies, he is gonna need a shitload mo' money.
Click to expand...


The thing is, the taxes Obama wants to impose on the 'super rich' would run the government at most for a few days at the current rate of spending.  If he confiscated ALL the wealth of the top 5% of wage earners in the country, it would run the government for maybe a few weeks.  Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of jobs would go away or never be created throwing the country into far deeper deficits for as far as the eye can see.


----------



## Wiseacre

Foxfyre said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how that is pertinent to the topic goes back to the President's remarks that would suggest that nobody who is really rich got there by any means other than with subsidy and help from others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, in order for obammy to implement his utopian country where the ACA is a money makin machine, where rich people and businesses finally ay a fair share (which always means more), where artists don't have to worry about gainful employment, and where unicorns prance in verdant fields of poppies, he is gonna need a shitload mo' money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the taxes Obama wants to impose on the 'super rich' would run the government at most for a few days at the current rate of spending.  If he confiscated ALL the wealth of the top 5% of wage earners in the country, it would run the government for maybe a few weeks.  Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of jobs would go away or never be created throwing the country into far deeper deficits for as far as the eye can see.
Click to expand...



Obama says the extra revenue would go to paying down the debt.   I'll believe that when he says he'll freeze spending.   And then really does it.   Neither of which I'll be holding my breath for.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wiseacre said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, in order for obammy to implement his utopian country where the ACA is a money makin machine, where rich people and businesses finally ay a fair share (which always means more), where artists don't have to worry about gainful employment, and where unicorns prance in verdant fields of poppies, he is gonna need a shitload mo' money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, the taxes Obama wants to impose on the 'super rich' would run the government at most for a few days at the current rate of spending.  If he confiscated ALL the wealth of the top 5% of wage earners in the country, it would run the government for maybe a few weeks.  Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of jobs would go away or never be created throwing the country into far deeper deficits for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says the extra revenue would go to paying down the debt.   I'll believe that when he says he'll freeze spending.   And then really does it.   Neither of which I'll be holding my breath for.
Click to expand...


Even if he did that, the 'extra revenue', assuming there would be any, would at most reduce the deficit by a tiny percentage while the debt will continue to accumulate at a rate of more than a trillion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.

The amount Obama wants to take from the 'rich' would be like you or me paying $10 on a $10,000 credit card bill and then feeling proud of ourselves.  And that is assuming that the higher taxes do not diminish the amount of new employment/wages/benefits or other investment that would take money out of the economy elsewhere.   The rich did not get rich by just passively accepting losses and doing nothing to offset them.


----------



## The T

Wiseacre said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, in order for obammy to implement his utopian country where the ACA is a money makin machine, where rich people and businesses finally ay a fair share (which always means more), where artists don't have to worry about gainful employment, and where unicorns prance in verdant fields of poppies, he is gonna need a shitload mo' money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, the taxes Obama wants to impose on the 'super rich' would run the government at most for a few days at the current rate of spending. If he confiscated ALL the wealth of the top 5% of wage earners in the country, it would run the government for maybe a few weeks. Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of jobs would go away or never be created throwing the country into far deeper deficits for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama says the extra revenue would go to paying down the debt*. I'll believe that when he says he'll freeze spending. And then really does it. Neither of which I'll be holding my breath for.
Click to expand...

 
And Obama...the Democrats _still have YET to front a budget for that to even happen._


----------



## Murf76

Foxfyre said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, the taxes Obama wants to impose on the 'super rich' would run the government at most for a few days at the current rate of spending.  If he confiscated ALL the wealth of the top 5% of wage earners in the country, it would run the government for maybe a few weeks.  Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of jobs would go away or never be created throwing the country into far deeper deficits for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says the extra revenue would go to paying down the debt.   I'll believe that when he says he'll freeze spending.   And then really does it.   Neither of which I'll be holding my breath for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if he did that, the 'extra revenue', assuming there would be any, would at most reduce the defifict by a tiny percentage while the debt will continue to accumulate at a rate of more than a tirllion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> The amount Obama wants to take from the 'rich' would be like you or me paying $10 on a $10,000 credit card bull and then feeling proud of ourselves.  And that is assuming that the higher taxes do not diminish the amount of new employment/wages/benefits or other investment that would take money out of the economy elsewhere.   The rich did not get rich by just passively accepting losses and doing nothing to offset them.
Click to expand...


Which is how we know this is nothing but a political game from Team Obama.  Well, that and the fact that they could've passed ANYTHING THEY WANTED back in 2009 when Dems had a supermajority, but didn't.

How people get taken in by the likes of Barack Obama I will never understand.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> And how that is pertinent to the topic goes back to the President's remarks that would suggest that nobody who is really *rich got there by any means other than* with subsidy and help from others.


Obama suggested no such thing, you got that from the crap your MessiahRushie filled your "skull full of mush" with.


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, the taxes Obama wants to impose on the 'super rich' would run the government at most for a few days at the current rate of spending. If he confiscated ALL the wealth of the top 5% of wage earners in the country, it would run the government for maybe a few weeks. Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of jobs would go away or never be created throwing the country into far deeper deficits for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama says the extra revenue would go to paying down the debt*. I'll believe that when he says he'll freeze spending. And then really does it. Neither of which I'll be holding my breath for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Obama...the Democrats _still have YET to front a budget for that to even happen._
Click to expand...


Yup.  Our fearless leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, is on notice he doesn't plan to pass one either.  As long as we keep raising the debt ceiling, he says that is the budget and we don't need anything else.  And what do you want to bet that the people of Nevada will elect him again.


----------



## The T

Murf76 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says the extra revenue would go to paying down the debt. I'll believe that when he says he'll freeze spending. And then really does it. Neither of which I'll be holding my breath for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he did that, the 'extra revenue', assuming there would be any, would at most reduce the defifict by a tiny percentage while the debt will continue to accumulate at a rate of more than a tirllion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> The amount Obama wants to take from the 'rich' would be like you or me paying $10 on a $10,000 credit card bull and then feeling proud of ourselves. And that is assuming that the higher taxes do not diminish the amount of new employment/wages/benefits or other investment that would take money out of the economy elsewhere. The rich did not get rich by just passively accepting losses and doing nothing to offset them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is how we know this is nothing but a political game from Team Obama. Well, that and the fact that they could've passed ANYTHING THEY WANTED back in 2009 when Dems had a supermajority, but didn't.
> 
> How people get taken in by the likes of Barack Obama I will never understand.
Click to expand...

 
Education and thinking process. Stress education. WE have stupid people voting.


----------



## Foxfyre

Murf76 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says the extra revenue would go to paying down the debt.   I'll believe that when he says he'll freeze spending.   And then really does it.   Neither of which I'll be holding my breath for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he did that, the 'extra revenue', assuming there would be any, would at most reduce the defifict by a tiny percentage while the debt will continue to accumulate at a rate of more than a tirllion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> The amount Obama wants to take from the 'rich' would be like you or me paying $10 on a $10,000 credit card bull and then feeling proud of ourselves.  And that is assuming that the higher taxes do not diminish the amount of new employment/wages/benefits or other investment that would take money out of the economy elsewhere.   The rich did not get rich by just passively accepting losses and doing nothing to offset them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is how we know this is nothing but a political game from Team Obama.  Well, that and the fact that they could've passed ANYTHING THEY WANTED back in 2009 when Dems had a supermajority, but didn't.
> 
> How people get taken in by the likes of Barack Obama I will never understand.
Click to expand...


Sure they passed stuff.  They passed Obamacare which is a major factor in those things that are crippling the economy.  They passed a huge enormous budget busting pork laden appropriations bill and then they said that was the last of George Bush's budget and therefore that was HIS fault.   They translated the last half of the TARP funds into President Obama's own personal petty cash fund to be used again and again to pay off his cronies.  And they passed a stimulus bill totaling more than the U.S. government should be spending for everything, and that has produced almost none of the benefits that it was supposed to produce.   And we are facing trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

But by gosh government is apparently the only reason Mr. Foxfyre and I were able to start and operate a profitable business and therefore we should be groveling in gratitude.  Fearless leader himself provided us with all that apparently, though I seem to recall paying a shitload in taxes in the process and don't recall anybody giving us a dime that we didn't earn.  Nor did we work for or get paid by the government at any time.

People who buy into Obama's lines have likely never in their lives started up and run a business in the private sector.  They honestly believe as Obama does that the people are incapable of governing themselves and must have a a nanny state to take care of them.  And they are too ignorant to wrap their minds around a concept of how much a trillion dollar deficit really is.


----------



## Murf76

I





The T said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he did that, the 'extra revenue', assuming there would be any, would at most reduce the defifict by a tiny percentage while the debt will continue to accumulate at a rate of more than a tirllion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> The amount Obama wants to take from the 'rich' would be like you or me paying $10 on a $10,000 credit card bull and then feeling proud of ourselves. And that is assuming that the higher taxes do not diminish the amount of new employment/wages/benefits or other investment that would take money out of the economy elsewhere. The rich did not get rich by just passively accepting losses and doing nothing to offset them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is how we know this is nothing but a political game from Team Obama. Well, that and the fact that they could've passed ANYTHING THEY WANTED back in 2009 when Dems had a supermajority, but didn't.
> 
> How people get taken in by the likes of Barack Obama I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education and thinking process. Stress education. WE have stupid people voting.
Click to expand...


Well, I do think we've got an education problem in this country.  We're not really developing critical thinking skills.  It's just a matter of connecting the dots here.  Obama's rhetoric doesn't match his deeds.  If the salvaging of our economy really was raising taxes on the so-called "rich"... why didn't he do that when he had ample opportunity to do so?  
Further, math doesn't lie.  We all know that he  could confiscate ALL of the wealth from people making over $250,000 per year and not cover current spending.  He knows that the top 20% of earners are paying 94% of the income tax.

So, he's LYING to the American people.  He's LYING to his own supporters.  And they're still unaccountably supporting him.  It's astounding.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama says the extra revenue would go to paying down the debt*. I'll believe that when he says he'll freeze spending. And then really does it. Neither of which I'll be holding my breath for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Obama...the Democrats _still have YET to front a budget for that to even happen._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Our fearless leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, is on notice he doesn't plan to pass one either. As long as we keep raising the debt ceiling, he says that is the budget and we don't need anything else. And what do you want to bet that the people of Nevada will elect him again.
Click to expand...

 
Reid and OBAMA..(and the rest of the left) including the FED RESERVE know Austerity is coming. WHY are they trying to stave off the enevitable?

EASY. To keep thier guy in office.

The flood is coming. Republicans (Paul RYAN), and others have crafted plans that have been voted upon in the House, and passed that Reid has shelved...and all for what? To BLAME the Republicans that aren't in power?

THIS is going to smack the Deomcrat/Statists in the face...in short order.


----------



## Murf76

Foxfyre said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he did that, the 'extra revenue', assuming there would be any, would at most reduce the defifict by a tiny percentage while the debt will continue to accumulate at a rate of more than a tirllion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> The amount Obama wants to take from the 'rich' would be like you or me paying $10 on a $10,000 credit card bull and then feeling proud of ourselves.  And that is assuming that the higher taxes do not diminish the amount of new employment/wages/benefits or other investment that would take money out of the economy elsewhere.   The rich did not get rich by just passively accepting losses and doing nothing to offset them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is how we know this is nothing but a political game from Team Obama.  Well, that and the fact that they could've passed ANYTHING THEY WANTED back in 2009 when Dems had a supermajority, but didn't.
> 
> How people get taken in by the likes of Barack Obama I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they passed stuff.  They passed Obamacare which is a major factor in those things that are crippling the economy.  They passed a huge enormous budget busting pork laden appropriations bill and then they said that was the last of George Bush's budget and therefore that was HIS fault.   They translated the last half of the TARP funds into President Obama's own personal petty cash fund to be used again and again to pay off his cronies.  And they passed a stimulus bill totaling more than the U.S. government should be spending for everything, and that has produced almost none of the benefits that it was supposed to produce.   And we are facing trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
> 
> But by gosh government is apparently the only reason Mr. Foxfyre and I were able to start and operate a profitable business and therefore we should be groveling in gratitude.  Fearless leader himself provided us with all that apparently, though I seem to recall paying a shitload in taxes in the process and don't recall anybody giving us a dime that we didn't earn.  Nor did we work for or get paid by the government at any time.
> 
> People who buy into Obama's lines have likely never in their lives started up and run a business in the private sector.  They honestly believe as Obama does that the people are incapable of governing themselves and must have a a nanny state to take care of them.  And they are too ignorant to wrap their minds around a concept of how much a trillion dollar deficit really is.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you're right.  They DID pass some stuff.  Seems to me the question his supporters should be asking right about now is "why didn't he tax the rich while he was doing it?"  We couldn't have stopped him, no more than we could stop all that other crap they passed.


----------



## Foxfyre

Because if they had taxed the rich then, THEY would have been blamed for raising taxes.  Now they can blame the Republicans for a) raising taxes or b) stubbornly refusing to do so.  It's a win win for them either way.


----------



## Murf76

Foxfyre said:


> Because if they had taxed the rich then, THEY would have been blamed for raising taxes.  Now they can blame the Republicans for a) raising taxes or b) stubbornly refusing to do so.  It's a win win for them either way.



Exactly.  It was NEVER about the taxes.  It was ALWAYS about the politics.


----------



## mudwhistle

The T said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he did that, the 'extra revenue', assuming there would be any, would at most reduce the defifict by a tiny percentage while the debt will continue to accumulate at a rate of more than a tirllion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> The amount Obama wants to take from the 'rich' would be like you or me paying $10 on a $10,000 credit card bull and then feeling proud of ourselves. And that is assuming that the higher taxes do not diminish the amount of new employment/wages/benefits or other investment that would take money out of the economy elsewhere. The rich did not get rich by just passively accepting losses and doing nothing to offset them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is how we know this is nothing but a political game from Team Obama. Well, that and the fact that they could've passed ANYTHING THEY WANTED back in 2009 when Dems had a supermajority, but didn't.
> 
> How people get taken in by the likes of Barack Obama I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education and thinking process. Stress education. WE have stupid people voting.
Click to expand...


I think you should have to take a test to vote. 
I can see what Obamabots answers to these questions would be:


How many states are there - 57
What language do they speak in Austria - Austrian
If you have asthma what do you use - A breathilizer
What is the greatest threat to America today - Fox News
What is the second greatest threat - The Tea Party
What is your goal in life - To collect unemployment
Is the Daily Show real news - Absolutely 
Is Barack Obama honest - No, but does it matter?


----------



## del

The T said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he did that, the 'extra revenue', assuming there would be any, would at most reduce the defifict by a tiny percentage while the debt will continue to accumulate at a rate of more than a tirllion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> The amount Obama wants to take from the 'rich' would be like you or me paying $10 on a $10,000 credit card bull and then feeling proud of ourselves. And that is assuming that the higher taxes do not diminish the amount of new employment/wages/benefits or other investment that would take money out of the economy elsewhere. The rich did not get rich by just passively accepting losses and doing nothing to offset them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is how we know this is nothing but a political game from Team Obama. Well, that and the fact that they could've passed ANYTHING THEY WANTED back in 2009 when Dems had a supermajority, but didn't.
> 
> How people get taken in by the likes of Barack Obama I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education and thinking process. Stress education. *WE have stupid people voting*.
Click to expand...


^

QED



lol


----------



## ConzHateUSA

mudwhistle said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is how we know this is nothing but a political game from Team Obama. Well, that and the fact that they could've passed ANYTHING THEY WANTED back in 2009 when Dems had a supermajority, but didn't.
> 
> How people get taken in by the likes of Barack Obama I will never understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education and thinking process. Stress education. WE have stupid people voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you should have to take a test to vote.
> I can see what Obamabots answers to these questions would be:
> 
> 
> How many states are there - 57
> What language do they speak in Austria - Austrian
> If you have asthma what do you use - A breathilizer
> What is the greatest threat to America today - Fox News
> What is the second greatest threat - The Tea Party
> What is your goal in life - To collect unemployment
> Is the Daily Show real news - Absolutely
> Is Barack Obama honest - No, but does it matter?
Click to expand...


Maybe we should have to own property too?


----------



## Uncensored2008

del said:


> ^
> 
> QED
> 
> 
> 
> lol



I'd use you as an example of stupid people voting del, except I know you never get off your ass and actually mail the absentee ballot in. You hit the bong and bitch, but voting takes effort...


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> Maybe we should have to own property too?



Make a valid argument against it?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Uncensored2008 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should have to own property too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make a valid argument against it?
Click to expand...


And now we see the true agenda, problem is idiots like this poster will soon no longer own property when his owners, the oligarchs, take it all

idiot


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> And now we see the true agenda, problem is idiots like this poster will soon no longer own property when his owners, the oligarchs, take it all
> 
> idiot



DailyKOS hasn't programmed you with an argument against requiring property to vote?

The argument in favor is that of "Stake Holders." Those who own property have a stake in the nation, those who don't, don't.

See if you can wrap both your IQ points around that concept.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Uncensored2008 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now we see the true agenda, problem is idiots like this poster will soon no longer own property when his owners, the oligarchs, take it all
> 
> idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DailyKOS hasn't programmed you with an argument against requiring property to vote?
> 
> The argument in favor is that of "Stake Holders." Those who own property have a stake in the nation, those who don't, don't.
> 
> See if you can wrap both your IQ points around that concept.
Click to expand...


I think you are in the wrong country


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> I think you are in the wrong country



I think you're mentally retarded - actually, I know that you're mentally retarded.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how that is pertinent to the topic goes back to the President's remarks that would suggest that nobody who is really rich got there by any means other than with subsidy and help from others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, in order for obammy to implement his utopian country where the ACA is a money makin machine, where rich people and businesses finally ay a fair share (which always means more), where artists don't have to worry about gainful employment, and where unicorns prance in verdant fields of poppies, he is gonna need a shitload mo' money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, the taxes Obama wants to impose on the 'super rich' would run the government at most for a few days at the current rate of spending. * If he confiscated ALL the wealth of the top 5%* of wage earners in the country, it would run the government for maybe a few weeks.  Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of jobs would go away or never be created throwing the country into far deeper deficits for as far as the eye can see.
Click to expand...

Well, let's examine the stupidity of such a statement. The total Wealth of everyone in the USA is over 50 trillion. The top 1%, not the top 5%, have 40% of the wealth which is 20 trillion, which is certainly enough to run the country for more than a few weeks, even at the rate Republicans spend money.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

I understand you are frustrated with me, you cant win a single argument with me, nor could you with any decent human being on the planet, because you start from a position of hate, intolerance, bigotry and ignorance...

not my opinion, this is known to all, but you


----------



## ConzHateUSA

edthecynic said:


> even at the rate Republicans spend money.



One of the great lies and propaganda achievements, these idiot conz actually think it is the dems who tax and spend


----------



## GuyPinestra

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now they loathe literature, no surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, stupid...just Certain usual suspects. Some of us have minds of our own and can think for ourselves,_ differentiate_ between REAL and fantasy, and aren't so quick to "go with the flow...and aren't part of the 'Cult Of Personailty' Like _*you*_ ignat.
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0"]Living Colour - Cult Of Personality - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I absolutely LOVE that song!! Thanks!


----------



## Foxfyre

ConzHateUSA said:


> I understand you are frustrated with me, you cant win a single argument with me, nor could you with any decent human being on the planet, because you start from a position of hate, intolerance, bigotry and ignorance...
> 
> not my opinion, this is known to all, but you



You need to check your assigned talking points.  You've already used that line a couple of times and if you keep it up, it will be less effective in derailing the thread.


----------



## edthecynic

ConzHateUSA said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> even at the rate Republicans spend money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the great lies and propaganda achievements, these idiot conz actually think it is the dems who tax and spend
Click to expand...

Actually the Dems do TAX and spend, but we are in debt because the Republicans BORROW and spend.


----------



## mudwhistle

ConzHateUSA said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> even at the rate Republicans spend money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the great lies and propaganda achievements, these idiot conz actually think it is the dems who tax and spend
Click to expand...


Yup.....you're retarded.


----------



## Foxfyre

Will concede that Ed is right.  If you confiscated all the wealth of the 400 richest Americans it would pay off this year's deficit.  And if you confiscated all the wealth of those Obama wants to tax, it would make a significant dent in the debt.   However you would also destroy roughly half of the income producing businesses in the country and that would certainly throw us into a depression from which we would likely never recover.

I should have said that confiscating all the INCOME of the richest Americans would only run the government for a short while at the current rate of spending.

Ed hasn't noticed that the Republicans have not been in charge of spending for roughly six years now.

And yet the economy remains in limbo and unemployment remains unacceptably high.

Wouldn't you think all that spending would have fixed the economy by now if government was what makes the economy run and allows all those businesses to do business?  Without governmen help,t they wouldn't exist?  That is what Fearless Leader seems to want us to believe.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> Will concede that Ed is right. If you confiscated all the wealth of the 400 richest Americans it would pay off this year's deficit. And if you confiscated all the wealth of those Obama wants to tax, it would make a significant dent in the debt. However you would also destroy roughly half of the income producing businesses in the country and that would certainly throw us into a depression from which we would likely never recover.
> 
> I should have said that confiscating all the INCOME of the richest Americans would only run the government for a short while at the current rate of spending.
> 
> Ed hasn't noticed that the Republicans have not been in charge of spending for roughly six years now.
> 
> And yet the economy remains in limbo and unemployment remains unacceptably high.
> 
> Wouldn't you think all that spending would have fixed the economy by now if government was what makes the economy run and allows all those businesses to do business? Without governmen help,t they wouldn't exist? That is what Fearless Leader seems to want us to believe.


 
NO Government has EVER spent themselves into prosperity on the people's dime.

A lesson through history that has YET to be learned.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Spending your way out of debt is like standing in a bucket and picking yourself up by the handle.


----------



## Old Rocks

The T said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he did that, the 'extra revenue', assuming there would be any, would at most reduce the defifict by a tiny percentage while the debt will continue to accumulate at a rate of more than a tirllion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> The amount Obama wants to take from the 'rich' would be like you or me paying $10 on a $10,000 credit card bull and then feeling proud of ourselves. And that is assuming that the higher taxes do not diminish the amount of new employment/wages/benefits or other investment that would take money out of the economy elsewhere. The rich did not get rich by just passively accepting losses and doing nothing to offset them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is how we know this is nothing but a political game from Team Obama. Well, that and the fact that they could've passed ANYTHING THEY WANTED back in 2009 when Dems had a supermajority, but didn't.
> 
> How people get taken in by the likes of Barack Obama I will never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education and thinking process. Stress education. WE have stupid people voting.
Click to expand...


Good point. However, being in a kind frame of mind, you may continue to vote.


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will concede that Ed is right. If you confiscated all the wealth of the 400 richest Americans it would pay off this year's deficit. And if you confiscated all the wealth of those Obama wants to tax, it would make a significant dent in the debt. However you would also destroy roughly half of the income producing businesses in the country and that would certainly throw us into a depression from which we would likely never recover.
> 
> I should have said that confiscating all the INCOME of the richest Americans would only run the government for a short while at the current rate of spending.
> 
> Ed hasn't noticed that the Republicans have not been in charge of spending for roughly six years now.
> 
> And yet the economy remains in limbo and unemployment remains unacceptably high.
> 
> Wouldn't you think all that spending would have fixed the economy by now if government was what makes the economy run and allows all those businesses to do business? Without governmen help,t they wouldn't exist? That is what Fearless Leader seems to want us to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO Government has EVER spent themselves into prosperity on the people's dime.
> 
> A lesson through history that has YET to be learned.
Click to expand...


The modern day Keynesians and Marxists sure haven't learned it for sure.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will concede that Ed is right. If you confiscated all the wealth of the 400 richest Americans it would pay off this year's deficit. And if you confiscated all the wealth of those Obama wants to tax, it would make a significant dent in the debt. However you would also destroy roughly half of the income producing businesses in the country and that would certainly throw us into a depression from which we would likely never recover.
> 
> I should have said that confiscating all the INCOME of the richest Americans would only run the government for a short while at the current rate of spending.
> 
> Ed hasn't noticed that the Republicans have not been in charge of spending for roughly six years now.
> 
> And yet the economy remains in limbo and unemployment remains unacceptably high.
> 
> Wouldn't you think all that spending would have fixed the economy by now if government was what makes the economy run and allows all those businesses to do business? Without governmen help,t they wouldn't exist? That is what Fearless Leader seems to want us to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO Government has EVER spent themselves into prosperity on the people's dime.
> 
> A lesson through history that has YET to be learned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The modern day Keynesians and Marxists sure haven't learned it for sure.
Click to expand...

 
NOPE. But they continue the 'Blame game'.


----------



## bripat9643

edthecynic said:


> Well, let's examine the stupidity of such a statement. The total Wealth of everyone in the USA is over 50 trillion. The top 1%, not the top 5%, have 40% of the wealth which is 20 trillion, which is certainly enough to run the country for more than a few weeks, even at the rate Republicans spend money.



Source?


----------



## bripat9643

ConzHateUSA said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> even at the rate Republicans spend money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the great lies and propaganda achievements, these idiot conz actually think it is the dems who tax and spend
Click to expand...



Only the severely brain damaged believe otherwise.

Democrats lobby for higher taxes and more spending 24/7.


----------



## Darkwind

ConzHateUSA said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education and thinking process. Stress education. WE have stupid people voting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should have to take a test to vote.
> I can see what Obamabots answers to these questions would be:
> 
> 
> How many states are there - 57
> What language do they speak in Austria - Austrian
> If you have asthma what do you use - A breathilizer
> What is the greatest threat to America today - Fox News
> What is the second greatest threat - The Tea Party
> What is your goal in life - To collect unemployment
> Is the Daily Show real news - Absolutely
> Is Barack Obama honest - No, but does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe we should have to own property too?
Click to expand...

Given that people who own property have a vested interest in making sure that government remains retsricted while America prospers, its an idea.

However, I would say no to having to own property.

I would say that if you get a government check for your subsistence, you should be barred from voting until such time as you can support yourself and/or any and all people who depend upon you.


----------



## Darkwind

ConzHateUSA said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> even at the rate Republicans spend money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the great lies and propaganda achievements, these idiot conz actually think it is the dems who tax and spend
Click to expand...

You are correct.


They spend first, and then demand that the rich pay their fair share of the new spending.


----------



## bripat9643

ConzHateUSA said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education and thinking process. Stress education. WE have stupid people voting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should have to take a test to vote.
> I can see what Obamabots answers to these questions would be:
> 
> 
> How many states are there - 57
> What language do they speak in Austria - Austrian
> If you have asthma what do you use - A breathilizer
> What is the greatest threat to America today - Fox News
> What is the second greatest threat - The Tea Party
> What is your goal in life - To collect unemployment
> Is the Daily Show real news - Absolutely
> Is Barack Obama honest - No, but does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe we should have to own property too?
Click to expand...


I agree.  At the very least, people who get checks from the government shouldn't be allowed to vote.


----------



## bripat9643

ConzHateUSA said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should have to own property too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make a valid argument against it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now we see the true agenda, problem is idiots like this poster will soon no longer own property when his owners, the oligarchs, take it all
> 
> idiot
Click to expand...


Just as I thought, no valid argument.


----------



## The T

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's examine the stupidity of such a statement. The total Wealth of everyone in the USA is over 50 trillion. The top 1%, not the top 5%, have 40% of the wealth which is 20 trillion, which is certainly enough to run the country for more than a few weeks, even at the rate Republicans spend money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...

 




"Edith" is a DINGBAT hung up on Limbaugh and Liberalism... Grain of salt, friend...​


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Darkwind said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should have to take a test to vote.
> I can see what Obamabots answers to these questions would be:
> 
> 
> How many states are there - 57
> What language do they speak in Austria - Austrian
> If you have asthma what do you use - A breathilizer
> What is the greatest threat to America today - Fox News
> What is the second greatest threat - The Tea Party
> What is your goal in life - To collect unemployment
> Is the Daily Show real news - Absolutely
> Is Barack Obama honest - No, but does it matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should have to own property too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that people who own property have a vested interest in making sure that government remains retsricted while America prospers, its an idea.
> 
> However, I would say no to having to own property.
> 
> I would say that if you get a government check for your subsistence, you should be barred from voting until such time as you can support yourself and/or any and all people who depend upon you.
Click to expand...



keep posting you guys, you hate democracy, we knew that, but when you come right out and say it, helps

we need the rest of the planet to know beyond any doubt who hates democracy, the tea party, that is who...


----------



## GuyPinestra

ConzHateUSA said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should have to own property too?
> 
> 
> 
> Given that people who own property have a vested interest in making sure that government remains retsricted while America prospers, its an idea.
> 
> However, I would say no to having to own property.
> 
> I would say that if you get a government check for your subsistence, you should be barred from voting until such time as you can support yourself and/or any and all people who depend upon you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep posting you guys, you hate democracy, we knew that, but when you come right out and say it, helps
> 
> we need the rest of the planet to know beyond any doubt who hates democracy, the tea party, that is who...
Click to expand...


We don't live in a democracy, dingleberry...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

yes we do moron...i know, you hate the democracy we live in and pretend it is something else

but you are wrong...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Romney needs to pound this issue, repeatedly and incessantly. America needs to understand that Obama serves ONLY the unions. If you're not a public employee, if you aren't in the UAW, if you don't belong to SEIU, then Barack Obama is against you.

If you work 20 hours a day creating a business, then Obama views you as greedy, and not paying your fair share. He views any success you have as a favor from him and the government. If you own a business, then Barack Obama says that HE, not you, determine the success of that business. If you make it, it's only because he let you.

Tell Obama that you are the reason that your business succeeds, and you are the reason that he will be leaving office in January.


----------



## LilOlLady

bripat9643 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should have to take a test to vote.
> I can see what Obamabots answers to these questions would be:
> 
> 
> How many states are there - 57
> What language do they speak in Austria - Austrian
> If you have asthma what do you use - A breathilizer
> What is the greatest threat to America today - Fox News
> What is the second greatest threat - The Tea Party
> What is your goal in life - To collect unemployment
> Is the Daily Show real news - Absolutely
> Is Barack Obama honest - No, but does it matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should have to own property too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  At the very least, people who get checks from the government shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...


All Americans benefit from our government in some way if not by a check. At least an aptitude test which would eliminate most of you one this message board.


----------



## LilOlLady

The T said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's examine the stupidity of such a statement. The total Wealth of everyone in the USA is over 50 trillion. The top 1%, not the top 5%, have 40% of the wealth which is 20 trillion, which is certainly enough to run the country for more than a few weeks, even at the rate Republicans spend money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Edith" is a DINGBAT hung up on Limbaugh and Liberalism... Grain of salt, friend...​
Click to expand...


The drug addict Rush calling Obama a dope addict?


----------



## Uncensored2008

LilOlLady said:


> All Americans benefit from our government in some way if not by a check. At least an aptitude test which would eliminate most of you one this message board.



An aptitude test in what? Worship of Obama?

An aptitude test in basic civics, such as knowing the difference between a democracy and a representative republic, basic finance, the need for budgets and accounting for variances, and aptitude in basic economics, what is a monetary supply, what are revenue streams, etc. would exclude virtually all on the left.

That would be a good thing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

LilOlLady said:


> The drug addict Rush calling Obama a dope addict?



You realize that Oxycontin isn't psychoactive, don't you?

You understand that Cocaine is extremely psychoactive, and is in fact (wrongly) classified as a narcotic, don't you?

You realize how stupid you've revealed yourself to be, don't you?


----------



## jillian

Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet... 

he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers

he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.

he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...

mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.



Tell us how you really feel, Jillian. Don't hold back. 

I thought his show was great today.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

jillian said:


> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.



Goebbels would be proud of Rush and Karl...

only in America could someone so full of hate and propaganda and lies as these two are be not only free but successful..


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Romney needs to pound this issue, repeatedly and incessantly. America needs to understand that Obama serves ONLY the unions. If you're not a public employee, if you aren't in the UAW, if you don't belong to SEIU, then Barack Obama is against you.
> 
> If you work 20 hours a day creating a business, then Obama views you as greedy, and not paying your fair share. He views any success you have as a favor from him and the government. If you own a business, then Barack Obama says that HE, not you, determine the success of that business. If you make it, it's only because he let you.
> 
> Tell Obama that you are the reason that your business succeeds, and you are the reason that he will be leaving office in January.



Fuck you're a moron...seriously

A sound-bite moron...


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The drug addict Rush calling Obama a dope addict?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that Oxycontin isn't psychoactive, don't you?
> 
> You understand that Cocaine is extremely psychoactive, and is in fact (wrongly) classified as a narcotic, don't you?
> 
> You realize how stupid you've revealed yourself to be, don't you?
Click to expand...


Some of the street names for OxyContin include Oxy, O.C., killer and hillbilly heroin...

Again, moron...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

are these rabid racist pigs now talking about the couple of times Obama may have used cocaine 30 yrs ago


LOL
LOL

hey baggers, while you were getting old, fat, and really really white, the rest of the planet was growing up


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.



You don't need to be self-hating, Jillian.

You've got people to do that for you... Like everyone on the planet..


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Fuck you're a moron...seriously
> 
> A sound-bite moron...



I'll type more slowly so you can follow along, Gump.


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you're a moron...seriously
> 
> A sound-bite moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll type more slowly so you can follow along, Gump.
Click to expand...


You can type as slowly as you like No Sense, it won't make you any smarter...


----------



## BDBoop

jillian said:


> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.



And now ignorant bigots are looking up to Archie Bunker?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Some of the street names for OxyContin include Oxy, O.C., killer and hillbilly heroin...
> 
> Again, moron...



And your point, shit fer brains?

Oxycontin (oxycodone) is a denatured opiate. Unlike Vicodin, Morphine, Codeine, et al, it is altered to remove or greatly reduce to euphoric effects of opiates.

Originally touted by Lilly as a "safe" pain medication, Oxy turned out to be quite addictive, even though the user never gets high.


----------



## Dr Grump

BDBoop said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now ignorant bigots are looking up to Archie Bunker?
Click to expand...


And that Joe McCarthy is misunderstood and really a hero..

..and that FDR was a douche ...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> You can type as slowly as you like No Sense, it won't make you any smarter...



True, but it might help really dumb people like you follow along....


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the street names for OxyContin include Oxy, O.C., killer and hillbilly heroin...
> 
> Again, moron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point, shit fer brains?
> 
> Oxycontin (oxycodone) is a denatured opiate. Unlike Vicodin, Morphine, Codeine, et al, it is altered to remove or greatly reduce to euphoric effects of opiates.
> 
> Originally touted by Lilly as a "safe" pain medication, Oxy turned out to be quite addictive, even though the user never gets high.
Click to expand...


It's addictive..that is my point Dumb arse


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can type as slowly as you like No Sense, it won't make you any smarter...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but it might help really dumb people like you follow along....
Click to expand...


Not if you keep typing drivel....


----------



## Mac1958

ConzHateUSA said:


> are these rabid racist pigs now talking about the couple of times Obama may have used cocaine 30 yrs ago
> 
> 
> LOL
> LOL
> 
> hey baggers, while you were getting old, fat, and really really white, the rest of the planet was growing up





I know this is a crazy question, but what does using cocaine have to do with race?

.


----------



## Oldstyle

ConzHateUSA said:


> are these rabid racist pigs now talking about the couple of times Obama may have used cocaine 30 yrs ago
> 
> 
> LOL
> LOL
> 
> hey baggers, while you were getting old, fat, and really really white, the rest of the planet was growing up



Actually I brought up the sleazy real estate deal that Obama got into with convicted felon Tony Rezko...but every liberal on this site avoided THAT one like they were Superman and my post was Kryptonite.  Would "you" care to defend Obama on that, Conz?


----------



## Intense

Dr Grump said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can type as slowly as you like No Sense, it won't make you any smarter...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but it might help really dumb people like you follow along....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you keep typing drivel....
Click to expand...


You are definitely the authority on drivel.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

In fact, the rich do get their on their own, i.e., in voluntary peaceful free capitalist transactions that they "on their own" initiated and completed.  

What BO wants is to violently interfere with or reverse the peaceful voluntary free Republican capitalist transactions that people initiated and completed on their own and steal money from the rich!

Is this liberal socialist Nazi Fascist monarchial despotic attitude really American or anti American as you would expect from someone who had 2 communist and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders ?


----------



## Chris

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> In fact, the rich do get their on their own, i.e., in voluntary peaceful free capitalist transactions that they "on their own" initiated and completed.
> 
> What BO wants is to violently interfere with or reverse the peaceful voluntary free Republican capitalist transactions and steal money from the rich!
> 
> Is this liberal socialist Nazi Fascist monarchial despotic attitude really American or anti American as you would expect from someone who had 2 communist and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders ?



Bernie Sanders understands capitalism much better than you do.

What a silly post.


----------



## Google

The man currently occupying the White House has to conceal and manipulate what he believes.  This is generally true of any liberal running for national office--the more that he is honest about his views the more the American people will reject this communist far-leftist ideology.


----------



## MuadDib

Dr Grump said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, business man, ran a tobacco company
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With slaves.
> Next
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> George Washington, business man, ran a cotton company and a textile empire
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With slaves
> 
> Now, you were saying about being dumb....
Click to expand...


And they built the US Capitol building...with slaves.

What's your point? Slaves helped build a nation?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

In fact, the rich do get their on their own, i.e., in voluntary peaceful free capitalist transactions that they "on their own" initiated and completed.  


What BO wants is to violently interfere with or reverse the peaceful voluntary free Republican capitalist transactions and steal money from the rich!

Is this liberal socialist Nazi Fascist monarchial despotic attitude really American?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Eddy, several other rw''s have already told this lie. Why don't you check out those threads. 

Or, just for fun, try telling the friggin truth for a change.


----------



## Google

The most absurd aspect of this story is how Media Matters is trying to spin it--saying that quoting Obama is taking him out of context that obviously he just meant that people built roads and what not.

Remember in 2008 when Obama said he was going to fundamentally transform America, and then in his recent communist speech he said that America was a wonderful system that allowed people to prosper--was he lying then or now???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

They all took roads and bridges and had teachers. So then, that is an argument that we should steal money from all of them??

How does BO make it into an argument that government should just steal from the rich??


----------



## Dr Grump

Intense said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but it might help really dumb people like you follow along....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you keep typing drivel....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are definitely the authority on drivel.
Click to expand...


Yet still can't hold a handle to you and your peanut gallery in that dept.

Go figure...


----------



## Lakhota

Romney Agrees With Obama: Government Does 'Help You In A Business' | ThinkProgress


----------



## Dr Grump

MuadDib said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, business man, ran a tobacco company
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With slaves.
> Next
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> George Washington, business man, ran a cotton company and a textile empire
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With slaves
> 
> Now, you were saying about being dumb....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they built the US Capitol building...with slaves.
> 
> What's your point? Slaves helped build a nation?
Click to expand...


If you read the whole thread that you quoted you will know my point.

And no, that is not my point...


----------



## Dr Grump

Google said:


> The most absurd aspect of this story is how Media Matters is trying to spin it--saying that quoting Obama is taking him out of context that obviously he just meant that people built roads and what not.
> 
> Remember in 2008 when Obama said he was going to fundamentally transform America, and then in his recent communist speech he said that America was a wonderful system that allowed people to prosper--was he lying then or now???



The most absurd thing about this thread is that the OP is not true....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

luddly.neddite said:


> Eddy, several other rw''s have already told this lie. Why don't you check out those threads.
> 
> Or, just for fun, try telling the friggin truth for a change.



of course if not the truth why are you so afraid to point out your best example? What does your fear tell you about liberalism, your character and IQ?


----------



## GuyPinestra

ConzHateUSA said:


> yes we do moron...i know, you hate the democracy we live in and pretend it is something else
> 
> but you are wrong...



Thank you for once again demonstrating the depths of your stupidity...


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> They all took roads and bridges and had teachers. So then, that is an argument that we should steal money from all of them??
> 
> How does BO make it into an argument that government should just steal from the rich??



EdwardBaiamonte & friends







"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn&#8217;t -- look, if you&#8217;ve been successful, you didn&#8217;t get there on your own. You didn&#8217;t get there on your own. I&#8217;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.

"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&#8217;ve got a business -- you didn&#8217;t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn&#8217;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&#8217;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.

"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That&#8217;s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That&#8217;s how we created the middle class. That&#8217;s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That&#8217;s how we invented the Internet. That&#8217;s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that&#8217;s the reason I&#8217;m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You&#8217;re not on your own, we&#8217;re in this together."
President Obama


----------



## del

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eddy, several other rw''s have already told this lie. Why don't you check out those threads.
> 
> Or, just for fun, try telling the friggin truth for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course if not the truth why are you so afraid to point out your best example? What does your fear tell you about liberalism, your character and IQ?
Click to expand...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.



and if you are middle class or poor somebody gave you some help too ...so government should steal from the poor and middle class too!!


----------



## barry1960

Cecilie1200 said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What obama was clearly saying is that no matter how smart you are, how hard you work or how much you sacrifice, the government GAVE you everything you have an now you OWE the government.  After all, didn't the government LET you be smart, work hard and sacrifice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was NOT clearly saying this. You are reading a whole lot into this that is not there to feed your own perceptions of Obama.
> 
> Success in life is a combination of opportunity and hard work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing how everyone in the country EXCEPT for Obama's most ardent worshippers is coincidentally "reading into this" the EXACT SAME "whole lot"?  It's almost like that's actually what his words meant, and you dipshits are just desperately trying to spin it away, or something.
> 
> Face it, Sparkles.  When everyone's heard the quote, and THEN heard the allegedly "mitigating" full quote and context, and THEN heard the frantic explanations, and STILL thinks that's what the guy said . . . that's what he really said.  Deal with it.
Click to expand...


First you and other conservatives read heavily into a statement made by President Obama. There is a large difference between you did not get there entirely on your own and you owe everything to big government. Then you assume I am an ardent Obama worshipper, which I am not. Then you call me a dipshit and sparkles (whatever that is). It appears you are the queen of strawman an ad hominem arguments. 

As far as spin goes, reading into Obama comments constitutes spin. You appear to be living in a conservative fantasy world where our president is an evil charlatan supported by irrational liberal followers who are attempting to subvert the American way of life.  Well at least you have lots of company on this board. Welcome to prozac nation.

Hey, if you take the factoral of the numeric representation of the letters in Obama's last name, divide by 4716 and add 23, the result in 666. Proof positive that Obama is the anti-Christ, hell-bent on the destruction of America.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

del said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eddy, several other rw''s have already told this lie. Why don't you check out those threads.
> 
> Or, just for fun, try telling the friggin truth for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course if not the truth why are you so afraid to point out your best example? What does your fear tell you about liberalism, your character and IQ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


a typical liberal with only the IQ to find cartoons meaningful


----------



## GuyPinestra

Sorry Buckwheat, but O'Bummer said it, we ALL heard it and those of us with more than 2 operative brain cells clearly got the message. Of course, when you hear the cheers in the crowd he's addressing you realize that they got THEIR message, too.

MORE FREE SHIT!!!


----------



## Pheonixops

My response to this:

"(1)If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. (2)Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. (3) If youve got a business. you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."
President Obama

1:That's actually true in many cases, but a person can have many great people in their life but it's still up to the* individual* to follow through and make* themselves* a success.

2: Yes, WE THE PEOPLE MADE THAT HAPPEN! 

3: That's complete BULLSHIT, the success or failure of a business depends on the INDIVIDUAL owner, their employees, the customers, the economy, and the state of that particular market.  Ultimately, it's the principles of the business that primarily determine the course of the business.


----------



## Dr Grump

barry1960 said:


> It appears you are the queen of strawman an ad hominem arguments.



That is just the beginning...stick around....you'll find the words 'debate' and 'cesspit' don't belong in the same sentence...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pheonixops said:


> My response to this:
> 
> "(1)If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. (2)Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. (3) If youve got a business. you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."
> President Obama
> 
> 1:That's actually true in many cases, but a person can have many great people in their life but it's still up to the* individual* to follow through and make* themselves* a success.
> 
> 2: Yes, WE THE PEOPLE MADE THAT HAPPEN!
> 
> 3: That's complete BULLSHIT, the success or failure of a business depends on the INDIVIDUAL owner, their employees, the customers, the economy, and the state of that particular market.  Ultimately, it's the principles of the business that primarily determine the course of the business.



but you didn't address the OP which was that the argument can be extended to the poor and middle class!!!


----------



## OODA_Loop

It truly always is somebody else's fault with this guy.


----------



## Dr Grump

GuyPinestra said:


> Sorry Buckwheat, but O'Bummer said it, we ALL heard it and those of us with more than 2 operative brain cells* clearly got the message*. Of course, when you hear the cheers in the crowd he's addressing you realize that they got THEIR message, too.
> 
> MORE FREE SHIT!!!



Really? That is what you got out of the video?
Talk about bullshit....


----------



## Pheonixops

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to this:
> 
> "(1)If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. (2)Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. (3) If youve got a business. you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."
> President Obama
> 
> 1:That's actually true in many cases, but a person can have many great people in their life but it's still up to the* individual* to follow through and make* themselves* a success.
> 
> 2: Yes, WE THE PEOPLE MADE THAT HAPPEN!
> 
> 3: That's complete BULLSHIT, the success or failure of a business depends on the INDIVIDUAL owner, their employees, the customers, the economy, and the state of that particular market.  Ultimately, it's the principles of the business that primarily determine the course of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you didn't address the OP which was that the argument can be extended to the poor and middle class!!!
Click to expand...


You don't think that the three things above can extend to most demographics with the replacement of a few words?


----------



## Vidi

Pheonixops said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to this:
> 
> "(1)If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. (2)Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. (3) If youve got a business. you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."
> President Obama
> 
> 1:That's actually true in many cases, but a person can have many great people in their life but it's still up to the* individual* to follow through and make* themselves* a success.
> 
> 2: Yes, WE THE PEOPLE MADE THAT HAPPEN!
> 
> 3: That's complete BULLSHIT, the success or failure of a business depends on the INDIVIDUAL owner, their employees, the customers, the economy, and the state of that particular market.  Ultimately, it's the principles of the business that primarily determine the course of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you didn't address the OP which was that the argument can be extended to the poor and middle class!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You don't think *that the three things above can extend to most demographics with the replacement of a few words?
Click to expand...


See those bolded words?

Youre expecting Little Eddie to THINK.  Thats your problem right there.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pheonixops said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to this:
> 
> "(1)If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. (2)Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. (3) If youve got a business. you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."
> President Obama
> 
> 1:That's actually true in many cases, but a person can have many great people in their life but it's still up to the* individual* to follow through and make* themselves* a success.
> 
> 2: Yes, WE THE PEOPLE MADE THAT HAPPEN!
> 
> 3: That's complete BULLSHIT, the success or failure of a business depends on the INDIVIDUAL owner, their employees, the customers, the economy, and the state of that particular market.  Ultimately, it's the principles of the business that primarily determine the course of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you didn't address the OP which was that the argument can be extended to the poor and middle class!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that the three things above can extend to most demographics with the replacement of a few words?
Click to expand...


yes I think they can be merged, but do you? If so should they be merged?


----------



## del

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course if not the truth why are you so afraid to point out your best example? What does your fear tell you about liberalism, your character and IQ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a typical liberal with only the IQ to find cartoons meaningful
Click to expand...


i'll leave you and the other cripple to duke it out, eddie.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you didn't address the OP which was that the argument can be extended to the poor and middle class!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't think *that the three things above can extend to most demographics with the replacement of a few words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See those bolded words?
> 
> Youre expecting Little Eddie to THINK.  Thats your problem right there.
Click to expand...


so then you agree with OP that what BO said should apply to rich poor middle???


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> They all took roads and bridges and had teachers. So then, that is an argument that we should steal money from all of them??
> 
> How does BO make it into an argument that government should just steal from the rich??



No ones ever made an argument the government should steal from the rich. 

Everyone benefits from the contributions of others, including that which citizens contribute to government. 

All private businesses, large and small, benefit from the services provided by government; both the individual citizen and the corporate citizen benefit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all took roads and bridges and had teachers. So then, that is an argument that we should steal money from all of them??
> 
> How does BO make it into an argument that government should just steal from the rich??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your other thread on this was merged, so you start yet another one? Blatantly defying the mods on the board?
> 
> Now youre a spammer.
Click to expand...


why merged if the arguments are 100% different??


----------



## Vidi

GuyPinestra said:


> Sorry Buckwheat, but O'Bummer said it, we ALL heard it and those of us with more than *2 operative brain cells *clearly got the message. Of course, when you hear the cheers in the crowd he's addressing you realize that they got THEIR message, too.
> 
> MORE FREE SHIT!!!



There you go, trying to put yourself into the group with your betters again. Like you said, 2 operative brain cells are required to be in that group, you clearly dont qualify.


----------



## Google

Lakhota said:


> Romney Agrees With Obama: Government Does 'Help You In A Business' | ThinkProgress



Well if ThinkProgress says it...

It really is laughable at the limited sources of information that the left relies on.


----------



## Vidi

Google said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney Agrees With Obama: Government Does 'Help You In A Business' | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if ThinkProgress says it...
> 
> It really is laughable at the limited sources of information that the left relies on.
Click to expand...


Actually no. Romney said it.

Try to keep up.


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all took roads and bridges and had teachers. So then, that is an argument that we should steal money from all of them??
> 
> How does BO make it into an argument that government should just steal from the rich??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your other thread on this was merged, so you start yet another one? Blatantly defying the mods on the board?
> 
> Now youre a spammer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why merged if the arguments are 100% different??
Click to expand...



The fact that you think your argument is any different than in the thread that the mods already destroyed only illustrates how little merit your argument holds.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No ones ever made an argument the government should steal from the rich.




sure BO did when he said they didn't do it on their own. The idea was that it could be stolen since it wasn't really their own.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Everyone benefits from the contributions of others, including that which citizens contribute to government.



is there a human being on earth who disagrees???????




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All private businesses, large and small, benefit from the services provided by government; both the individual citizen and the corporate citizen benefit.




and all poor and middle class benefit even more from services provided from government; so we should steal from them even more??


----------



## Bfgrn

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



I'd love to see this conversation expand into confronting businesses that out source jobs to 3rd world countries. Let the CEO's live in the squalor their wages support.


----------



## Google

Dr Grump said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buckwheat, but O'Bummer said it, we ALL heard it and those of us with more than 2 operative brain cells* clearly got the message*. Of course, when you hear the cheers in the crowd he's addressing you realize that they got THEIR message, too.
> 
> MORE FREE SHIT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That is what you got out of the video?
> Talk about bullshit....
Click to expand...


What exactly did you get out of the video, because what Obama said, and please ask me to provide the videos because I'll gladly do so, parrots the exact position of socialist and far-leftists.  That business owners and individuals are not to blame for their own prosperity.

Listen, I'm fine with Obama being a communist, I just wish he didn't feel compelled to lie and misrepresent what he believes.  How you can sit there and attempt, unsuccessfully, to say that what he said is not what he said is absurd, but once again it is a demonstration at the depths of the mass willful delusion that those on the left constantly find themselves.  It is a symptom of constantly having to be in the closet as it were.


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one&#8217;s ever made an &#8216;argument&#8217; the government should &#8216;steal&#8217; from the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure BO did when he said they didn't do it on their own. The idea was that it could be stolen since it wasn't really their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone benefits from the contributions of others, including that which citizens contribute to government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is there a human being on earth who disagrees???????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> All private businesses, large and small, benefit from the services provided by government; both the individual citizen and the corporate citizen benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and all poor and middle class benefit even more from services provided from government; so we should steal from them even more??
Click to expand...


No Obama never said that. Im sure you HEARD that. But you cant blame Obama for your medication not working.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your other thread on this was merged, so you start yet another one? Blatantly defying the mods on the board?
> 
> Now youre a spammer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why merged if the arguments are 100% different??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you think your argument is any different than in the thread that the mods already destroyed only illustrates how little merit your argument holds.
Click to expand...


if little merit why be so afraid to show why exactly?? Why does your fear tell us about your IQ and character. Its easier to pretend like a child isn't it??

Translation: As a liberal I lack the IQ for substance so find personal attack meaningful


----------



## LoneLaugher

Has the OP decided to be honest about Obama's comments yet?


----------



## The T

Google said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney Agrees With Obama: Government Does 'Help You In A Business' | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if ThinkProgress says it...
> 
> It really is laughable at the limited sources of information that the left relies on.
Click to expand...

 
Think progress twists everything to the terms only the blind can see.

SOROS does a good job there. But then SOROS is a residual NAZI.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Let the CEO's live in the squalor their wages support.



pure perfect liberal ignorance!!

People take the jobs in China because they are better paying jobs!!!!
Wages in China have doubled in the last 8 years.

In 1985 the Chinese purchased 5000 cars , this year they will purchase 18 million!!

Under liberal squalor, before Republican capitalism, 60 million slowly starved to death!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will have a low IQ?? CEO's are modern saints  who literally breath life into people.


----------



## del

^

loonus majorus


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> why merged if the arguments are 100% different??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you think your argument is any different than in the thread that the mods already destroyed only illustrates how little merit your argument holds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if little merit why be so afraid to show why exactly?? Why does your fear tell us about your IQ and character. Its easier to pretend like a child isn't it??
> 
> Translation: As a liberal I lack the IQ for substance so find personal attack meaningful
Click to expand...



REALLY? Two pages in is all it took for you to fall back to your Tell me why? 2nd grade default position? Jesus youre fucking easy. LOL pathetically easy.

And if you think Im a liberal, then you clearly have not been paying attention to my posts.


----------



## jillian

del said:


> ^
> 
> loonus majorus



this thread has become weighed down in nutbarness...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you think your argument is any different than in the thread that the mods already destroyed only illustrates how little merit your argument holds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if little merit why be so afraid to show why exactly?? Why does your fear tell us about your IQ and character. Its easier to pretend like a child isn't it??
> 
> Translation: As a liberal I lack the IQ for substance so find personal attack meaningful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Two pages in is all it took for you to fall back to your Tell me why? 2nd grade default position? Jesus youre fucking easy. LOL pathetically easy.
> 
> And if you think Im a liberal, then you clearly have not been paying attention to my posts.
Click to expand...


still no substance??????? What does that tll us??


----------



## The T

jillian said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> loonus majorus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this thread has become weighed down in nutbarness...
Click to expand...

 
^^By YOUR presence Peterleech.


----------



## jillian

Google said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney Agrees With Obama: Government Does 'Help You In A Business' | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if ThinkProgress says it...
> 
> It really is laughable at the limited sources of information that the left relies on.
Click to expand...


willard didn't say this?



> ROMNEY: I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the bank, the investors. There is no question your mom and dad, your school teachers. The people who provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help. But let me ask you this. Did you build your business? If you did, raise your hand. Take that Mr. President! This is whats happening in this country. These people are entrepreneurs.



come on...we're all waiting...


----------



## jillian

The T said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> loonus majorus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this thread has become weighed down in nutbarness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^By YOUR presence Peterleech.
Click to expand...


drunk again, tommy?


----------



## BDBoop

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> this thread has become weighed down in nutbarness...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^By YOUR presence Peterleech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> drunk again, tommy?
Click to expand...


"Still."


----------



## freedombecki

Vidi said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney Agrees With Obama: Government Does 'Help You In A Business' | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if ThinkProgress says it...
> 
> It really is laughable at the limited sources of information that the left relies on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no. Romney said it.
> 
> Try to keep up.
Click to expand...

If you like Romney, vote for him, Vidi.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Vidi said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buckwheat, but O'Bummer said it, we ALL heard it and those of us with more than *2 operative brain cells *clearly got the message. Of course, when you hear the cheers in the crowd he's addressing you realize that they got THEIR message, too.
> 
> MORE FREE SHIT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go, trying to put yourself into the group with your betters again. Like you said, 2 operative brain cells are required to be in that group, you clearly dont qualify.
Click to expand...


If you didn't hear the words he clearly spoke it can only be because you didn't WANT to. If you cheered along with that crowd you're lining up for more FREE SHIT, I don't give a damn what you try and say.

And this is the 'batshit crazy' stuff I was alluding to in that other thread, Vidi. The class warfare is coming, and you, along with everybody else, are going to have to decide which side of the fence you're going to come down on.


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> if little merit why be so afraid to show why exactly?? Why does your fear tell us about your IQ and character. Its easier to pretend like a child isn't it??
> 
> Translation: As a liberal I lack the IQ for substance so find personal attack meaningful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Two pages in is all it took for you to fall back to your Tell me why? 2nd grade default position? Jesus youre fucking easy. LOL pathetically easy.
> 
> And if you think Im a liberal, then you clearly have not been paying attention to my posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still no substance??????? What does that tll us??
Click to expand...


Im going to illustrate it THIS ONE TIME Little Eddie, then in ALL FUTURE exchanges with you, I am going to tell you to refer back to this post. SO you pay attention this time.


The first post of any thread should serve one of two function:

1) It should inform 

or 

2) it should question

In an informing OP to a thread, there should be information WITH some sort of evidence backing up the claim made.

In a question beginning, it should come from a genuine desire to expand ones own knowledge.

Your original post does neither of these things. Your original post is not only redundant, in that this arguement has already been covered in a 1500+ response thread but it is inflamatory with no evidence backing up its ridiculous claims, thus robbing it of any and all merit.

The fact that you decided to start not one but TWO of these threads  ( after the first one was essentially for all intents and purposes deleted by the moderators ) illustrates that you are an attention seeking whore looking only to troll or to be justified in an echo chamber of other like minded nutjobs. And THAT further robs your argument of any merit whatsoever.

So in the future, when you ask someone to "Tell you why?" please feel free to refer back to this post ( hereafter known as Post 25 )as the reason you cannot and will not ever be taken seriously in anything you ever do either on this forum or in real life.


----------



## candycorn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> In fact, the rich do get their on their own, i.e., in voluntary peaceful free capitalist transactions that they "on their own" initiated and completed.
> 
> 
> What BO wants is to violently interfere with or reverse the peaceful voluntary free Republican capitalist transactions and steal money from the rich!
> 
> Is this liberal socialist Nazi Fascist monarchial despotic attitude really American?



All of us are warmed by the fires stoked by others.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Two pages in is all it took for you to fall back to your Tell me why? 2nd grade default position? Jesus youre fucking easy. LOL pathetically easy.
> 
> And if you think Im a liberal, then you clearly have not been paying attention to my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still no substance??????? What does that tll us??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im going to illustrate it THIS ONE TIME Little Eddie, then in ALL FUTURE exchanges with you, I am going to tell you to refer back to this post. SO you pay attention this time.
> 
> 
> The first post of any thread should serve one of two function:
> 
> 1) It should inform
> 
> or
> 
> 2) it should question
> 
> In an informing OP to a thread, there should be information WITH some sort of evidence backing up the claim made.
> 
> In a question beginning, it should come from a genuine desire to expand ones own knowledge.
> 
> Your original post does neither of these things. Your original post is not only redundant, in that this arguement has already been covered in a 1500+ response thread but it is inflamatory with no evidence backing up its ridiculous claims, thus robbing it of any and all merit.
> 
> The fact that you decided to start not one but TWO of these threads  ( after the first one was essentially for all intents and purposes deleted by the moderators ) illustrates that you are an attention seeking whore looking only to troll or to be justified in an echo chamber of other like minded nutjobs. And THAT further robs your argument of any merit whatsoever.
> 
> So in the future, when you ask someone to "Tell you why?" please feel free to refer back to this post ( hereafter known as Post 25 )as the reason you cannot and will not ever be taken seriously in anything you ever do either on this forum or in real life.
Click to expand...


too perfectly stupid!!! What was wrong with my argument in OP or with BO's argument?? Your low IQ forces you to change subject and make you think no one notices!!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Uncensored2008 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue.  "Bag of Bones" was excellent, as was "Just After Sunset".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Bag of Bones" is 15 years ago. It was okay. "Hearts in Atlantis" was all kinds of suck.
Click to expand...


I believe the time period mentioned was "the last 30 years", so "Bag of Bones" qualifies.  

Meanwhile, I think some people need to learn the difference between "bad writing" and "writing I don't like".  I for one can't stand Isaac Asimov; I find him incredibly boring.  But I understand that's a matter of taste and style preference, and enough people have loved his work long enough for him to qualify as a science fiction classic, whether I personally enjoy him or not.


----------



## Vidi

GuyPinestra said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buckwheat, but O'Bummer said it, we ALL heard it and those of us with more than *2 operative brain cells *clearly got the message. Of course, when you hear the cheers in the crowd he's addressing you realize that they got THEIR message, too.
> 
> MORE FREE SHIT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go, trying to put yourself into the group with your betters again. Like you said, 2 operative brain cells are required to be in that group, you clearly dont qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you didn't hear the words he clearly spoke it can only be because you didn't WANT to. If you cheered along with that crowd you're lining up for more FREE SHIT, I don't give a damn what you try and say.
> 
> And this is the 'batshit crazy' stuff I was alluding to in that other thread, Vidi. The class warfare is coming, and you, along with everybody else, are going to have to decide which side of the fence you're going to come down on.
Click to expand...


If its a war you fuckers want, then feel free to come out to my place sometime. Ive got more guns then God and Uncle Ted would blush. 

Class warfare? Fuck that shit man. Theres been a class war going on sicne 1980 and you people are just pissed because you just found out about it when the other side started firing back.






Heres an exercise for you:

Go punch someone in the face. See how many times they will let you punch them in the face before they punch back. 

Once they do, ask yourself this: Who started it? Them or you?

If you say THEM...then youre a Republican.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Some Guy said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic
> 
> as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...
> 
> cant do it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and you can't seem to figure out where the shift button on your keyboard is.
Click to expand...


Maybe he's flattering himself that he's the message board equivalent of e.e. cummings.


----------



## Vidi

Uncensored2008 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue.  "Bag of Bones" was excellent, as was "Just After Sunset".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Bag of Bones" is 15 years ago. It was okay. "Hearts in Atlantis" was all kinds of suck.
Click to expand...



Hearts in Atlantis was a big fuck you to King fans. It was a Dark Tower book without being a Dark Tower book, while fans waited a decade for the next Dark Tower book.


----------



## Vidi

Some Guy said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's fine as long as the point is maintained. He failed to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic
> 
> as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...
> 
> cant do it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and you can't seem to figure out where the shift button on your keyboard is.
Click to expand...



Oh bullshit. He put "NOT" in all caps, so he must have some idea where its located.

Sheesh...try to keep up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Murf76 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says the extra revenue would go to paying down the debt.   I'll believe that when he says he'll freeze spending.   And then really does it.   Neither of which I'll be holding my breath for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he did that, the 'extra revenue', assuming there would be any, would at most reduce the defifict by a tiny percentage while the debt will continue to accumulate at a rate of more than a tirllion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> The amount Obama wants to take from the 'rich' would be like you or me paying $10 on a $10,000 credit card bull and then feeling proud of ourselves.  And that is assuming that the higher taxes do not diminish the amount of new employment/wages/benefits or other investment that would take money out of the economy elsewhere.   The rich did not get rich by just passively accepting losses and doing nothing to offset them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is how we know this is nothing but a political game from Team Obama.  Well, that and the fact that they could've passed ANYTHING THEY WANTED back in 2009 when Dems had a supermajority, but didn't.
> 
> How people get taken in by the likes of Barack Obama I will never understand.
Click to expand...


Well, THAT I can help you with.  They get taken in by him because they WANT to get taken in by him.  Simple as that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education and thinking process. Stress education. WE have stupid people voting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should have to take a test to vote.
> I can see what Obamabots answers to these questions would be:
> 
> 
> How many states are there - 57
> What language do they speak in Austria - Austrian
> If you have asthma what do you use - A breathilizer
> What is the greatest threat to America today - Fox News
> What is the second greatest threat - The Tea Party
> What is your goal in life - To collect unemployment
> Is the Daily Show real news - Absolutely
> Is Barack Obama honest - No, but does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe we should have to own property too?
Click to expand...


Worked pretty well before.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

luddly.neddite said:


> Eddy, several other rw''s have already told this lie. Why don't you check out those threads.
> 
> Or, just for fun, try telling the friggin truth for a change.



I posted a link to the White House website that claims he did say that.


----------



## Wehrwolfen

I have to laugh at these loser luddites that are mouthing Obama's words as if it were their own. I have both been employed and owned my own busness. In both cases I've worked hard, but I worked harder to succeed in my own business. Working 70 to 90 hours a week month after month to succeed. Where was Obama or the federal government to assist me then. Oh, they were there to collect the taxes they imposed upon me and the business I was trying to make a success of. Saying that the government was behind me to make me successful is like claiming the guy from the mob coming in every week to collect his protection money was actually giving me a hand up to make me successful.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should have to own property too?
> 
> 
> 
> Given that people who own property have a vested interest in making sure that government remains retsricted while America prospers, its an idea.
> 
> However, I would say no to having to own property.
> 
> I would say that if you get a government check for your subsistence, you should be barred from voting until such time as you can support yourself and/or any and all people who depend upon you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> keep posting you guys, you hate democracy, we knew that, but when you come right out and say it, helps
> 
> we need the rest of the planet to know beyond any doubt who hates democracy, the tea party, that is who...
Click to expand...


I'm quite proud to be opposed to pure democracy, since it puts me in company with the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison . . . pretty much all of the Founding Fathers.

On the other hand, championing the wonders of illiterate, slackjawed doofuses on the public dole voting would put me in company with the likes of . . . you.

Wow, yet another reason to oppose pure democracy.


----------



## Dr Grump

Google said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buckwheat, but O'Bummer said it, we ALL heard it and those of us with more than 2 operative brain cells* clearly got the message*. Of course, when you hear the cheers in the crowd he's addressing you realize that they got THEIR message, too.
> 
> MORE FREE SHIT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That is what you got out of the video?
> Talk about bullshit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly did you get out of the video, because what Obama said, and please ask me to provide the videos because I'll gladly do so, parrots the exact position of socialist and far-leftists.  That business owners and individuals are not to blame for their own prosperity.
> 
> Listen, I'm fine with Obama being a communist, I just wish he didn't feel compelled to lie and misrepresent what he believes.  How you can sit there and attempt, unsuccessfully, to say that what he said is not what he said is absurd, but once again it is a demonstration at the depths of the mass willful delusion that those on the left constantly find themselves.  It is a symptom of constantly having to be in the closet as it were.
Click to expand...


That people got where they were in life because people came together to help.

That he is rich and doesn't mind paying more taxes.

That other rich people shouldn't mind paying more taxes, too.

That's what I got out of the video..

And we you start calling him a Communist, the tiny, eeny, weenie, scrap of credibility you were bitterly clinging to, disappears..


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> yes we do moron...i know, you hate the democracy we live in and pretend it is something else
> 
> but you are wrong...



No, fucktard, we live in a republic.  The Framers of the Constitution loathed the very IDEA of pure democracy, aka "mob rule".

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. - Thomas Jefferson

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! - Benjamin Franklin

The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. - Elbridge Gerry

A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town. - Thomas Jefferson

Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both, therefore, ought to have the power, that each may defend itself against the other. - Alexander Hamilton

Experience has proved that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies . . . never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity. - Alexander Hamilton, responding to the statement, pure democracy, would be the most perfect government.

There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. - John Adams

[The Senate is a] cure for the evils under which the United States labored . . . the turbulence and follies of democracy. - Edmund Randolph (Senators weren't elected by popular vote until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.)

And don't even THINK about asking me who any of these people quoted were.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goebbels would be proud of Rush and Karl...
> 
> only in America could someone so full of hate and propaganda and lies as these two are be not only free but successful..
Click to expand...


Only in America could an ignorant, juvenile, racist dipshit like you complain about people being free and successful.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Bfgrn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see this conversation expand into confronting businesses that out source jobs to 3rd world countries. Let the CEO's live in the squalor their wages support.
Click to expand...


Thanks for demonstrating how little you really know about the Third World.  Their wages don't "support squalor".  They lift people above the squalor.  Why don't you take your sorry ass to Taiwan and tell the people there how exploited and abused they were when American companies first moved into their country, how those wages "supported squalor".

You'll be lucky if all that happens is you get spit on.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining you child, i was doing what people have done for ages on mb, i did NOT change your post, I merely responded to the preposterous statement that you think for yourself, regardless of the topic
> 
> as a con you cant think for yourself, it is why you are a con, it is like standing in the middle of a beautiful day at high noon and proclaiming that it is dark outside...
> 
> cant do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and you can't seem to figure out where the shift button on your keyboard is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit. He put "NOT" in all caps, so he must have some idea where its located.
> 
> Sheesh...try to keep up.
Click to expand...


Putting a word in all caps is not equivalent to using correct capitalization.  In fact, it's not related at all.

Sheesh . . . try to learn English.


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the CEO's live in the squalor their wages support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pure perfect liberal ignorance!!
> 
> People take the jobs in China because they are better paying jobs!!!!
> Wages in China have doubled in the last 8 years.
> 
> In 1985 the Chinese purchased 5000 cars , this year they will purchase 18 million!!
> 
> Under liberal squalor, before Republican capitalism, 60 million slowly starved to death!!
> 
> See why we are 100% positive a liberal will have a low IQ?? CEO's are modern saints  who literally breath life into people.
Click to expand...


WOW, you praise the economic royalists who sold this country out? Do you lick their asses too Ed? 

China, where smoking, poor diet, water pollution and environmental problems have caused the nation's cancer death rate to rise 80 percent in the past 30 years?










Published on Wednesday, May 17, 2000
GE: No Company's Record Better Illustrates The Glories Of Corporate Globalization For The Well-Off, And The Misery For The Many
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman


There is probably no more "American" corporation than General Electric -- and no company with more of an anational world outlook than GE.

And no company's record better illustrates the glories of corporate globalization for the well-off, and the misery for the many.

Founded by the American icon Thomas Edison, GE is now headed by Jack Welch, who has said, "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions.

While Welch's 20-year reign has been a golden era for shareholders -- the company's stock value has risen three time more than the Dow average, leading Forbes magazine to name Welch the "Most Admired CEO of the Century" -- it has been a disaster for employees. 

GE: Every Plant on a Barge

Hey Ed, HERE is how Republicans used to talk.

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country&#8212;they are America." 
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## flacaltenn

Dr Grump said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That is what you got out of the video?
> Talk about bullshit....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did you get out of the video, because what Obama said, and please ask me to provide the videos because I'll gladly do so, parrots the exact position of socialist and far-leftists.  That business owners and individuals are not to blame for their own prosperity.
> 
> Listen, I'm fine with Obama being a communist, I just wish he didn't feel compelled to lie and misrepresent what he believes.  How you can sit there and attempt, unsuccessfully, to say that what he said is not what he said is absurd, but once again it is a demonstration at the depths of the mass willful delusion that those on the left constantly find themselves.  It is a symptom of constantly having to be in the closet as it were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That people got where they were in life because people came together to help.
> 
> That he is rich and doesn't mind paying more taxes.
> 
> That other rich people shouldn't mind paying more taxes, too.
> 
> That's what I got out of the video..
> 
> And we you start calling him a Communist, the tiny, eeny, weenie, scrap of credibility you were bitterly clinging to, disappears..
Click to expand...


Here's what I got out of his message... 












I appreciate the help.. But I'd rather my kids got educated, my mother didn't get groped and my employees didn't have to sit in 1.5 hours of traffic every day..


----------



## Dr Grump

flacaltenn said:


> [q
> 
> Here's what I got out of his message...
> 
> I appreciate the help.. But I'd rather my kids got educated, my mother didn't get groped and my employees didn't have to sit in 1.5 hours of traffic every day..




If that is what you got out of his 'message' I'd go back to school and work on my comprehension...


----------



## edthecynic

Intense said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how you really feel, Jillian. Don't hold back.
> 
> *I thought his show was great today*.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is always great to listen to your MessiahRushie desperately try to back-pedal from the bullshit he said the day before.


----------



## Intense

The concept that is being hidden here is the Principle of Private Property Rights. Rich or Poor, Property Rights Matter. Without them we are each reduced to being the Property of the State. This Corruption of Principle is an Attack on Individual Liberty. It is Despotism. The Population being seen as a part of the food chain, take your number, and wait your turn, it is inevitable. That Anyone would be stupid enough to voluntarily choose such a course, is beyond my ability to understand.


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how you really feel, Jillian. Don't hold back.
> 
> I thought his show was great today.
Click to expand...


what i said was fact, not opinion... 

i think the limbotization of politics is one of the reasons that the right has become so insane over the last two decades.

he wasn't alone, though... lee atwater started the ball rolling.


----------



## Dr Grump

jillian said:


> lee atwater started the ball rolling.



And lived to regret it....just...


----------



## Vidi

Intense said:


> The concept that is being hidden here is the Principle of Private Property Rights. Rich or Poor, Property Rights Matter. Without them we are each reduced to being the Property of the State. This Corruption of Principle is an Attack on Individual Liberty. It is Despotism. The Population being seen as a part of the food chain, take your number, and wait your turn, it is inevitable. That Anyone would be stupid enough to voluntarily choose such a course, is beyond my ability to understand.




The concept isnt property rights. Thats a red herring.

The concept is equal rights under the law.

When the SCOTUS decided that money was speech, it maintained that my speech was more valueable than yours if my bank account was larger.

It completely negates the concept of all men are CREATED equal, as an accident of borth, the lucky sperm club now decides who has a voice in our political system and who doesnt.

That people would voluntarily give up their voice in defense of the lucky sperm club members is beyond my ability to understand. Maybe our founding fathers got it wrong. Maybe the "peasants" need a nobility, lords and ladies, to bow to. Based on the attitude of the right wing supporters, it certainly seems that they believe that to be the case.


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did you get out of the video, because what Obama said, and please ask me to provide the videos because I'll gladly do so, parrots the exact position of socialist and far-leftists.  That business owners and individuals are not to blame for their own prosperity.
> 
> Listen, I'm fine with Obama being a communist, I just wish he didn't feel compelled to lie and misrepresent what he believes.  How you can sit there and attempt, unsuccessfully, to say that what he said is not what he said is absurd, but once again it is a demonstration at the depths of the mass willful delusion that those on the left constantly find themselves.  It is a symptom of constantly having to be in the closet as it were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That people got where they were in life because people came together to help.
> 
> That he is rich and doesn't mind paying more taxes.
> 
> That other rich people shouldn't mind paying more taxes, too.
> 
> That's what I got out of the video..
> 
> And we you start calling him a Communist, the tiny, eeny, weenie, scrap of credibility you were bitterly clinging to, disappears..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what I got out of his message...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the help.. But I'd rather my kids got educated, my mother didn't get groped and my employees didn't have to sit in 1.5 hours of traffic every day..
Click to expand...


Looking at your first picture, maybe you should be concerned about privatization of public roads?

Toll Road Privatization: As Ohio Considers It, Indiana Serves As Cautionary Tale

In two weeks, the cost of traveling the 157-mile length of the Indiana Toll Road will rise more than 2 percent, from $8.80 to an even $9, for those who pay the toll in cash. The fare will jump a full buck for truckers hauling semi-trailers, from $35.20 to $36.20.

The July 1 toll hike may not seem so painful, *until you consider that those tolls were about half of their soon-to-be rates only five years ago -- and that they hadnt risen for two decades prior to that. Even harder to swallow for some drivers, truckers in particular, is the fact that their growing contributions go not to the State of Indiana but to overseas investors who've leased the toll road from the state.*

"Saying we're less than thrilled would put it really mildly," says Todd Spencer, executive vice president at the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, a trade group that represents truckers. "In Indiana, over the span of a few years, we've watched truck tolls more than double."

In 2006, under the orchestration of Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), the state struck a deal to lease the road for a period of 75 years to Australia-based Macquarie Group and Spain-based Cintra. The investors paid the state $3.8 billion upfront in exchange for the right to collect tolls. The investors are required to maintain and upgrade the road for the duration of the lease.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dr Grump said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> 
> Here's what I got out of his message...
> 
> I appreciate the help.. But I'd rather my kids got educated, my mother didn't get groped and my employees didn't have to sit in 1.5 hours of traffic every day..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is what you got out of his 'message' I'd go back to school and work on my comprehension...
Click to expand...



If you're really really lucky -- this class warfare meme the Prez created will go down in history with one of stupidest moves ever pulled in an election year... 

I think it's headed for platinum...


----------



## Vidi

Uncensored2008 said:


> Romney needs to pound this issue, repeatedly and incessantly. America needs to understand that Obama serves ONLY the unions. If you're not a public employee, if you aren't in the UAW, if you don't belong to SEIU, then Barack Obama is against you.
> 
> If you work 20 hours a day creating a business, then Obama views you as greedy, and not paying your fair share. He views any success you have as a favor from him and the government. If you own a business, then Barack Obama says that HE, not you, determine the success of that business. If you make it, it's only because he let you.
> 
> Tell Obama that you are the reason that your business succeeds, and you are the reason that he will be leaving office in January.



Well which is it?

Does he serve ONLY the Unions? Or ONLY his wall street buddies? or ONLY the entitlement class? 

Which thing that you hate is Obama ONLY serving today?


----------



## Vidi

flacaltenn said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> 
> Here's what I got out of his message...
> 
> I appreciate the help.. But I'd rather my kids got educated, my mother didn't get groped and my employees didn't have to sit in 1.5 hours of traffic every day..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is what you got out of his 'message' I'd go back to school and work on my comprehension...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you're really really lucky -- this class warfare meme the Prez created will go down in history with one of stupidest moves ever pulled in an election year...
> 
> I think it's headed for platinum...
Click to expand...



The fact that you think it was "invented" by Obama shows you just havent been paying attention.


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> lee atwater started the ball rolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And lived to regret it....just...
Click to expand...


yeah, they said he had a deathbed conversion.

i guess he wanted to clear his conscience before he met his maker.

the guy played a mean guitar, though.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> That people got where they were in life because people came together to help.
> 
> That he is rich and doesn't mind paying more taxes.
> 
> That other rich people shouldn't mind paying more taxes, too.
> 
> That's what I got out of the video..
> 
> And we you start calling him a Communist, the tiny, eeny, weenie, scrap of credibility you were bitterly clinging to, disappears..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I got out of his message...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the help.. But I'd rather my kids got educated, my mother didn't get groped and my employees didn't have to sit in 1.5 hours of traffic every day..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking at your first picture, maybe you should be concerned about privatization of public roads?
> 
> Toll Road Privatization: As Ohio Considers It, Indiana Serves As Cautionary Tale
> 
> In two weeks, the cost of traveling the 157-mile length of the Indiana Toll Road will rise more than 2 percent, from $8.80 to an even $9, for those who pay the toll in cash. The fare will jump a full buck for truckers hauling semi-trailers, from $35.20 to $36.20.
> 
> The July 1 toll hike may not seem so painful, *until you consider that those tolls were about half of their soon-to-be rates only five years ago -- and that they hadnt risen for two decades prior to that. Even harder to swallow for some drivers, truckers in particular, is the fact that their growing contributions go not to the State of Indiana but to overseas investors who've leased the toll road from the state.*
> 
> "Saying we're less than thrilled would put it really mildly," says Todd Spencer, executive vice president at the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, a trade group that represents truckers. "In Indiana, over the span of a few years, we've watched truck tolls more than double."
> 
> In 2006, under the orchestration of Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), the state struck a deal to lease the road for a period of 75 years to Australia-based Macquarie Group and Spain-based Cintra. The investors paid the state $3.8 billion upfront in exchange for the right to collect tolls. The investors are required to maintain and upgrade the road for the duration of the lease.
Click to expand...


If you're being generous and giving me a CHOICE  -- I'll choose privatization most every time. Because until the Govt STARTS to actually take THEIR BASIC DUTIES - like fair and efficient elections seriously (for instance) -- these other things can be done by others.. 

Show me that they are focused on the REQUIRED duties and then we can discuss all the stuff that they want to do for me.. Or should I say .... to me...


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> 
> Here's what I got out of his message...
> 
> I appreciate the help.. But I'd rather my kids got educated, my mother didn't get groped and my employees didn't have to sit in 1.5 hours of traffic every day..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is what you got out of his 'message' I'd go back to school and work on my comprehension...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you're really really lucky -- this class warfare meme the Prez created will go down in history with one of stupidest moves ever pulled in an election year...
> 
> I think it's headed for platinum...
Click to expand...



Maybe not...


Americans Agree with Obama: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy
July 17, 2012






By a significant majority, according to a new poll, Americans have bought the idea that President Obama has been selling for monthsnamely, that raising taxes on Americans with incomes over $250,000 will help the economy and make the tax system more fair.

According to the poll by the Pew Research Center, 44 percent of Americans believe raising taxes on those over $250,000 will help the economy, while 22 percent believe it will hurt the economy. The remainder believe the hikes would have no impact.

As for the question of fairness, something the president has been pushing hard while Republicans charge that he is trying to create class warfare, 44 percent of the poll respondents believe tax hikes on the wealthy would make the system more fair while 21 percent they would make the system less fair.

Americans Agree with Obama: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how you really feel, Jillian. Don't hold back.
> 
> I thought his show was great today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *what i said was fact, not opinion... *
> 
> i think the limbotization of politics is one of the reasons that the right has become so insane over the last two decades.
> 
> he wasn't alone, though... lee atwater started the ball rolling.
Click to expand...


And hence we see the impact of meth on our society.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is what you got out of his 'message' I'd go back to school and work on my comprehension...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're really really lucky -- this class warfare meme the Prez created will go down in history with one of stupidest moves ever pulled in an election year...
> 
> I think it's headed for platinum...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not...
> 
> 
> Americans Agree with Obama: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy
> July 17, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By a significant majority, according to a new poll, Americans have bought the idea that President Obama has been selling for monthsnamely, that raising taxes on Americans with incomes over $250,000 will help the economy and make the tax system more fair.
> 
> According to the poll by the Pew Research Center, 44 percent of Americans believe raising taxes on those over $250,000 will help the economy, while 22 percent believe it will hurt the economy. The remainder believe the hikes would have no impact.
> 
> As for the question of fairness, something the president has been pushing hard while Republicans charge that he is trying to create class warfare, 44 percent of the poll respondents believe tax hikes on the wealthy would make the system more fair while 21 percent they would make the system less fair.
> 
> Americans Agree with Obama: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy
Click to expand...


Sorry I don't do polls... Especially not if they're from Pew.. I've caught them cheating almost everytime I've read their methodogies. Just last week they made headlines with a poll on taxes and buried DEEP in the notes on the study was the fact that they ASKED FOR the YOUNGEST adult in household for the answer.. Not a WORD in the press release or the media coverage..


----------



## Vidi

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're really really lucky -- this class warfare meme the Prez created will go down in history with one of stupidest moves ever pulled in an election year...
> 
> I think it's headed for platinum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not...
> 
> 
> Americans Agree with Obama: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy
> July 17, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By a significant majority, according to a new poll, Americans have bought the idea that President Obama has been selling for monthsnamely, that raising taxes on Americans with incomes over $250,000 will help the economy and make the tax system more fair.
> 
> According to the poll by the Pew Research Center, 44 percent of Americans believe raising taxes on those over $250,000 will help the economy, while 22 percent believe it will hurt the economy. The remainder believe the hikes would have no impact.
> 
> As for the question of fairness, something the president has been pushing hard while Republicans charge that he is trying to create class warfare, 44 percent of the poll respondents believe tax hikes on the wealthy would make the system more fair while 21 percent they would make the system less fair.
> 
> Americans Agree with Obama: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't do polls... Especially not if they're from Pew.. I've caught them cheating almost everytime I've read their methodogies. Just last week they made headlines with a poll on taxes and buried DEEP in the notes on the study was the fact that they ASKED FOR the YOUNGEST adult in household for the answer.. Not a WORD in the press release or the media coverage..
Click to expand...


Whats wrong with asking for the youngest adults in the household? Seems to me they will feel the impact of the national debt far longer than anyone...I say ask them how they want their future managed.

No on fucking asked us back in the 80's when Reagan started running up the debt to crush Russia did they? I mean I get why he did it, I even agree with why he did it, but fuck, now that the bills come due, everyone acts like we didnt know this shit was coming.

( and folks if you didnt see this crisis coming 20 years ago, youre either blind, stupid, werent born yet or just werent fucking paying attention )


----------



## freedombecki

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how you really feel, Jillian. Don't hold back.
> 
> I thought his show was great today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what i said was fact, not opinion...
> 
> i think the limbotization of politics is one of the reasons that the right has become so insane over the last two decades.
> 
> he wasn't alone, though... lee atwater started the ball rolling.
Click to expand...

Atwater merely learned it from Democrats and their co-conspiracy with the Fifth Column that President Gerald Ford was a "bumbling klutz" because he lost his balance getting off a stage one time. Ford actually had been quite a good football star, full of grace and good timing almost always. George H.W. Bush was depicted as a Simon Legree by leftist smears, and it was so effective, Lee Atwater had no choice but to meet the competition with one-upmanship. How convenient it is to pillory someone few people remember, Jillian. The man died of a brain tumor at age 40. I doubt he was the first agent in the take-no-survivors game, considering the mud that was slung at his friends over politics, with only enough truth thrown in to make it believable to people who just don't know the facts by a pantywaist press that takes sides and public pollsters who obviate truth with slanted questions.


----------



## Vidi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and you can't seem to figure out where the shift button on your keyboard is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit. He put "NOT" in all caps, so he must have some idea where its located.
> 
> Sheesh...try to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putting a word in all caps is not equivalent to using correct capitalization.  In fact, it's not related at all.
> 
> Sheesh . . . try to learn English.
Click to expand...


We were discussing the LOCATION of his shift key, NOT his use of proper grammar.

Sheesh...try to comprehend


( the above...and the post you responded to was a joke...just in case it goes over some of the mentally challenged heads around here )


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're really really lucky -- this class warfare meme the Prez created will go down in history with one of stupidest moves ever pulled in an election year...
> 
> I think it's headed for platinum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not...
> 
> 
> Americans Agree with Obama: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy
> July 17, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By a significant majority, according to a new poll, Americans have bought the idea that President Obama has been selling for months&#8212;namely, that raising taxes on Americans with incomes over $250,000 will help the economy and make the tax system more fair.
> 
> According to the poll by the Pew Research Center, 44 percent of Americans believe raising taxes on those over $250,000 will help the economy, while 22 percent believe it will hurt the economy. The remainder believe the hikes would have no impact.
> 
> As for the question of fairness, something the president has been pushing hard while Republicans charge that he is trying to create class warfare, 44 percent of the poll respondents believe tax hikes on the wealthy would make the system more fair while 21 percent they would make the system less fair.
> 
> Americans Agree with Obama: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't do polls... Especially not if they're from Pew.. I've caught them cheating almost everytime I've read their methodogies. Just last week they made headlines with a poll on taxes and buried DEEP in the notes on the study was the fact that they ASKED FOR the YOUNGEST adult in household for the answer.. Not a WORD in the press release or the media coverage..
Click to expand...


Link?

Don't like Pew?

23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit


----------



## The Infidel

Vidi said:


> No on fucking asked us back in the 80's when Reagan started running up the debt to crush Russia did they? I mean I get why he did it, I even agree with why he did it, but fuck, now that the bills come due, everyone acts like we didnt know this shit was coming.



So now its Reagan's fault along with Boosh?


Nice... 


I just have got to ask..... when will Obama own his policies?


----------



## flacaltenn

Vidi said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not...
> 
> 
> Americans Agree with Obama: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy
> July 17, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By a significant majority, according to a new poll, Americans have bought the idea that President Obama has been selling for monthsnamely, that raising taxes on Americans with incomes over $250,000 will help the economy and make the tax system more fair.
> 
> According to the poll by the Pew Research Center, 44 percent of Americans believe raising taxes on those over $250,000 will help the economy, while 22 percent believe it will hurt the economy. The remainder believe the hikes would have no impact.
> 
> As for the question of fairness, something the president has been pushing hard while Republicans charge that he is trying to create class warfare, 44 percent of the poll respondents believe tax hikes on the wealthy would make the system more fair while 21 percent they would make the system less fair.
> 
> Americans Agree with Obama: Raise Taxes on the Wealthy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't do polls... Especially not if they're from Pew.. I've caught them cheating almost everytime I've read their methodogies. Just last week they made headlines with a poll on taxes and buried DEEP in the notes on the study was the fact that they ASKED FOR the YOUNGEST adult in household for the answer.. Not a WORD in the press release or the media coverage..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats wrong with asking for the youngest adults in the household? Seems to me they will feel the impact of the national debt far longer than anyone...I say ask them how they want their future managed.
> 
> No on fucking asked us back in the 80's when Reagan started running up the debt to crush Russia did they? I mean I get why he did it, I even agree with why he did it, but fuck, now that the bills come due, everyone acts like we didnt know this shit was coming.
> 
> ( and folks if you didnt see this crisis coming 20 years ago, youre either blind, stupid, werent born yet or just werent fucking paying attention )
Click to expand...


Nothing wrong with it when you EMPHASIZE that in your press releases and if the press picks it up and reports it as such. But when you pass it off as generally representative of people's views -- that's fraudulent. 

In my household -- the phone would have handed to my non-political 20 yr old daughter, thus invalidating any reasonable answer to the question since she's NEVER PAID taxes.


----------



## Vidi

freedombecki said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how you really feel, Jillian. Don't hold back.
> 
> I thought his show was great today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what i said was fact, not opinion...
> 
> i think the limbotization of politics is one of the reasons that the right has become so insane over the last two decades.
> 
> he wasn't alone, though... lee atwater started the ball rolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atwater merely learned it from Democrats and their co-conspiracy with the Fifth Column that President Gerald Ford was a "bumbling klutz" because he lost his balance getting off a stage one time. Ford actually had been quite a good football star, full of grace and good timing almost always. George H.W. Bush was depicted as a Simon Legree by leftist smears, and it was so effective, Lee Atwater had no choice but to meet the competition with one-upmanship. How convenient it is to pillory someone few people remember, Jillian. The man died of a brain tumor at age 40. I doubt he was the first agent in the take-no-survivors game, considering the mud that was slung at his friends over politics, with only enough truth thrown in to make it believable to people who just don't know the facts by a pantywaist press that takes sides and public pollsters who obviate truth with slanted questions.
Click to expand...


Three times.

Ski slope.
Stage.
Down the flight of stairs coming out of Air Force One.

Once is a fluke.
Twice is a coincidence.
Three times is a pattern.

And if you equate some ribiing over being percieved as clumsy to what Rush Limbaugh is doing, then you may need glasses because soemthings VERY wrong with your perspective.

Oh and Ford thought the ribbing was funny. He knew there was no real malice behind it.

EDIT: FOUR times. I forgot about the train!


----------



## Google

All I want is for Obama to be honest about his beliefs and for the media to show some semblance of objectivity and consistency in its reporting.  We all knew where Obama stood on homosexual marriage *(oxymoron)*, because he proclaimed it before he was elected president.  We all knew where Obama stood on nationalized healthcare, because he told us.  WE being those that pay attention to such things, the other *99%* don't haven't a F-ing clue because the media has failed so poorly at properly report facts and relevant history.


----------



## oreo

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



All business people are not  RICH-.  *Obama slammed dunked small--medium--and large business with his statement.* *Americans are really pissed off about it.
*  But what can we expect from a man that has never worked one single day in his entire life in the private sector.  A person that has never owned or operated his own business--and has had a GUARANTEED government paycheck to show for his career from day one.

*Obama is an epic economic failure.*  Obama shoved an 878 billion dollar stimulus bill down our throats with a PROMISE that it would create millions of private sector jobs in this country--and then we found out that what he borrowed from China to create jobs here--showed up in China creating jobs there.



> A war is emerging between Congress and the White House over high-profile stimulus programs that lawmakers claim aren't serving the American people.
> 
> Senate Democrats lashed out at the Obama administration on Wednesday, saying its stimulus wind energy program creates jobs overseas instead of in the U.S., and they're calling for the administration to put a stop to it.
> 
> *"Today, we are demanding the Obama administration suspend this program immediately," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.*
> 
> The program has already spent $2 billion, funding enough projects to power 2.4 million homes. Any wind farm created in the U.S. is eligible for stimulus money to put up wind turbines, regardless of where those massive structures are made.


Obama's Stimulus Money Spent Overseas, Jobs in China - ABC News


----------



## jillian

Vidi said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> what i said was fact, not opinion...
> 
> i think the limbotization of politics is one of the reasons that the right has become so insane over the last two decades.
> 
> he wasn't alone, though... lee atwater started the ball rolling.
> 
> 
> 
> Atwater merely learned it from Democrats and their co-conspiracy with the Fifth Column that President Gerald Ford was a "bumbling klutz" because he lost his balance getting off a stage one time. Ford actually had been quite a good football star, full of grace and good timing almost always. George H.W. Bush was depicted as a Simon Legree by leftist smears, and it was so effective, Lee Atwater had no choice but to meet the competition with one-upmanship. How convenient it is to pillory someone few people remember, Jillian. The man died of a brain tumor at age 40. I doubt he was the first agent in the take-no-survivors game, considering the mud that was slung at his friends over politics, with only enough truth thrown in to make it believable to people who just don't know the facts by a pantywaist press that takes sides and public pollsters who obviate truth with slanted questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three times.
> 
> Ski slope.
> Stage.
> Down the flight of stairs coming out of Air Force One.
> 
> Once is a fluke.
> Twice is a coincidence.
> Three times is a pattern.
> 
> And if you equate some ribiing over being percieved as clumsy to what Rush Limbaugh is doing, then you may need glasses because soemthings VERY wrong with your perspective.
> 
> Oh and Ford thought the ribbing was funny. He knew there was no real malice behind it.
> 
> EDIT: FOUR times. I forgot about the train!
Click to expand...


and therein lies the essential problem... they have been so limboticized that their perspective has been destroyed. we have always made fun of our presidents... like everyone, they often deserve to be made fun of.

the take no prisoners, make your opponent into the enemy... began with atwater and was perfected by rove.


----------



## Google

jillian said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atwater merely learned it from Democrats and their co-conspiracy with the Fifth Column that President Gerald Ford was a "bumbling klutz" because he lost his balance getting off a stage one time. Ford actually had been quite a good football star, full of grace and good timing almost always. George H.W. Bush was depicted as a Simon Legree by leftist smears, and it was so effective, Lee Atwater had no choice but to meet the competition with one-upmanship. How convenient it is to pillory someone few people remember, Jillian. The man died of a brain tumor at age 40. I doubt he was the first agent in the take-no-survivors game, considering the mud that was slung at his friends over politics, with only enough truth thrown in to make it believable to people who just don't know the facts by a pantywaist press that takes sides and public pollsters who obviate truth with slanted questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three times.
> 
> Ski slope.
> Stage.
> Down the flight of stairs coming out of Air Force One.
> 
> Once is a fluke.
> Twice is a coincidence.
> Three times is a pattern.
> 
> And if you equate some ribiing over being percieved as clumsy to what Rush Limbaugh is doing, then you may need glasses because soemthings VERY wrong with your perspective.
> 
> Oh and Ford thought the ribbing was funny. He knew there was no real malice behind it.
> 
> EDIT: FOUR times. I forgot about the train!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and therein lies the essential problem... they have been so limboticized that their perspective has been destroyed. we have always made fun of our presidents... like everyone, they often deserve to be made fun of.
> 
> the take no prisoners, make your opponent into the enemy... began with atwater and was perfected by rove.
Click to expand...


Are you brain dead or did you just forget the eight years of Bush's presidency. Perspective?!?  You are a fine example.


----------



## jillian

Google said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three times.
> 
> Ski slope.
> Stage.
> Down the flight of stairs coming out of Air Force One.
> 
> Once is a fluke.
> Twice is a coincidence.
> Three times is a pattern.
> 
> And if you equate some ribiing over being percieved as clumsy to what Rush Limbaugh is doing, then you may need glasses because soemthings VERY wrong with your perspective.
> 
> Oh and Ford thought the ribbing was funny. He knew there was no real malice behind it.
> 
> EDIT: FOUR times. I forgot about the train!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and therein lies the essential problem... they have been so limboticized that their perspective has been destroyed. we have always made fun of our presidents... like everyone, they often deserve to be made fun of.
> 
> the take no prisoners, make your opponent into the enemy... began with atwater and was perfected by rove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you brain dead or did you just forget the eight years of Bush's presidency. Perspective?!?  You are a fine example.
Click to expand...


what about the eight years when bush was president?

he was the worst president we had in my lifetime.

and just as a reminder, he left office with a 22% approval rating.

i'll also remind you that after 9/11 he had all of us rallying around him.

the right would never have done that for this president...who was elected and not appointed.


----------



## edthecynic

freedombecki said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how you really feel, Jillian. Don't hold back.
> 
> I thought his show was great today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what i said was fact, not opinion...
> 
> i think the limbotization of politics is one of the reasons that the right has become so insane over the last two decades.
> 
> he wasn't alone, though... lee atwater started the ball rolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Atwater merely learned it from Democrats* and their co-conspiracy with the Fifth Column that President Gerald Ford was a "bumbling klutz" because he lost his balance getting off a stage one time. Ford actually had been quite a good football star, full of grace and good timing almost always. George H.W. Bush was depicted as a Simon Legree by leftist smears, and it was so effective, Lee Atwater had no choice but to meet the competition with one-upmanship. How convenient it is to pillory someone few people remember, Jillian. The man died of a brain tumor at age 40. I doubt he was the first agent in the take-no-survivors game, considering the mud that was slung at his friends over politics, with only enough truth thrown in to make it believable to people who just don't know the facts by a pantywaist press that takes sides and public pollsters who obviate truth with slanted questions.
Click to expand...

Atwater learned everything from Nixon. So tell me, when did Tricky Dickie becaome a Dem????

Here is Atwater in 1981 explaining the GOP Southern Strategy he learned from Nixon:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"&#8212;that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me&#8212;because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."


----------



## Google

edthecynic said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> what i said was fact, not opinion...
> 
> i think the limbotization of politics is one of the reasons that the right has become so insane over the last two decades.
> 
> he wasn't alone, though... lee atwater started the ball rolling.
> 
> 
> 
> *Atwater merely learned it from Democrats* and their co-conspiracy with the Fifth Column that President Gerald Ford was a "bumbling klutz" because he lost his balance getting off a stage one time. Ford actually had been quite a good football star, full of grace and good timing almost always. George H.W. Bush was depicted as a Simon Legree by leftist smears, and it was so effective, Lee Atwater had no choice but to meet the competition with one-upmanship. How convenient it is to pillory someone few people remember, Jillian. The man died of a brain tumor at age 40. I doubt he was the first agent in the take-no-survivors game, considering the mud that was slung at his friends over politics, with only enough truth thrown in to make it believable to people who just don't know the facts by a pantywaist press that takes sides and public pollsters who obviate truth with slanted questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atwater learned everything from Nixon. So tell me, when did Tricky Dickie becaome a Dem????
> 
> Here is Atwater in 1981 explaining the GOP Southern Strategy he learned from Nixon:
> 
> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
> And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow mebecause obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."
Click to expand...


You obviously don't have a damn clue regarding this period in history.  Which party overwhelmingly opposed the Civil Rights Act?  Who is the only senator to vote against the civil rights act--filibuster against it-- to remain in congress until he withered away and died in 2010, and in 2000 when he used the word ****** on national television AND was a known KKK member RESPECTED AND BELOVED Robert Byrd-----Al Gore's very own father voted against AND filibustered the Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Google

Jesus F-ing Christ, Al Gore LIED to the NAACP about his father's voting record, *BOLD FACED LIED about his father voting for the Civil Right Act, and to this day that horseshit organization has yet called him on it.*


----------



## Vidi

Google said:


> All I want is for Obama to be honest about his beliefs and for the media to show some semblance of objectivity and consistency in its reporting.  We all knew where Obama stood on homosexual marriage *(oxymoron)*, because he proclaimed it before he was elected president.  We all knew where Obama stood on nationalized healthcare, because he told us.  WE being those that pay attention to such things, the other *99%* don't haven't a F-ing clue because the media has failed so poorly at properly report facts and relevant history.



We dont have nationalized health care. Obamacare isnt that. No matter how much you call it that.

We SHOULD have nationalized health care, but we dont. And Obamacare is now the biggest obstacle to getting it.

Same sex marriage is about equal protection under the law. either you believe in the Constitution or you dont. If you dont, then youre against same sex marriage. Period.


And the media has reported the facts fairly clearly. YOU just havent been paying attention. And that doesnt make you 1% of anything.


In other words, your entire post is comprised of bigotry, misinformation and arrogant stupidity.


----------



## Vidi

Google said:


> Jesus F-ing Christ, Al Gore LIED to the NAACP about his father's voting record, *BOLD FACED LIED about his father voting for the Civil Right Act, and to this day that horseshit organization has yet called him on it.*



Al Gore isnt running for anything. Hasnt run for anything in 12 years. Maybe you should let it go.


----------



## Google

Vidi said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus F-ing Christ, Al Gore LIED to the NAACP about his father's voting record, *BOLD FACED LIED about his father voting for the Civil Right Act, and to this day that horseshit organization has yet called him on it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Gore isnt running for anything. Hasnt run for anything in 12 years. Maybe you should let it go.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, it's okay for you to bring up Gerald Ford falling down but God forbid someone mention Al Gore intentionally lying about his father's voting record regarding the Civil Rights Act


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.
> 
> Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  *Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it. * This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Alarmist imbecility at it's most extreme
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  *Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it. * This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alarmist imbecility at it's most extreme
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is obvious.  Conservatives and libertarians have been fighting the growth of government since the Wilson administration, and they've been losing.
Click to expand...


In many ways that is so arbitrary a time period as to make you sound like one of those internet intellectuals. not saying you are, just suggesting the most rational observation. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




MuadDib said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's not the slightest thing "arbitrary" about the time period,  and I have no idea what it means to be an "internet intellectual" or why that's bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana Purchase and much more afterwards...
> 
> No idea? Of course. If you were aware of what I speak of you'd hide your head in shame and embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you have any idea what you're talking about? *The Louisiana Purchase and Woodrow Wilson were about 100 years apart.
Click to expand...


Yes. And obviously you do not know what anyone was talking about. Follow the thread line posted above and then please...don't call me, I'll call you.

_ otay?_


----------



## Vidi

The Infidel said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No on fucking asked us back in the 80's when Reagan started running up the debt to crush Russia did they? I mean I get why he did it, I even agree with why he did it, but fuck, now that the bills come due, everyone acts like we didnt know this shit was coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now its Reagan's fault along with Boosh?
> 
> 
> Nice...
> 
> 
> I just have got to ask..... when will Obama own his policies?
Click to expand...


If you think this crisis was created in the Bush years, youre sadly mistaken. The seeds of this crisis were planted back in the Reagan years, watered by HW Bush, cared for and fertilized by Clinton and then harvested by W. Bush. All during that time, both republican and democrat congresses nodded their heads and applauded.

You can try to ignore the reality of the situation that BOTH parties had a feild day bringing us to this mess and then blame it all on the black man, but I refuse to wear blinders and stupidly march in the partisan parade to Americas bankruptcy.

Only by acknowledging the mistakes of the past, no matter WHO made them, can we hope to avoid the same mistakes in the future.


----------



## Google

Vidi said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I want is for Obama to be honest about his beliefs and for the media to show some semblance of objectivity and consistency in its reporting.  We all knew where Obama stood on homosexual marriage *(oxymoron)*, because he proclaimed it before he was elected president.  We all knew where Obama stood on nationalized healthcare, because he told us.  WE being those that pay attention to such things, the other *99%* don't haven't a F-ing clue because the media has failed so poorly at properly report facts and relevant history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We dont have nationalized health care. Obamacare isnt that. No matter how much you call it that.
> 
> We SHOULD have nationalized health care, but we dont. And Obamacare is now the biggest obstacle to getting it.
> 
> Same sex marriage is about equal protection under the law. either you believe in the Constitution or you dont. If you dont, then youre against same sex marriage. Period.
> 
> 
> And the media has reported the facts fairly clearly. YOU just havent been paying attention. And that doesnt make you 1% of anything.
> 
> 
> In other words, your entire post is comprised of bigotry, misinformation and arrogant stupidity.
Click to expand...


You are delusional if you believe that the media has accurately reported Obama's stance on a multitude of issues.  Here is Obama in 2007--did ANY media outlet report his position on this issue in the run up to Obama care?!?!   

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube[/ame]

You are either a F-ing lair or delusional PERIOD.


----------



## Vidi

Google said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus F-ing Christ, Al Gore LIED to the NAACP about his father's voting record, *BOLD FACED LIED about his father voting for the Civil Right Act, and to this day that horseshit organization has yet called him on it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Gore isnt running for anything. Hasnt run for anything in 12 years. Maybe you should let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, it's okay for you to bring up Gerald Ford falling down but God forbid someone mention Al Gore intentionally lying about his father's voting record regarding the Civil Rights Act
Click to expand...



I didnt bring up shit. I corrected Becki when she said Ford fell down ONCE and got reamed for it by the press in an attempt to paint Rush Limbaugh as just doing what people have always done.

So you took an post out of context and then partisan puked up a post of your own.

AND I fucking DEFENDED Ford, asshole.


----------



## Google

Vidi said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al Gore isnt running for anything. Hasnt run for anything in 12 years. Maybe you should let it go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, it's okay for you to bring up Gerald Ford falling down but God forbid someone mention Al Gore intentionally lying about his father's voting record regarding the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt bring up shit. I corrected Becki when she said Ford fell down ONCE and got reamed for it by the press in an attempt to paint Rush Limbaugh as just doing what people have always done.
> 
> So you took an post out of context and then partisan puked up a post of your own.
> 
> AND I fucking DEFENDED Ford, asshole.
Click to expand...


I don't give a damn about Ford or any of your delusional hopeless posts--but i do love how you have abandoned trying to defend a presidential candidate standing in front of the NAACP and bold face LYING about his father's voting record...but I'm sure you were droning on and on about Prescott Bush


----------



## Dante

Google said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I want is for Obama to be honest about his beliefs and for the media to show some semblance of objectivity and consistency in its reporting.  We all knew where Obama stood on homosexual marriage *(oxymoron)*, because he proclaimed it before he was elected president.  We all knew where Obama stood on nationalized healthcare, because he told us.  WE being those that pay attention to such things, the other *99%* don't haven't a F-ing clue because the media has failed so poorly at properly report facts and relevant history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We dont have nationalized health care. Obamacare isnt that. No matter how much you call it that.
> 
> We SHOULD have nationalized health care, but we dont. And Obamacare is now the biggest obstacle to getting it.
> 
> Same sex marriage is about equal protection under the law. either you believe in the Constitution or you dont. If you dont, then youre against same sex marriage. Period.
> 
> 
> And the media has reported the facts fairly clearly. YOU just havent been paying attention. And that doesnt make you 1% of anything.
> 
> 
> In other words, your entire post is comprised of bigotry, misinformation and arrogant stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you believe that the media has accurately reported Obama's stance on a multitude of issues.  Here is Obama in 2007--did ANY media outlet report his position on this issue in the run up to Obama care?!?!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You are either a F-ing lair or delusional PERIOD.
Click to expand...


Fucking moron   legislation is a compromise. 

gawd, you're stupid.


----------



## Google

Dante said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dont have nationalized health care. Obamacare isnt that. No matter how much you call it that.
> 
> We SHOULD have nationalized health care, but we dont. And Obamacare is now the biggest obstacle to getting it.
> 
> Same sex marriage is about equal protection under the law. either you believe in the Constitution or you dont. If you dont, then youre against same sex marriage. Period.
> 
> 
> And the media has reported the facts fairly clearly. YOU just havent been paying attention. And that doesnt make you 1% of anything.
> 
> 
> In other words, your entire post is comprised of bigotry, misinformation and arrogant stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you believe that the media has accurately reported Obama's stance on a multitude of issues.  Here is Obama in 2007--did ANY media outlet report his position on this issue in the run up to Obama care?!?!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You are either a F-ing lair or delusional PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fucking moron   legislation is a compromise.
> 
> gawd, you're stupid.
Click to expand...


What was Obama's position on the issue after assuming the presidency?


----------



## Vidi

Google said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, it's okay for you to bring up Gerald Ford falling down but God forbid someone mention Al Gore intentionally lying about his father's voting record regarding the Civil Rights Act
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt bring up shit. I corrected Becki when she said Ford fell down ONCE and got reamed for it by the press in an attempt to paint Rush Limbaugh as just doing what people have always done.
> 
> So you took an post out of context and then partisan puked up a post of your own.
> 
> AND I fucking DEFENDED Ford, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a damn about Ford or any of your delusional hopeless posts--but i do love how you have abandoned trying to defend a presidential candidate standing in front of the NAACP and bold face LYING about his father's voting record...but I'm sure you were droning on and on about Prescott Bush
Click to expand...




Hey dickless, pay real close attention to my posts sometime. Ive bashed Obama better than any of you Partisan Hacks. Personally I can barely stand the guy. 

But the damned Republicans have moved so far right that Eisenhower would be a socialist to them and they choose STUPIDITY over SUBSTANCE. If John Huntsman were running as an independent, Id be voting FOR him. But because he is not, I will be voting AGAINST the dumbass, Romney.

And anytime you want to debate FACTS, Ill take you to school , junior. because what Ive seen from you is just half assed broken version of FoxNews talking points. But hey, if you want to spend your life as a half wit, thats certainly your right, just try to stay out of the way of the grown up, huh?


----------



## Vidi

Google said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I want is for Obama to be honest about his beliefs and for the media to show some semblance of objectivity and consistency in its reporting.  We all knew where Obama stood on homosexual marriage *(oxymoron)*, because he proclaimed it before he was elected president.  We all knew where Obama stood on nationalized healthcare, because he told us.  WE being those that pay attention to such things, the other *99%* don't haven't a F-ing clue because the media has failed so poorly at properly report facts and relevant history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We dont have nationalized health care. Obamacare isnt that. No matter how much you call it that.
> 
> We SHOULD have nationalized health care, but we dont. And Obamacare is now the biggest obstacle to getting it.
> 
> Same sex marriage is about equal protection under the law. either you believe in the Constitution or you dont. If you dont, then youre against same sex marriage. Period.
> 
> 
> And the media has reported the facts fairly clearly. YOU just havent been paying attention. And that doesnt make you 1% of anything.
> 
> 
> In other words, your entire post is comprised of bigotry, misinformation and arrogant stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you believe that the media has accurately reported Obama's stance on a multitude of issues.  Here is Obama in 2007--did ANY media outlet report his position on this issue in the run up to Obama care?!?!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You are either a F-ing lair or delusional PERIOD.
Click to expand...


Do we have single payer health care in this country? 

No?

Then youre entire point is irrelevent and misguided. Your partisanship is showing again. 

Next issue.


----------



## Vidi

Google said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you believe that the media has accurately reported Obama's stance on a multitude of issues.  Here is Obama in 2007--did ANY media outlet report his position on this issue in the run up to Obama care?!?!
> 
> Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube
> 
> You are either a F-ing lair or delusional PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking moron   legislation is a compromise.
> 
> gawd, you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was Obama's position on the issue after assuming the presidency?
Click to expand...


As he dropped the public option, never added a single payer provision to Obamacare and went with the Ultra right wing Heritage Foundation solution of an Individual Mandate ( also supported by Romney ) I think his position is fairly clear. Are you having trouble understanding something?


----------



## edthecynic

Google said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Atwater merely learned it from Democrats* and their co-conspiracy with the Fifth Column that President Gerald Ford was a "bumbling klutz" because he lost his balance getting off a stage one time. Ford actually had been quite a good football star, full of grace and good timing almost always. George H.W. Bush was depicted as a Simon Legree by leftist smears, and it was so effective, Lee Atwater had no choice but to meet the competition with one-upmanship. How convenient it is to pillory someone few people remember, Jillian. The man died of a brain tumor at age 40. I doubt he was the first agent in the take-no-survivors game, considering the mud that was slung at his friends over politics, with only enough truth thrown in to make it believable to people who just don't know the facts by a pantywaist press that takes sides and public pollsters who obviate truth with slanted questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Atwater learned everything from Nixon. So tell me, when did Tricky Dickie becaome a Dem????
> 
> Here is Atwater in 1981 explaining the GOP Southern Strategy he learned from Nixon:
> 
> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
> And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow mebecause obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously don't have a damn clue regarding this period in history.  Which party overwhelmingly opposed the Civil Rights Act?  Who is the only senator to vote against the civil rights act--filibuster against it-- to remain in congress until he withered away and died in 2010, and in 2000 when he used the word ****** on national television AND was a known KKK member RESPECTED AND BELOVED Robert Byrd-----Al Gore's very own father voted against AND filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

The Southern representatives of both parties opposed the Civil Rights Act, as you well know. Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948, the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation, giving birth to the Dixiecrats in 1948 and causing legacy segregationist Democrats to retire or switch to the GOP.


----------



## Google

Vidi said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt bring up shit. I corrected Becki when she said Ford fell down ONCE and got reamed for it by the press in an attempt to paint Rush Limbaugh as just doing what people have always done.
> 
> So you took an post out of context and then partisan puked up a post of your own.
> 
> AND I fucking DEFENDED Ford, asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a damn about Ford or any of your delusional hopeless posts--but i do love how you have abandoned trying to defend a presidential candidate standing in front of the NAACP and bold face LYING about his father's voting record...but I'm sure you were droning on and on about Prescott Bush
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dickless, pay real close attention to my posts sometime. Ive bashed Obama better than any of you Partisan Hacks. Personally I can barely stand the guy.
> 
> But the damned Republicans have moved so far right that Eisenhower would be a socialist to them and they choose STUPIDITY over SUBSTANCE. If John Huntsman were running as an independent, Id be voting FOR him. But because he is not, I will be voting AGAINST the dumbass, Romney.
> 
> And anytime you want to debate FACTS, Ill take you to school , junior. because what Ive seen from you is just half assed broken version of FoxNews talking points. But hey, if you want to spend your life as a half wit, thats certainly your right, just try to stay out of the way of the grown up, huh?
Click to expand...


Yes, you are a scholar and someone deserving of respect and admiration 

I do not give a damn who you vote for, and as for your posts--you haven't contributed anything.  I don't regularly call people out on grammar, but that post is infested grammatical errors.  

You haven't disputed any FACTS that I have posted, so I'll just assume you agree with me.


----------



## Google

Vidi said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dont have nationalized health care. Obamacare isnt that. No matter how much you call it that.
> 
> We SHOULD have nationalized health care, but we dont. And Obamacare is now the biggest obstacle to getting it.
> 
> Same sex marriage is about equal protection under the law. either you believe in the Constitution or you dont. If you dont, then youre against same sex marriage. Period.
> 
> 
> And the media has reported the facts fairly clearly. YOU just havent been paying attention. And that doesnt make you 1% of anything.
> 
> 
> In other words, your entire post is comprised of bigotry, misinformation and arrogant stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you believe that the media has accurately reported Obama's stance on a multitude of issues.  Here is Obama in 2007--did ANY media outlet report his position on this issue in the run up to Obama care?!?!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You are either a F-ing lair or delusional PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we have single payer health care in this country?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then youre entire point is irrelevent and misguided. Your partisanship is showing again.
> 
> Next issue.
Click to expand...


Moron, 

You are delusional if you believe that the media has accurately reported Obama's stance on a multitude of issues.  Here is Obama in 2007--*did ANY media outlet report his position on this issue in the run up to Obama care?!?!   *


----------



## Vidi

Google said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a damn about Ford or any of your delusional hopeless posts--but i do love how you have abandoned trying to defend a presidential candidate standing in front of the NAACP and bold face LYING about his father's voting record...but I'm sure you were droning on and on about Prescott Bush
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dickless, pay real close attention to my posts sometime. Ive bashed Obama better than any of you Partisan Hacks. Personally I can barely stand the guy.
> 
> But the damned Republicans have moved so far right that Eisenhower would be a socialist to them and they choose STUPIDITY over SUBSTANCE. If John Huntsman were running as an independent, Id be voting FOR him. But because he is not, I will be voting AGAINST the dumbass, Romney.
> 
> And anytime you want to debate FACTS, Ill take you to school , junior. because what Ive seen from you is just half assed broken version of FoxNews talking points. But hey, if you want to spend your life as a half wit, thats certainly your right, just try to stay out of the way of the grown up, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are a scholar and someone deserving of respect and admiration
> 
> I do not give a damn who you vote for, and as for your posts--you haven't contributed anything.  I don't regularly call people out on grammar, but that post is infested grammatical errors.
> 
> You haven't disputed any FACTS that I have posted, so I'll just assume you agree with me.
Click to expand...


Since I joined the thread you havent posted a fact. Youve posted what you think. Nothing more. 

Facts are backed up by data ( in forums that means links to your supporting data ) 

I dont give a shit if you respect or admire me at all. I also dont give a shit about my grammar on a forum. I wasnt aware there would be a test later or that I was being graded on this. Every day is an 18 hour day for me so if Im tired and post my thoughts without double checking to be sure my thougth muster up to your personal standard, then fuck it. I really dont give a shit at all. My self worth is not dependant on the approval of some idiot on the internet. I do however tire greatly of dumbass partisans thinking that just because someone disagrees with them that person must automatically be a raving lunatic for the other side.

You know who thinks that way? Raving lunatics.


----------



## Vidi

Google said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you believe that the media has accurately reported Obama's stance on a multitude of issues.  Here is Obama in 2007--did ANY media outlet report his position on this issue in the run up to Obama care?!?!
> 
> Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube
> 
> You are either a F-ing lair or delusional PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we have single payer health care in this country?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then youre entire point is irrelevent and misguided. Your partisanship is showing again.
> 
> Next issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moron,
> 
> You are delusional if you believe that the media has accurately reported Obama's stance on a multitude of issues.  Here is Obama in 2007--*did ANY media outlet report his position on this issue in the run up to Obama care?!?!   *
Click to expand...


Have you considered the fact that so many leftys are pissed at Obama about never including single payer and dropping the public option from Obamacare BECAUSE it WAS reported that was his stance? And when they voted for him thats what they thougth they were going to get?

Or were you too busy finding the font size function to pay attention to that?


----------



## Google

Vidi said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dickless, pay real close attention to my posts sometime. Ive bashed Obama better than any of you Partisan Hacks. Personally I can barely stand the guy.
> 
> But the damned Republicans have moved so far right that Eisenhower would be a socialist to them and they choose STUPIDITY over SUBSTANCE. If John Huntsman were running as an independent, Id be voting FOR him. But because he is not, I will be voting AGAINST the dumbass, Romney.
> 
> And anytime you want to debate FACTS, Ill take you to school , junior. because what Ive seen from you is just half assed broken version of FoxNews talking points. But hey, if you want to spend your life as a half wit, thats certainly your right, just try to stay out of the way of the grown up, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are a scholar and someone deserving of respect and admiration
> 
> I do not give a damn who you vote for, and as for your posts--you haven't contributed anything.  I don't regularly call people out on grammar, but that post is infested grammatical errors.
> 
> You haven't disputed any FACTS that I have posted, so I'll just assume you agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I joined the thread you havent posted a fact. Youve posted what you think. Nothing more.
> 
> Facts are backed up by data ( in forums that means links to your supporting data )
> 
> I dont give a shit if you respect or admire me at all. I also dont give a shit about my grammar on a forum. I wasnt aware there would be a test later or that I was being graded on this. Every day is an 18 hour day for me so if Im tired and post my thoughts without double checking to be sure my thougth muster up to your personal standard, then fuck it. I really dont give a shit at all. My self worth is not dependant on the approval of some idiot on the internet. I do however tire greatly of dumbass partisans thinking that just because someone disagrees with them that person must automatically be a raving lunatic for the other side.
> 
> You know who thinks that way? Raving lunatics.
Click to expand...


I apologize if I insult you based on your 5th grade reading level, but....

True or False--The last person to serve in the United States Congress to be a known KKK Grand Wizard, vote against the the Civil Rights Act, and use the word ****** on national television WAS A DEMOCRAT.  


True or False--The last person to run for the presidency of the United States of American to stand in front of the NAACP and LIE about his father's voting record was Al Gore.


----------



## Google

Vidi said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we have single payer health care in this country?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then youre entire point is irrelevent and misguided. Your partisanship is showing again.
> 
> Next issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron,
> 
> You are delusional if you believe that the media has accurately reported Obama's stance on a multitude of issues.  Here is Obama in 2007--*did ANY media outlet report his position on this issue in the run up to Obama care?!?!   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you considered the fact that so many leftys are pissed at Obama about never including single payer and dropping the public option from Obamacare BECAUSE it WAS reported that was his stance? And when they voted for him thats what they thougth they were going to get?
> 
> Or were you too busy finding the font size function to pay attention to that?
Click to expand...


I had to emphasize that because you ignored it, hell if anyone actually embraced and said that they believe this shit they would never be elected *LOL*


----------



## francoHFW

zzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Barb

as to what is generally quoted:


----------



## edthecynic

Barb said:


> as to what is generally quoted:


Not only that, he actually paraphrased the point he was trying to make so even a brain dead CON$ervoFascist could understand it!!!



> The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together*.


----------



## Plasmaball

Cecilie1200 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll excuse me if I take the fact that I'm being disagreed with by a fucking moron as proof that I'm CORRECT.
> 
> Meanwhile, why don't you get your babysitter to look up who funded the various groups of settlers who came to what became the United States.  And then contemplate who paid for the building of roads and towns and infrastructure, and how.
> 
> I know you lazy leftist twits, sitting in Mom's basement and eating Cheetos, want to believe that business and commerce are somehow separate and divorced from "regular" human activity and existence, but the truth is, they're part and parcel of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you get more vapid by the post, dear.
> 
> try harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no response other than personal attacks.  Gosh, I love that liberal "tolerance".  Do please tell me more about how "respectful" you are of alternative lifestyles.    You liberal hypocrites tolerate differences the way the Pope tolerates religion:  Only the ones who agree with you.
Click to expand...



Lol you talk about tolerance,lol coming from a racist sack of shit that you are...

Fuck off.


----------



## Mac1958

Plasmaball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you get more vapid by the post, dear.
> 
> try harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no response other than personal attacks.  Gosh, I love that liberal "tolerance".  Do please tell me more about how "respectful" you are of alternative lifestyles.    You liberal hypocrites tolerate differences the way the Pope tolerates religion:  Only the ones who agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you talk about tolerance,lol coming from a racist sack of shit that you are...
> 
> Fuck off.
Click to expand...



Well THAT conversation didn't go very well.

.


----------



## Oldstyle

edthecynic said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> as to what is generally quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, he actually paraphrased the point he was trying to make so even a brain dead CON$ervoFascist could understand it!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


He paraphrased himself?  Face it, Ed...the guy is clueless about what it takes to start and build a successful business because he's never done it.  He's an academic and a politician who looks down his nose at the Private Sector's accomplishments because he doesn't understand how hard it IS to own your own business.  What's worse is that he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues with the same background as himself.  Is it any wonder that they can't come up with something as basic as a budget or a plan to grow the economy?  Ideologues don't DO budgets!!!  Ideologues don't know how to grow an economy!!!  Ideologues make idiotic statements like Obama just made.  Then they sit back and scratch their heads and ask why the Private Sector won't invest it's capital under THEIR leadership.  If it wasn't hurting us so much it would be laughable.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Mac1958 said:


> *Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach* on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.



This is *hardly* a unique opinion.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ_jxLKbbDo]Bill Gates Sr. Argues For Estate Tax - YouTube[/ame]

*



> *Estate Tax*


----------



## jillian

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> as to what is generally quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, he actually paraphrased the point he was trying to make so even a brain dead CON$ervoFascist could understand it!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He paraphrased himself?  Face it, Ed...the guy is clueless about what it takes to start and build a successful business because he's never done it.  He's an academic and a politician who looks down his nose at the Private Sector's accomplishments because he doesn't understand how hard it IS to own your own business.  What's worse is that he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues with the same background as himself.  Is it any wonder that they can't come up with something as basic as a budget or a plan to grow the economy?  Ideologues don't DO budgets!!!  Ideologues don't know how to grow an economy!!!  Ideologues make idiotic statements like Obama just made.  Then they sit back and scratch their heads and ask why the Private Sector won't invest it's capital under THEIR leadership.  If it wasn't hurting us so much it would be laughable.
Click to expand...


thanks for the talking points. i'm sure we all appreciate hearing them yet again.

i know rushbo is proud.


----------



## zeke

> Since I joined the thread you havent posted a fact. Youve posted what you think. Nothing more.
> 
> Facts are backed up by data ( in forums that means links to your supporting data )




Wondered why this idea of "fact" would now be important? I have seen both sides post their "facts" and both sides denigrate the source. And the numbers or info is never accepted by both sides.

So why bother?

Just curious.


----------



## jillian

zeke said:


> Since I joined the thread you havent posted a fact. Youve posted what you think. Nothing more.
> 
> Facts are backed up by data ( in forums that means links to your supporting data )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wondered why this idea of "fact" would now be important? I have seen both sides post their "facts" and both sides denigrate the source. And the numbers or info is never accepted by both sides.
> 
> So why bother?
> 
> Just curious.
Click to expand...


can you please learn how to use the quote function so people can link back to the post you're referencing?

thanks.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

> "*There's nowhere else in the world, nowhere else in the world, that people can accrue the kind of fortunes that happen here. And that's because of the kind of country we have.*
> 
> And the kind of country we have is a function of the taxes that we pay to provide security, we have a stable market, you can predict next week will be pretty much like the week before.
> 
> We have the most immense investment being made by our government in advancing businesses by supporting the enormous research industry that's going on in this country. And it's that piece of government expenditure that which has everything to do with the health and robustness of our economy."
> 
> *Bill Gates Sr.*​



​


----------



## GuyPinestra

zeke said:


> Since I joined the thread you havent posted a fact. Youve posted what you think. Nothing more.
> 
> Facts are backed up by data ( in forums that means links to your supporting data )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wondered why this idea of "fact" would now be important? I have seen both sides post their "facts" and both sides denigrate the source. And the numbers or info is never accepted by both sides.
> 
> So why bother?
> 
> Just curious.
Click to expand...


Because circle jerks have RULZ...


----------



## Oldstyle

jillian said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, he actually paraphrased the point he was trying to make so even a brain dead CON$ervoFascist could understand it!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He paraphrased himself?  Face it, Ed...the guy is clueless about what it takes to start and build a successful business because he's never done it.  He's an academic and a politician who looks down his nose at the Private Sector's accomplishments because he doesn't understand how hard it IS to own your own business.  What's worse is that he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues with the same background as himself.  Is it any wonder that they can't come up with something as basic as a budget or a plan to grow the economy?  Ideologues don't DO budgets!!!  Ideologues don't know how to grow an economy!!!  Ideologues make idiotic statements like Obama just made.  Then they sit back and scratch their heads and ask why the Private Sector won't invest it's capital under THEIR leadership.  If it wasn't hurting us so much it would be laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thanks for the talking points. i'm sure we all appreciate hearing them yet again.
> 
> i know rushbo is proud.
Click to expand...


Please, my pointing out that this Administration has the fewest business people in it of any Administration in recent history and hence struggles to understand businesses isn't a "talking point"...it's reality.  Obama appoints a "Jobs Council" and then doesn't meet with it for six months?  How could that BE when the economy is so bad and so many MILLIONS are out of work?  What the fuck is this guy doing, Jillian?  We need leadership and he's not providing it.


----------



## edthecynic

Oldstyle said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> He paraphrased himself?  Face it, Ed...the guy is clueless about what it takes to start and build a successful business because he's never done it.  He's an academic and a politician who looks down his nose at the Private Sector's accomplishments because he doesn't understand how hard it IS to own your own business.  What's worse is that he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues with the same background as himself.  Is it any wonder that they can't come up with something as basic as a budget or a plan to grow the economy?  Ideologues don't DO budgets!!!  Ideologues don't know how to grow an economy!!!  Ideologues make idiotic statements like Obama just made.  Then they sit back and scratch their heads and ask why the Private Sector won't invest it's capital under THEIR leadership.  If it wasn't hurting us so much it would be laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the talking points. i'm sure we all appreciate hearing them yet again.
> 
> i know rushbo is proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, my pointing out that this Administration has the fewest business people in it of any Administration in recent history and hence struggles to understand businesses isn't a "talking point"...it's reality.  Obama appoints a "Jobs Council" and then doesn't meet with it for six months?  How could that BE when the economy is so bad and so many MILLIONS are out of work?  What the fuck is this guy doing, Jillian?  We need leadership and he's not providing it.
Click to expand...

Now wait just a minute there slick, your MessiahRushie mocked the jobs council when it was formed and said it was a waste of time and now suddenly it is the most important thing on Earth. CON$ flip-flop even more than Willard Flip-Flop Rmoney, if that is even possible.


----------



## Murf76

Oldstyle said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> He paraphrased himself?  Face it, Ed...the guy is clueless about what it takes to start and build a successful business because he's never done it.  He's an academic and a politician who looks down his nose at the Private Sector's accomplishments because he doesn't understand how hard it IS to own your own business.  What's worse is that he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues with the same background as himself.  Is it any wonder that they can't come up with something as basic as a budget or a plan to grow the economy?  Ideologues don't DO budgets!!!  Ideologues don't know how to grow an economy!!!  Ideologues make idiotic statements like Obama just made.  Then they sit back and scratch their heads and ask why the Private Sector won't invest it's capital under THEIR leadership.  If it wasn't hurting us so much it would be laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the talking points. i'm sure we all appreciate hearing them yet again.
> 
> i know rushbo is proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, my pointing out that this Administration has the fewest business people in it of any Administration in recent history and hence struggles to understand businesses isn't a "talking point"...it's reality.  Obama appoints a "Jobs Council" and then doesn't meet with it for six months?  How could that BE when the economy is so bad and so many MILLIONS are out of work?  What the fuck is this guy doing, Jillian?  We need leadership and he's not providing it.
Click to expand...


He's got plenty of time for swanky fundraisers and golf though.


----------



## GuyPinestra

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the talking points. i'm sure we all appreciate hearing them yet again.
> 
> i know rushbo is proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, my pointing out that this Administration has the fewest business people in it of any Administration in recent history and hence struggles to understand businesses isn't a "talking point"...it's reality.  Obama appoints a "Jobs Council" and then doesn't meet with it for six months?  How could that BE when the economy is so bad and so many MILLIONS are out of work?  What the fuck is this guy doing, Jillian?  We need leadership and he's not providing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now wait just a minute there slick, your MessiahRushie mocked the jobs council when it was formed and said it was a waste of time and now suddenly it is the most important thing on Earth. CON$ flip-flop even more than Willard Flip-Flop Rmoney, if that is even possible.
Click to expand...


Judging by the amount of work it's done, Rush was RIGHT!


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the talking points. i'm sure we all appreciate hearing them yet again.
> 
> i know rushbo is proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, my pointing out that this Administration has the fewest business people in it of any Administration in recent history and hence struggles to understand businesses isn't a "talking point"...it's reality.  Obama appoints a "Jobs Council" and then doesn't meet with it for six months?  How could that BE when the economy is so bad and so many MILLIONS are out of work?  What the fuck is this guy doing, Jillian?  We need leadership and he's not providing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now wait just a minute there slick, your MessiahRushie mocked the jobs council when it was formed and said it was a waste of time and now suddenly it is the most important thing on Earth. CON$ flip-flop even more than Willard Flip-Flop Rmoney, if that is even possible.
Click to expand...


You can hardly blame people for seeing _through_ this guy, can you?  Just because we KNEW all along that Obama's "Job's Council" wasn't a serious effort, doesn't mean we can't rub his nose in it when it turns out we were right.


----------



## Foxfyre

My my, the detractors and professional trolls are bringing in reinforcements now to derail this thread.  What does Rush Limbaugh possibly have to do with the President insisting that none of us accomplished anything without everybody else helping us and that entitles government to more of our money?


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> My my, the detractors and professional trolls are bringing in reinforcements now to derail this thread.  What does Rush Limbaugh possibly have to do with the President insisting that* none of us accomplished anything without everybody else helping us and that entitles government to more of our money*?


Because your MessiahRushie put that crap inside your "skull full of mush."

Here was Obama's own summary of the point he made, how close is it to your bullshit summary???



> The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together*.


----------



## Zoom-boing




----------



## Oldstyle

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the talking points. i'm sure we all appreciate hearing them yet again.
> 
> i know rushbo is proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, my pointing out that this Administration has the fewest business people in it of any Administration in recent history and hence struggles to understand businesses isn't a "talking point"...it's reality.  Obama appoints a "Jobs Council" and then doesn't meet with it for six months?  How could that BE when the economy is so bad and so many MILLIONS are out of work?  What the fuck is this guy doing, Jillian?  We need leadership and he's not providing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now wait just a minute there slick, your MessiahRushie mocked the jobs council when it was formed and said it was a waste of time and now suddenly it is the most important thing on Earth. CON$ flip-flop even more than Willard Flip-Flop Rmoney, if that is even possible.
Click to expand...


The point I'm making, Ed...is that Obama appointed these people to be his advisers on job creation...yet at a time when long term unemployment is at record levels...he doesn't meet with his own jobs council for six months.  What the fuck is he doing?  Seriously...what is our President doing about unemployment in this country?  He says the Private Sector is doing "fine" when it's still down millions of jobs from before the recession?  It's NOT doing fine and people are looking for leadership from the Oval Office and he's giving them excuses.


----------



## CandySlice

Foxfyre said:


> My my, the detractors and professional trolls are bringing in reinforcements now to derail this thread.  What does Rush Limbaugh possibly have to do with the President insisting that none of us accomplished anything without everybody else helping us and that entitles government to more of our money?



 Foxy, ignore the trolls, we're still with ya.

Rush Limbaugh, in a perfect world, would be a bus driver or a sanitation worker with a good vocabulary. But 'part-time news' has seen fit to raise himself and Nancy Grace to star status and thusly we are saddled with them. It is times like this one is eternally grateful for a remote with channel changing capacity.
As for Obama's comment I'll say this:
What kind of idiot says things like that and who in the blue eyed world would think that's  all right??
Obama has never built a business or run a business  other than the business of Hyping Obama.


----------



## Pho_King

oreo said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All business people are not  RICH-.  *Obama slammed dunked small--medium--and large business with his statement.* *Americans are really pissed off about it.
> *  But what can we expect from a man that has never worked one single day in his entire life in the private sector.  A person that has never owned or operated his own business--and has had a GUARANTEED government paycheck to show for his career from day one.
> 
> *Obama is an epic economic failure.*  Obama shoved an 878 billion dollar stimulus bill down our throats with a PROMISE that it would create millions of private sector jobs in this country--and then we found out that what he borrowed from China to create jobs here--showed up in China creating jobs there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A war is emerging between Congress and the White House over high-profile stimulus programs that lawmakers claim aren't serving the American people.
> 
> Senate Democrats lashed out at the Obama administration on Wednesday, saying its stimulus wind energy program creates jobs overseas instead of in the U.S., and they're calling for the administration to put a stop to it.
> 
> *"Today, we are demanding the Obama administration suspend this program immediately," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.*
> 
> The program has already spent $2 billion, funding enough projects to power 2.4 million homes. Any wind farm created in the U.S. is eligible for stimulus money to put up wind turbines, regardless of where those massive structures are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama's Stimulus Money Spent Overseas, Jobs in China - ABC News
Click to expand...

What can we expect from a man that has never worked in the private sector and been on the government dole for years?

Let's see,  we can expect an unending, expansive faith in the beneficence of government, a faith made flesh through policy.   We can expect a belief that even the lowliest OWS parasite (of which this board is infected) to get credit for the successes of others.  We can expect a push for a massive, never exercised new government power to push people into commerce vis a vis the commerce clause,  (or the taxing power).  We can expect propaganda extolling the virtues of massive government as witnessed through the life of a parasite named Julia.   We can expect that, a man with such faith in the overarching goodness of massive, expanding government would simultaneously hold considerable scorn for those whose higher power is not contained within bureaucracy.  

There is much to expect from such a man.


----------



## Katzndogz

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, my pointing out that this Administration has the fewest business people in it of any Administration in recent history and hence struggles to understand businesses isn't a "talking point"...it's reality.  Obama appoints a "Jobs Council" and then doesn't meet with it for six months?  How could that BE when the economy is so bad and so many MILLIONS are out of work?  What the fuck is this guy doing, Jillian?  We need leadership and he's not providing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Now wait just a minute there slick, your MessiahRushie mocked the jobs council when it was formed and said it was a waste of time and now suddenly it is the most important thing on Earth. CON$ flip-flop even more than Willard Flip-Flop Rmoney, if that is even possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point I'm making, Ed...is that Obama appointed these people to be his advisers on job creation...yet at a time when long term unemployment is at record levels...he doesn't meet with his own jobs council for six months.  What the fuck is he doing?  Seriously...what is our President doing about unemployment in this country?  He says the Private Sector is doing "fine" when it's still down millions of jobs from before the recession?  It's NOT doing fine and people are looking for leadership from the Oval Office and he's giving them excuses.
Click to expand...


obama does not like working.  The first thing he did as president was take AF1 on date night in New York.  Moochelle ran out there to complain about how hard it is to work.    He will play golf, go on vacation, have a party, anything but work.


----------



## Zoom-boing

CandySlice said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My my, the detractors and professional trolls are bringing in reinforcements now to derail this thread.  What does Rush Limbaugh possibly have to do with the President insisting that none of us accomplished anything without everybody else helping us and that entitles government to more of our money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy, ignore the trolls, we're still with ya.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh, in a perfect world, would be a bus driver or a sanitation worker with a good vocabulary. But 'part-time news' has seen fit to raise himself and Nancy Grace to star status and thusly we are saddled with them. It is times like this one is eternally grateful for a remote with channel changing capacity.
> As for Obama's comment I'll say this:
> What kind of idiot says things like that and who in the blue eyed world would think that's  all right??
> Obama has never built a business or run a business  other than the business of *
> Hyping Obama*.
Click to expand...



There's a book with that title just waiting to be written.


----------



## Pho_King

jillian said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and therein lies the essential problem... they have been so limboticized that their perspective has been destroyed. we have always made fun of our presidents... like everyone, they often deserve to be made fun of.
> 
> the take no prisoners, make your opponent into the enemy... began with atwater and was perfected by rove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you brain dead or did you just forget the eight years of Bush's presidency. Perspective?!?  You are a fine example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what about the eight years when bush was president?
> 
> he was the worst president we had in my lifetime.
> 
> and just as a reminder, he left office with a 22% approval rating.
> 
> i'll also remind you that after 9/11 he had all of us rallying around him.
> 
> the right would never have done that for this president...who was elected and not appointed.
Click to expand...


Did you learn that from Atwater or rove?


----------



## CandySlice

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, my pointing out that this Administration has the fewest business people in it of any Administration in recent history and hence struggles to understand businesses isn't a "talking point"...it's reality.  Obama appoints a "Jobs Council" and then doesn't meet with it for six months?  How could that BE when the economy is so bad and so many MILLIONS are out of work?  What the fuck is this guy doing, Jillian?  We need leadership and he's not providing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Now wait just a minute there slick, your MessiahRushie mocked the jobs council when it was formed and said it was a waste of time and now suddenly it is the most important thing on Earth. CON$ flip-flop even more than Willard Flip-Flop Rmoney, if that is even possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point I'm making, Ed...is that Obama appointed these people to be his advisers on job creation...yet at a time when long term unemployment is at record levels...he doesn't meet with his own jobs council for six months.  What the fuck is he doing?  Seriously...what is our President doing about unemployment in this country?  He says the Private Sector is doing "fine" when it's still down millions of jobs from before the recession?  It's NOT doing fine and people are looking for leadership from the Oval Office and he's giving them excuses.
Click to expand...


Obama would have done well to have kept to job creation and left the healthcare issue to people that actually UNDERSTOOD healthcare. So far he has (purposefully, one might ask??) ignored the real problems of this country for a pipe dream that will bankrupt us and doom us to the same status as Greece.


----------



## Pho_King

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushbot is the most self-hating loon on the planet...
> 
> he was a draft-dodger so he calls people draft dodgers
> 
> he's a drug addict so he's offended that anyone tried drugs in college.
> 
> he's a viagra-taking, ho, so he thinks everyone else is a ho...
> 
> mostly, anyone who actually takes him seriously needs to seek help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how you really feel, Jillian. Don't hold back.
> 
> I thought his show was great today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what i said was fact, not opinion...
> 
> i think the limbotization of politics is one of the reasons that the right has become so insane over the last two decades.
> 
> he wasn't alone, though... lee atwater started the ball rolling.
Click to expand...


For an alleged lawyer, you have serious issues differentiating fact from opinion.


----------



## CandySlice

Zoom-boing said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My my, the detractors and professional trolls are bringing in reinforcements now to derail this thread.  What does Rush Limbaugh possibly have to do with the President insisting that none of us accomplished anything without everybody else helping us and that entitles government to more of our money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy, ignore the trolls, we're still with ya.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh, in a perfect world, would be a bus driver or a sanitation worker with a good vocabulary. But 'part-time news' has seen fit to raise himself and Nancy Grace to star status and thusly we are saddled with them. It is times like this one is eternally grateful for a remote with channel changing capacity.
> As for Obama's comment I'll say this:
> What kind of idiot says things like that and who in the blue eyed world would think that's  all right??
> Obama has never built a business or run a business  other than the business of *
> Hyping Obama*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's a book with that title just waiting to be written.
Click to expand...


And well there should be, tho I think 'Amatuer' (sp?)handles the case pretty well.


----------



## CandySlice

Pho_King said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you brain dead or did you just forget the eight years of Bush's presidency. Perspective?!?  You are a fine example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what about the eight years when bush was president?
> 
> he was the worst president we had in my lifetime.
> 
> and just as a reminder, he left office with a 22% approval rating.
> 
> i'll also remind you that after 9/11 he had all of us rallying around him.
> 
> the right would never have done that for this president...who was elected and not appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you learn that from Atwater or rove?
Click to expand...

 Jillian I made money under Bush. I made money under Clinton. Under this Mook I've made ZIP.


----------



## CandySlice

Murf76 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the talking points. i'm sure we all appreciate hearing them yet again.
> 
> i know rushbo is proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, my pointing out that this Administration has the fewest business people in it of any Administration in recent history and hence struggles to understand businesses isn't a "talking point"...it's reality.  Obama appoints a "Jobs Council" and then doesn't meet with it for six months?  How could that BE when the economy is so bad and so many MILLIONS are out of work?  What the fuck is this guy doing, Jillian?  We need leadership and he's not providing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's got plenty of time for swanky fundraisers and golf though.
Click to expand...


He might actually HAVE business people stashed somewhere but they are either failed business people or they are not allowed to speak.


Murf, is that quote from Hitchhikers Guide the the Galaxy?


----------



## CandySlice

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, my pointing out that this Administration has the fewest business people in it of any Administration in recent history and hence struggles to understand businesses isn't a "talking point"...it's reality.  Obama appoints a "Jobs Council" and then doesn't meet with it for six months?  How could that BE when the economy is so bad and so many MILLIONS are out of work?  What the fuck is this guy doing, Jillian?  We need leadership and he's not providing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Now wait just a minute there slick, your MessiahRushie mocked the jobs council when it was formed and said it was a waste of time and now suddenly it is the most important thing on Earth. CON$ flip-flop even more than Willard Flip-Flop Rmoney, if that is even possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can hardly blame people for seeing _through_ this guy, can you?  Just because we KNEW all along that Obama's "Job's Council" wasn't a serious effort, doesn't mean we can't rub his nose in it when it turns out we were right.
Click to expand...


Murph they tell me I need to spread rep around before I can hit you again and that's a shame


----------



## Barb

CandySlice said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now wait just a minute there slick, your MessiahRushie mocked the jobs council when it was formed and said it was a waste of time and now suddenly it is the most important thing on Earth. CON$ flip-flop even more than Willard Flip-Flop Rmoney, if that is even possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point I'm making, Ed...is that Obama appointed these people to be his advisers on job creation...yet at a time when long term unemployment is at record levels...he doesn't meet with his own jobs council for six months.  What the fuck is he doing?  Seriously...what is our President doing about unemployment in this country?  He says the Private Sector is doing "fine" when it's still down millions of jobs from before the recession?  It's NOT doing fine and people are looking for leadership from the Oval Office and he's giving them excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama would have done well to have kept to job creation and left the healthcare issue to people that actually UNDERSTOOD healthcare. So far he has (purposefully, one might ask??) ignored the real problems of this country for a pipe dream that will bankrupt us and doom us to the same status as Greece.
Click to expand...


I retract my earlier rep.


----------



## Truthmatters

CandySlice said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about the eight years when bush was president?
> 
> he was the worst president we had in my lifetime.
> 
> and just as a reminder, he left office with a 22% approval rating.
> 
> i'll also remind you that after 9/11 he had all of us rallying around him.
> 
> the right would never have done that for this president...who was elected and not appointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you learn that from Atwater or rove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jillian I made money under Bush. I made money under Clinton. Under this Mook I've made ZIP.
Click to expand...





you built it on your own remember?

so you blaming someone else when you fail?


----------



## regent

Few Neandrthals could make it on their own today, much less an American, European or Asian.  We are a dependent creature and this pap that we are  rugged individualists is garbage. Some even believed Hoover as he gave us the rugged speech as he fed millions into failing businesses. And that reminds me of one of his more famous rugged speeches when he told us how new businesses were springing up all over New york--selling apples. 
Government needs business and business needs government, and the people need both.


----------



## Full-Auto

edthecynic said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> as to what is generally quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, he actually paraphrased the point he was trying to make so even a brain dead CON$ervoFascist could understand it!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Whats to understand...

He has attacked business from day one while giving away billions to cronies.

Piss off.


----------



## Truthmatters

regent said:


> Few Neandrthals could make it on their own today, much less an American, European or Asian.  We are a dependent creature and this pap that we are  rugged individualists is garbage. Some even believed Hoover as he gave us the rugged speech as he fed millions into failing businesses. And that reminds me of one of his more famous rugged speeches when he told us how new businesses were springing up all over New york--selling apples.
> Government needs business and business needs government, and the people need both.



agreed and the founders would also agree


----------



## CandySlice

Truthmatters said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you learn that from Atwater or rove?
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian I made money under Bush. I made money under Clinton. Under this Mook I've made ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you built it on your own remember?
> 
> so you blaming someone else when you fail?
Click to expand...


I've been retired for a long time. My business has been passed on to the youngsters and yes, they are struggling and uncertain about hiring people right now pending the outcome of this healthcare bill. We have a choice. Either pay the penalty and keep the current employees or accept the healthcare and fire a few of them.


----------



## Zoom-boing

[





Truthmatters said:


> you built it on your own remember?
> 
> *so you blaming someone else when you fail?*





Just takin' our cues from Barry.


----------



## naturegirl

Somehow I think business could survive without government.  

Government survive without business??  Naw, I don't think so.


----------



## CandySlice

Zoom-boing said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> you built it on your own remember?
> 
> *so you blaming someone else when you fail?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just takin' our cues from Barry.
Click to expand...


 I'd also like to add I built my business in SPITE of Gov't interference, NOT because of it.


----------



## Truthmatters

CandySlice said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> you built it on your own remember?
> 
> *so you blaming someone else when you fail?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just takin' our cues from Barry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd also like to add I built my business in SPITE of Gov't interference, NOT because of it.
Click to expand...


yeah says some internets poster.


----------



## Truthmatters

You cant claim credit when it goes well and then lay blame when it doesnt.

see how your whole claim is nothing but bullshit


----------



## CandySlice

Truthmatters said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Just takin' our cues from Barry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd also like to add I built my business in SPITE of Gov't interference, NOT because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah says some internets poster.
Click to expand...


i won't argue with you. Getting close to the truth obviously upsets you and causes you to go to your insult vault for what I can only describe as egregiously over-worked stock insults in leiu of actual conversation and debate.

You win! Feel better?


----------



## Truthmatters

you dont own the truth.


your "vision" is that Bush crashing the entire world economy didnt effect your "business".


----------



## Full-Auto

Truthmatters said:


> you dont own the truth.
> 
> 
> your "vision" is that Bush crashing the entire world economy didnt effect your "business".



IT WAS DEMOCRATS DIP SHIT. With some repub help.

But you are too fucking stupid to understand real cause and effect.


----------



## Truthmatters

You were able to build your business like everyone else who built a business in this country.

Because we work together to build infrastructure and we work together to protect each other from fraud and abuse.


----------



## Truthmatters

If Bush had NOT been president this country would not have crashed


----------



## CandySlice

Truthmatters said:


> you dont own the truth.
> 
> 
> your "vision" is that Bush crashing the entire world economy didnt effect your "business".



I own my slice of it.


----------



## healthmyths

really feel that way when he said:
If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.

Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?

If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?

Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!  
BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?

NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
Tearing the USA down???


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists?
> 
> I was going to respond to more of your post, and then I realized...
> 
> this is your brain on auto pilot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They've argued it, but their arguments all suck ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.
> 
> Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it.  This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
Click to expand...




Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, there HAVE been some decent arguments for the validity of the existence of government.
> 
> Unfortunately for the leftists, they've all come from people who want to seriously shrink government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fatal flaw in all their arguments is the fact that once government exists it will continue to grow like a cancer until it consumes all of society.  *Our society is doomed.  I hold out no hope for it. * This election is capitalism's last stand.  Even if Romney wins, it's only a matter of time until the parasites drag us down the sewer hole with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Alarmist imbecility at it's most extreme
Click to expand...


------------


Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alarmist imbecility at it's most extreme
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is obvious.  Conservatives and libertarians have been fighting the growth of government since the Wilson administration, and they've been losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many ways that is so arbitrary a time period, as to make you sound like one of those internet intellectuals. Not saying you are, just suggesting the most rational observation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Full-Auto

Truthmatters said:


> You were able to build your business like everyone else who built a business in this country.
> 
> Because we work together to build infrastructure and we work together to protect each other from fraud and abuse.



Work together.

It was the dem cronies that got billions for green energy and when they went tits up. Democrats insured those cronies didnt lose a personal dime.

Damn you suck.


----------



## g5000

Truthmatters said:


> If Bush had NOT been president this country would not have crashed



Yes it would have.  The FSMA and CFMA were passed by Clinton and the GOP Congress, and those had more to do with the crash than anything Bush did.

Not that Bush is blameless.  This was a team effort.


----------



## Oldstyle

Truthmatters said:


> you dont own the truth.
> 
> 
> your "vision" is that Bush crashing the entire world economy didnt effect your "business".



Actually, TM....EVERYONE owns you!  Just saying...


----------



## CandySlice

Truthmatters said:


> You were able to build your business like everyone else who built a business in this country.
> 
> Because we work together to build infrastructure and we work together to protect each other from fraud and abuse.





Over-simplifying it and re-working old adages doesn't make up for experience and actual hands on work.

I think perhaps you've spent your life working for other people, something I was lucky enough not to have to do, and now you are angry about it. Because if you'd EVER got your hands dirty, fought against sometimes unbeatable odds and acheived something you could call your own that not only sustained you but an entire family and possibly generations to come you'd feel quite differently.


----------



## Claudette

I think its gonna turn around and bite him in the ass.

Try telling a business owner that he didn't pour his heart, soul, capital, time and effort into his business.  Tell him he didn't make sacrifices to keep his dream alive. Tell him someone else did it for him. Tell him he owes it all to someone else. 

Yeah. That oughta go over big with business owners especially coming from a guy who's never held a real job in his entire life.

Jesus. Obamas a schmuck.


----------



## Oldstyle

Obama's "problem" is that every once in a while he goes Joe Biden and blurts out what he really thinks.  The fact is...he's not a Private Sector "guy"...he's a Public Sector guy.  For people like Barry, the Private Sector is simply the means to an end...they provide him with the money he needs to fund his entitlement programs.  He doesn't like the Private Sector and like most progressives, is uncomfortable with the notion of profit.


----------



## Murf76

Truthmatters said:


> You were able to build your business like everyone else who built a business in this country.
> 
> Because we work together to build infrastructure and we work together to protect each other from fraud and abuse.



Not true.  Businesses are often asked to provide infrastructure, from access roads to even building schools, as a provision for receiving permits.  But more to the point... only people who pay taxes and who don't turn around and drain that revenue back out of the system in welfare assistance "work together to build infrastructure".


----------



## blastoff

It was just another dumb statement from the inexperienced one that will likely cost him votes in November.  Since January 20, 2009, Barry as been a shinning example of the Peter Principle.


----------



## Some Guy

Oldstyle said:


> [Obama] is uncomfortable with the notion of profit.



...and the idea of individual profit and success.  

Oh, unless you're a progressive.  Then you're all good.


----------



## 007

It's no gaffe. He really meant it. That's the way he thinks. We got a real good look at who and what this little turd socialist is.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Matters not. It hurt him and I'm glad.


----------



## CandySlice

g5000 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Bush had NOT been president this country would not have crashed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would have.  The FSMA and CFMA were passed by Clinton and the GOP Congress, and those had more to do with the crash than anything Bush did.
> 
> Not that Bush is blameless.  This was a team effort.
Click to expand...


You can thank Bill Clinton's lame duck 106th congress for the loan bundling fiasco.


----------



## healthmyths

Claudette said:


> I think its gonna turn around and bite him in the ass.
> 
> Try telling a business owner that he didn't pour his heart, soul, capital, time and effort into his business.  Tell him he didn't make sacrifices to keep his dream alive. Tell him someone else did it for him. Tell him he owes it all to someone else.
> 
> Yeah. That oughta go over big with business owners.



100%  right!

In the US, small business (less than 500 employees) accounts for around half the GDP and more than half the employment. [18] Regarding small business, the top job provider is those with fewer than 10 employees, and those with 10 or more but fewer than 20 employees comes in as the second, and those with 20 or more but fewer than 100 employees comes in as the third (interpolation of data from the following references)

Small business - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Truthmatters

No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.


Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections


----------



## Lonestar_logic

healthmyths said:


> really feel that way when he said:
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
> 76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?
> 
> If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?
> 
> Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
> hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
> So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
> SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?
> 
> NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
> His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
> Tearing the USA down???



Obama thinks businesses create themselves.


----------



## 007

Truthmatters said:


> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections



And no roads or bridges built a business, idiot.

PLEASE... SHUT THE FUCK UP... you ignorant, egg headed, puss sack.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Truthmatters said:


> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections



What does a road or a bridge have to do with building a business?

Are you saying there were no businesses in this country until roads were built?







Watch TM runaway!!


----------



## occupied

Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.


----------



## P@triot

Truthmatters said:


> you dont own the truth.
> 
> 
> your "vision" is that Bush crashing the entire world economy didnt effect your "business".



Wow - now Bush has suddenly crashed the entire WORLD economy? 

You radical liberals are hilarious. You implement policy that creates collapse and then blame others for that collapse that you created.

Sorry, Bush wasn't running Greece and never has. Liberal policy collapsed Greece. Same with England, Spain, and now the United States.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

occupied said:


> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.



Spoken like a true dependent.


----------



## tinydancer

healthmyths said:


> really feel that way when he said:
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
> 76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?
> 
> If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?
> 
> Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
> hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
> So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
> SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?
> 
> NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
> His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
> Tearing the USA down???



Obama believes this to be a true and fair statement. He almost duplicated Elizabeth Warren's Fair Taxation speech.


----------



## francoHFW

...as Voodoo continues to destroy our infrastructure and education...dupes.


----------



## NYcarbineer

occupied said:


> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.



A conservative poster said to me last week that the truth was irrelevant.

I didn't see one conservative poster disagree with him.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

occupied said:


> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.



I feel sorry for you. To have such low self value has to suck.


----------



## WillowTree

healthmyths said:


> really feel that way when he said:
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
> 76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?
> 
> If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?
> 
> Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
> hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
> So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
> SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?
> 
> NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
> His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
> Tearing the USA down???








He's unraveling. take it, embrace it. and remember it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

What's mildly astonishing is that conservatives even need it explained to them that the private sector AND government work TOGETHER to make this country prosper.

When you are so ignorant and uneducated as to find common knowledge incomprehensible,

it's time for some serious self-improvement efforts.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

NYcarbineer said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A conservative poster said to me last week that the truth was irrelevant.
> 
> I didn't see one conservative poster disagree with him.
Click to expand...


The "perception" of Obama elected him. Now the truth of Obama will be his end.


----------



## occupied

NYcarbineer said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A conservative poster said to me last week that the truth was irrelevant.
> 
> I didn't see one conservative poster disagree with him.
Click to expand...


Show me a man that has lived in solitude since birth, growing every bite of food he has ever eaten, making all his clothes and defending his vegetable patch from marauders all without a bit education and maybe I will admit that a self-made-man exists but he would not be successful by any western definition.


----------



## NYcarbineer

healthmyths said:


> really feel that way when he said:
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
> 76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?
> 
> If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?
> 
> Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
> hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
> So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
> SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?
> 
> NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
> His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
> Tearing the USA down???



*Seriously, this idiot poster just said we don't need roads and bridges.*


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

NYcarbineer said:


> What's mildly astonishing is that conservatives even need it explained to them that the private sector AND government work TOGETHER to make this country prosper.
> 
> When you are so ignorant and uneducated as to find common knowledge incomprehensible,
> 
> it's time for some serious self-improvement efforts.



You're delusional.


----------



## CandySlice

Rottweiler said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont own the truth.
> 
> 
> your "vision" is that Bush crashing the entire world economy didnt effect your "business".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - now Bush has suddenly crashed the entire WORLD economy?
> 
> You radical liberals are hilarious. You implement policy that creates collapse and then blame others for that collapse that you created.
> 
> Sorry, Bush wasn't running Greece and never has. Liberal policy collapsed Greece. Same with England, Spain, and now the United States.
Click to expand...


Typical lib strategy. 'Who me?'


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

occupied said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A conservative poster said to me last week that the truth was irrelevant.
> 
> I didn't see one conservative poster disagree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a man that has lived in solitude since birth, growing every bite of food he has ever eaten, making all his clothes and defending his vegetable patch from marauders all without a bit education and maybe I will admit that a self-made-man exists but he would not be successful by any western definition.
Click to expand...


I suspect you have no idea what success is. 

What do you do for a living?


----------



## CandySlice

I get the feeling to TRUTHMATTERS the answer is ' not so much'.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Rottweiler said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont own the truth.
> 
> 
> your "vision" is that Bush crashing the entire world economy didnt effect your "business".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - now Bush has suddenly crashed the entire WORLD economy?
> 
> You radical liberals are hilarious. You implement policy that creates collapse and then blame others for that collapse that you created.
> 
> Sorry, Bush wasn't running Greece and never has. Liberal policy collapsed Greece. Same with England, Spain, and now the United States.
Click to expand...


Mostly it was the Banksters that bush and co allowed to run amok, but to be fair both parties are involved

as long as idiots like you defend the worst of the worst people on the planet, our work is really cut out for us


----------



## occupied

Grampa Murked U said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for you. To have such low self value has to suck.
Click to expand...


To have such a low value for our society and it's people must suck much more than my acceptance of the concept of social responsibility. I feel like a part of an awesome group of humans who have worked together to build a great nation, is loneliness a big problem with you being so removed from a group identity that many treasure more than their own lives?


----------



## freedombecki

Truthmatters said:


> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections



And you own how many businesses to come up with this assessment, madam?

Dear leader has no compunctions about lying to the American people to assert his redistribution of wealth edicts against the successful to reward the unsuccessful. That requires an entire system of classes, just like in class-ruled countries which, incidentally, furnish the world with zero for a future.


----------



## occupied

Grampa Murked U said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A conservative poster said to me last week that the truth was irrelevant.
> 
> I didn't see one conservative poster disagree with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a man that has lived in solitude since birth, growing every bite of food he has ever eaten, making all his clothes and defending his vegetable patch from marauders all without a bit education and maybe I will admit that a self-made-man exists but he would not be successful by any western definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you have no idea what success is.
> 
> What do you do for a living?
Click to expand...


I do not give out personal details on this board, take it however you want to, but I am doing pretty well lately, certainly better than when things went south 4 years ago.


----------



## 007

occupied said:


> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.



The "MYTH?" Sheeeeezuz... you poor little person... to be so brain washed you don't believe that an individual has the capability to make their own life what they want by themselves. I guess in your twisted little, obama, commie world, the government has to do it for you... right?

You poor little brain washed creature.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay guys, don't let the loonies and desperate Obama worshipers drag the train off the tracks here.  The topic of this thread is quite capable of sustaining interest all by itself, I want to keep the focus there.

Let's see.  I didn't build my own business.  Somebody else did that for me.  Isn't that what he said?

Somebody else thought up the idea.  Somebody else did the intensive research and talked to all those people to see if it could be profitable.  Somebody else invested in the tools, equipment supplies, and transportation necessary for us to do the work.  Somebody else spent long, long days and hours and hours on the road to produce a product good enough that others wanted it and allowed us to finally get to the point we were making a living at it and were able to recoup our investment.

That's what the President seems to want me to believe.

But yes, somebody else built the roads we drive on.  Our taxes contribted to building and maintaining roads.  Would those roads have existed, however, if we had not been earning money to pay the taxes that built them?  So which came first.  People earning a living who were willing to pay for more infrastructure?   Or did the government appear out of thin air and magically create an infrastructure out of nothing so that people could earn a living?

The people who built the components of the computers I use in my business and who built the computers themselves don't even know I exist, much less didn't built those components for my benefit.  They built those components to put bread on their own table.  If they had not been able to do that, they would not have provided the components.

The clients who pay me to work for them do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts.  The products/services I provide them are necessary for them to conduct their own business and put bread on their table.  Otherwise they would not pay me to provide our product and without being paid, we would not provide it.

But I didn't build my business.  I didn't take the risk.  I didn't put my money on the line.  I didn't put in all the long days of blood, sweat, and tears and make it profitable.  That's what the President told me.  And I find that extremely insulting and so out of touch to be unimaginable.


----------



## healthmyths

Truthmatters said:


> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections



NO but their TAXES paid for it!
Tax revenues pay for almost ALL the infrastructure!

Also since when did the USA have a construction company that built one single bridge?

BUSINESSES build them and their taxes pay for employees benefits!

Again.. where did the money come from???
Or do you naively think it as the typical Obama support and  these women think:
  ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?
 WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where 
                    he got it from,  but he givin' it to us,
WOMAN #2: And we love him.   
Woman #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!

I imagine you like these women think Obama just writes checks from his stash???


----------



## Truthmatters

your just going to keep lying about what he said no matter what the facts are?


gee imagine my surprise


----------



## iamwhatiseem

He believes every word he said. 
In his world, businesses are evil empires. 
And the government can do no wrong...well...not when he is running things that is.


----------



## Truthmatters

how well would your business be doing out in the middle of a forrest without any infrastructure?


----------



## CandySlice

ConzHateUSA said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont own the truth.
> 
> 
> your "vision" is that Bush crashing the entire world economy didnt effect your "business".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - now Bush has suddenly crashed the entire WORLD economy?
> 
> You radical liberals are hilarious. You implement policy that creates collapse and then blame others for that collapse that you created.
> 
> Sorry, Bush wasn't running Greece and never has. Liberal policy collapsed Greece. Same with England, Spain, and now the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly it was the Banksters that bush and co allowed to run amok, but to be fair both parties are involved
> 
> as long as idiots like you defend the worst of the worst people on the planet, our work is really cut out for us
Click to expand...


Actually it was Bill Clintons 106th congress that relaxed the banking rules and got us into this mess. Sometimes it takes 20 years to find out how badly we've screwed up. But I will give you this. They had plenty of help from both sides.


----------



## Truthmatters

Yes Bush did cause a world wide crash.

ask the world


----------



## Foxfyre

I listened very carefully to what he said.  Why don't you?

If youve got a business, you didnt build that.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFK2_D3aBXo]President Obama: If you&#39;ve got a business -- you didn&#39;t build that, somebody else made that happen - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## signelect

Claudette said:


> I think its gonna turn around and bite him in the ass.
> 
> Try telling a business owner that he didn't pour his heart, soul, capital, time and effort into his business.  Tell him he didn't make sacrifices to keep his dream alive. Tell him someone else did it for him. Tell him he owes it all to someone else.
> 
> Yeah. That oughta go over big with business owners especially coming from a guy who's never held a real job in his entire life.
> 
> Jesus. Obamas a schmuck.



Worse than a smuck, he is a dangerous smuck.  He doesn't know what work is.


----------



## Truthmatters

CandySlice said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - now Bush has suddenly crashed the entire WORLD economy?
> 
> You radical liberals are hilarious. You implement policy that creates collapse and then blame others for that collapse that you created.
> 
> Sorry, Bush wasn't running Greece and never has. Liberal policy collapsed Greece. Same with England, Spain, and now the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly it was the Banksters that bush and co allowed to run amok, but to be fair both parties are involved
> 
> as long as idiots like you defend the worst of the worst people on the planet, our work is really cut out for us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was Bill Clintons 106th congress that relaxed the banking rules and got us into this mess. Sometimes it takes 20 years to find out how badly we've screwed up. But I will give you this. They had plenty of help from both sides.
Click to expand...


gramm Leach bliely act.

do you know who they are?


by the way why did the Bush SEC then refuse to impliment the broker rules for 8 long years that were written into GLBact?


----------



## freedombecki

Lonestar_logic said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> really feel that way when he said:
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
> 76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?
> 
> If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?
> 
> Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
> hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
> So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
> SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?
> 
> NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
> His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
> Tearing the USA down???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama thinks businesses create themselves.
Click to expand...

Manchurian candidate. /shaking head


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Foxfyre said:


> I listened very carefully to what he said.  Why don't you?
> 
> If you&#8217;ve got a business, you didn&#8217;t build that.
> President Obama: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen - YouTube



This is another example of the propaganda and the brain damage...

What is in evidence?  What is absolutely and entirely undeniable is that the following statement is true "If you own a business in the US, you did NOT build it entirely on your own"

There is no debate about this factual statement...none

So when these brain-dead, talking point repeating, rightwing terrorists continue to repeat the opposite, it is an important development to note...

the interesting thing to note is these comments arent even controversial, unless you are running a campaign and have nothing, absolutely nothing to show the people...then you *make up* controversial issues like this


----------



## Mac1958

.

This was no gaffe, it was precisely what he thinks, never having started a business. 

Look at the comments of his followers here.  They're behind his comments 100%.

And that's about it.

.


----------



## Truthmatters

Foxfyre said:


> I listened very carefully to what he said.  Why don't you?
> 
> If youve got a business, you didnt build that.
> President Obama: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen - YouTube



then why do you keep omitting the part where he talks about roads and bridges?


----------



## occupied

Pale Rider said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "MYTH?" Sheeeeezuz... you poor little person... to be so brain washed you don't believe that an individual has the capability to make their own life what they want by themselves. I guess in your twisted little, obama, commie world, the government has to do it for you... right?
> 
> You poor little brain washed creature.
Click to expand...


Who the hell is brainwashed here? I do not believe a man can prosper in solitude without a society to provide the framework and safety to build on, let's put you naked in the middle of a barren plain and see how well you do Mr. Self made dumb ass.


----------



## Pho_King

Foxfyre said:


> Okay guys, don't let the loonies and desperate Obama worshipers drag the train off the tracks here.  The topic of this thread is quite capable of sustaining interest all by itself, I want to keep the focus there.
> 
> Let's see.  I didn't build my own business.  Somebody else did that for me.  Isn't that what he said?
> 
> Somebody else thought up the idea.  Somebody else did the intensive research and talked to all those people to see if it could be profitable.  Somebody else invested in the tools, equipment supplies, and transportation necessary for us to do the work.  Somebody else spent long, long days and hours and hours on the road to produce a product good enough that others wanted it and allowed us to finally get to the point we were making a living at it and were able to recoup our investment.
> 
> That's what the President seems to want me to believe.
> 
> But yes, somebody else built the roads we drive on.  Our taxes contribted to building and maintaining roads.  Would those roads have existed, however, if we had not been earning money to pay the taxes that built them?  So which came first.  People earning a living who were willing to pay for more infrastructure?   Or did the government appear out of thin air and magically create an infrastructure out of nothing so that people could earn a living?
> 
> The people who built the components of the computers I use in my business and who built the computers themselves don't even know I exist, much less didn't built those components for my benefit.  They built those components to put bread on their own table.  If they had not been able to do that, they would not have provided the components.
> 
> The clients who pay me to work for them do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts.  The products/services I provide them are necessary for them to conduct their own business and put bread on their table.  Otherwise they would not pay me to provide our product and without being paid, we would not provide it.
> 
> But I didn't build my business.  I didn't take the risk.  I didn't put my money on the line.  I didn't put in all the long days of blood, sweat, and tears and make it profitable.  That's what the President told me.  And I find that extremely insulting and so out of touch to be unimaginable.


Yes.    All of that is true.  We built your business together.  All those government programs you have paid through the nose for your whole life helped you immeasurably.  All those OWSers that would like nothing more than to cut you to heir level with the failure of your business have actually been a major source of help to yo in building and maintaining your business.  You have the government, and thus every American who has ever lived, to thank for your success.  So, get out that checkbook....The parasite class depends on you to pay for those things that they have equal access to, yet fail to be as productive with, and thus pay less for.


----------



## freedombecki

Pale Rider said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "MYTH?" Sheeeeezuz... you poor little person... to be so brain washed you don't believe that an individual has the capability to make their own life what they want by themselves. I guess in your twisted little, obama, commie world, the government has to do it for you... right?
> 
> You poor little brain washed creature.
Click to expand...

He learned it in a strong NEA union school.


----------



## asaratis

Truthmatters said:


> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections



If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.


English lessons available here....$300.00 per hour...sign up today and get a free set of  Ninja Knives and a bamboo steamer!


----------



## Truthmatters

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision. 





can you understand this?


----------



## freedombecki

occupied said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "MYTH?" Sheeeeezuz... you poor little person... to be so brain washed you don't believe that an individual has the capability to make their own life what they want by themselves. I guess in your twisted little, obama, commie world, the government has to do it for you... right?
> 
> You poor little brain washed creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the hell is brainwashed here? I do not believe a man can prosper in solitude without a society to provide the framework and safety to build on, let's put you naked in the middle of a barren plain and see how well you do Mr. Self made dumb ass.
Click to expand...

The bio of many entrepreneurs kicks your thesis straight in the butt, doll.


----------



## CandySlice

Truthmatters said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly it was the Banksters that bush and co allowed to run amok, but to be fair both parties are involved
> 
> as long as idiots like you defend the worst of the worst people on the planet, our work is really cut out for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was Bill Clintons 106th congress that relaxed the banking rules and got us into this mess. Sometimes it takes 20 years to find out how badly we've screwed up. But I will give you this. They had plenty of help from both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gramm Leach bliely act.
> 
> do you know who they are?
> 
> 
> by the way why did the Bush SEC then refuse to impliment the broker rules for 8 long years that were written into GLBact?
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for a responce from my other remarks. Also, I SAID they didn't do it on their own. Catch UP.


----------



## freedombecki

iamwhatiseem said:


> He believes every word he said.
> In his world, businesses are evil empires.
> And the government can do no wrong...well...not when he is running things that is.


You nailed it, and that's a wrap.


----------



## healthmyths

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> really feel that way when he said:
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
> 76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?
> 
> If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?
> 
> Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
> hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
> So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
> SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?
> 
> NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
> His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
> Tearing the USA down???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Seriously, this idiot poster just said we don't need roads and bridges.*
Click to expand...


Tell me ANYWHERE in my original post was there a statement "we don't need roads and bridges'?
Seriously do you know understand why people like you are looked up as "losers"?
I mean NOWHERE was that statement made but WHAT I was pointing out it WAS The taxes that businesses, people that worked for businesses taxes PAID for the bridges/roads.. NOT the government!  They don't even build them!  They contract with companies that make profits!  Give me the name of ONE single solitary construction company wholly owned by the US government that has a building with entire work force paid by the government that BUILDS bridges/roads?

NOTHING!
All the government does is takes money and redistributes and it does that POORLY!
I mean you really like your tax dollars going to these "govt. projects:?

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has so far awarded $1.44 million in federal funds to a project that, among other things, is estimating the size of the population and examining the social milieu of male prostitutes in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

And that is efficient use of your tax dollars???


----------



## Truthmatters

you cant explain it because it outs the right as gamoing the system.

the congress and the president agreed on a bill and then Gramm left to cash in as UBS bank for his efforts.

then Bush took office and appointed an SEC head that gamed the bill to only allow the parts they wanted to be implimented.


the bill that passed would have prevented this mess.


the republicans made sure that didnt happen


----------



## freedombecki

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> This was no gaffe, it was precisely what he thinks, never having started a business.
> 
> Look at the comments of his followers here.  They're behind his comments 100%.
> 
> And that's about it.
> 
> .


Yeah, I've seen hundreds of Failed attempts to put a nice coat of lipstick on the pig, too.


----------



## CandySlice

Foxfyre said:


> Okay guys, don't let the loonies and desperate Obama worshipers drag the train off the tracks here.  The topic of this thread is quite capable of sustaining interest all by itself, I want to keep the focus there.
> 
> Let's see.  I didn't build my own business.  Somebody else did that for me.  Isn't that what he said?
> 
> Somebody else thought up the idea.  Somebody else did the intensive research and talked to all those people to see if it could be profitable.  Somebody else invested in the tools, equipment supplies, and transportation necessary for us to do the work.  Somebody else spent long, long days and hours and hours on the road to produce a product good enough that others wanted it and allowed us to finally get to the point we were making a living at it and were able to recoup our investment.
> 
> That's what the President seems to want me to believe.
> 
> But yes, somebody else built the roads we drive on.  Our taxes contribted to building and maintaining roads.  Would those roads have existed, however, if we had not been earning money to pay the taxes that built them?  So which came first.  People earning a living who were willing to pay for more infrastructure?   Or did the government appear out of thin air and magically create an infrastructure out of nothing so that people could earn a living?
> 
> The people who built the components of the computers I use in my business and who built the computers themselves don't even know I exist, much less didn't built those components for my benefit.  They built those components to put bread on their own table.  If they had not been able to do that, they would not have provided the components.
> 
> The clients who pay me to work for them do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts.  The products/services I provide them are necessary for them to conduct their own business and put bread on their table.  Otherwise they would not pay me to provide our product and without being paid, we would not provide it.
> 
> *But I didn't build my business.  I didn't take the risk.  I didn't put my money on the line.  I didn't put in all the long days of blood, sweat, and tears and make it profitable.  That's what the President told me.  And I find that extremely insulting and so out of touch to be unimaginable.*



 Can you beat that for arrogance?


----------



## occupied

Anyone want to admit openly that they owe nothing to our society? No taxes, no honesty, no compassion, no desire to build on the accomplishments of past generations for the sake of the future generations? Maybe you can tell us of your plans to take it all with you when you die?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

As a business owner ( a real one, not like the hundreds of righties on this board, other boards and calling into liberal talk shows pretending to be business owners) I can assure you I would be nowhere without all kinds of help from all kinds of sources, including the US Govt, State Govt, County etc


----------



## CandySlice

CandySlice said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to build your business like everyone else who built a business in this country.
> 
> Because we work together to build infrastructure and we work together to protect each other from fraud and abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over-simplifying it and re-working old adages doesn't make up for experience and actual hands on work.
> 
> I think perhaps you've spent your life working for other people, something I was lucky enough not to have to do, and now you are angry about it. Because if you'd EVER got your hands dirty, fought against sometimes unbeatable odds and acheived something you could call your own that not only sustained you but an entire family and possibly generations to come you'd feel quite differently.
Click to expand...


Re-post and thanks to you Fox.


----------



## Truthmatters

Your not going to deal with the facts i gave you huh candyslice?


----------



## Mac1958

occupied said:


> Anyone want to admit openly that they owe nothing to our society? No taxes, no honesty, no compassion, no desire to build on the accomplishments of past generations for the sake of the future generations? Maybe you can tell us of your plans to take it all with you when you die?




Gosh, I haven't seen anyone say that, or anything close to it.  Straw man arguments sure are easy to just toss out there, aren't they?

Most entrepreneurs aren't asking for your thanks, or your respect, nor are we asking to not pay taxes or to use public services for nothing.  We would simply appreciate it if you would consider not mocking our efforts, our sacrifices, the daily risks we take or the jobs we create.

If that's asking for too much, my apologies.  I'm not holding my breath anyway.

.


----------



## Truthmatters

if a law is written and you only impliment part of that law you did not impliment that law.


example: we the people make a law that says you can execute people found guilty of treason.


then you only impliment: we the  people make a law that says you can execute people.


see how that is not a good idea?


----------



## Truthmatters

No right winger I have ever talked to on here has admitted what the SEC document proves with the exception of Toro


----------



## CandySlice

Truthmatters said:


> you cant explain it because it outs the right as gamoing the system.
> 
> the congress and the president agreed on a bill and then Gramm left to cash in as UBS bank for his efforts.
> 
> then Bush took office and appointed an SEC head that gamed the bill to only allow the parts they wanted to be implimented.
> 
> 
> the bill that passed would have prevented this mess.
> 
> 
> the republicans made sure that didnt happen



Truth, EVERYBODY games the system. That's the problem and I repeat: The Libs DIDN'T DO IT ON THEIR OWN.
But when you tell me I have these same idiots to thank for MY success well, you've just over stepped yourself.


----------



## asaratis

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> This was no gaffe, it was precisely what he thinks, never having started a business.
> 
> Look at the comments of his followers here.  They're behind his comments 100%.
> 
> And that's about it.
> 
> .



The blind leading the blind leading the blind!


----------



## NYcarbineer

Grampa Murked U said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A conservative poster said to me last week that the truth was irrelevant.
> 
> I didn't see one conservative poster disagree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "perception" of Obama elected him. Now the truth of Obama will be his end.
Click to expand...


That you can say that while supporting Romney is heeee-larious.


----------



## Zoom-boing

CandySlice said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay guys, don't let the loonies and desperate Obama worshipers drag the train off the tracks here.  The topic of this thread is quite capable of sustaining interest all by itself, I want to keep the focus there.
> 
> Let's see.  I didn't build my own business.  Somebody else did that for me.  Isn't that what he said?
> 
> Somebody else thought up the idea.  Somebody else did the intensive research and talked to all those people to see if it could be profitable.  Somebody else invested in the tools, equipment supplies, and transportation necessary for us to do the work.  Somebody else spent long, long days and hours and hours on the road to produce a product good enough that others wanted it and allowed us to finally get to the point we were making a living at it and were able to recoup our investment.
> 
> That's what the President seems to want me to believe.
> 
> But yes, somebody else built the roads we drive on.  Our taxes contribted to building and maintaining roads.  Would those roads have existed, however, if we had not been earning money to pay the taxes that built them?  So which came first.  People earning a living who were willing to pay for more infrastructure?   Or did the government appear out of thin air and magically create an infrastructure out of nothing so that people could earn a living?
> 
> The people who built the components of the computers I use in my business and who built the computers themselves don't even know I exist, much less didn't built those components for my benefit.  They built those components to put bread on their own table.  If they had not been able to do that, they would not have provided the components.
> 
> The clients who pay me to work for them do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts.  The products/services I provide them are necessary for them to conduct their own business and put bread on their table.  Otherwise they would not pay me to provide our product and without being paid, we would not provide it.
> 
> *But I didn't build my business.  I didn't take the risk.  I didn't put my money on the line.  I didn't put in all the long days of blood, sweat, and tears and make it profitable.  That's what the President told me.  And I find that extremely insulting and so out of touch to be unimaginable.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you beat that for arrogance?
Click to expand...


This from the same man who (according to the left) single-handedly took out OBL.


----------



## CandySlice

Truthmatters said:


> Your not going to deal with the facts i gave you huh candyslice?



Sweetie, how many times am I going to have to tell you your argument has value? And that is EXACTLY WHY I don't want these people taking credit for MY success. They fought AGAINST me, not FOR  me and for Obama to articulate such a pile of shit just INFURIATES me.


----------



## Truthmatters

Mac1958 said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to admit openly that they owe nothing to our society? No taxes, no honesty, no compassion, no desire to build on the accomplishments of past generations for the sake of the future generations? Maybe you can tell us of your plans to take it all with you when you die?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, I haven't seen anyone say that, or anything close to it.  Straw man arguments sure are easy to just toss out there, aren't they?
> 
> Most entrepreneurs aren't asking for your thanks, or your respect, nor are we asking to not pay taxes or to use public services for nothing.  We would simply appreciate it if you would consider not mocking our efforts, our sacrifices, the daily risks we take or the jobs we create.
> 
> If that's asking for too much, my apologies.  I'm not holding my breath anyway.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


its what the right is claiming.


Obama said we dont do anything alone in this country.

its true.


you would have to build your business in the middle of a forrest to build it all on your own.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> This was no gaffe, it was precisely what he thinks, never having started a business.
> 
> Look at the comments of his followers here.  They're behind his comments 100%.
> 
> And that's about it.
> 
> .



He said that the public and private sectors are a cooperative effort that work together to make this country prosper.

That people like you can't understand that is simply astonishing.


----------



## CandySlice

Zoom-boing said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay guys, don't let the loonies and desperate Obama worshipers drag the train off the tracks here.  The topic of this thread is quite capable of sustaining interest all by itself, I want to keep the focus there.
> 
> Let's see.  I didn't build my own business.  Somebody else did that for me.  Isn't that what he said?
> 
> Somebody else thought up the idea.  Somebody else did the intensive research and talked to all those people to see if it could be profitable.  Somebody else invested in the tools, equipment supplies, and transportation necessary for us to do the work.  Somebody else spent long, long days and hours and hours on the road to produce a product good enough that others wanted it and allowed us to finally get to the point we were making a living at it and were able to recoup our investment.
> 
> That's what the President seems to want me to believe.
> 
> But yes, somebody else built the roads we drive on.  Our taxes contribted to building and maintaining roads.  Would those roads have existed, however, if we had not been earning money to pay the taxes that built them?  So which came first.  People earning a living who were willing to pay for more infrastructure?   Or did the government appear out of thin air and magically create an infrastructure out of nothing so that people could earn a living?
> 
> The people who built the components of the computers I use in my business and who built the computers themselves don't even know I exist, much less didn't built those components for my benefit.  They built those components to put bread on their own table.  If they had not been able to do that, they would not have provided the components.
> 
> The clients who pay me to work for them do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts.  The products/services I provide them are necessary for them to conduct their own business and put bread on their table.  Otherwise they would not pay me to provide our product and without being paid, we would not provide it.
> 
> *But I didn't build my business.  I didn't take the risk.  I didn't put my money on the line.  I didn't put in all the long days of blood, sweat, and tears and make it profitable.  That's what the President told me.  And I find that extremely insulting and so out of touch to be unimaginable.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you beat that for arrogance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from the same man who (according to the left) single-handedly took out OBL.
Click to expand...


If you qualify 'standing on the backs of giants like Seal Team six' as taking out ANYTHING, that is.


----------



## Pho_King

ConzHateUSA said:


> As a business owner ( a real one, not like the hundreds of righties on this board, other boards and calling into liberal talk shows pretending to be business owners) I can assure you I would be nowhere without all kinds of help from all kinds of sources, including the US Govt, State Govt, County etc



Great.   Get out your checkbook.  I would like for you to reimburse me for the help I have given you.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

CandySlice said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your not going to deal with the facts i gave you huh candyslice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, how many times am I going to have to tell you your argument has value? And that is EXACTLY WHY I don't want these people taking credit for MY success. They fought AGAINST me, not FOR  me and for Obama to articulate such a pile of shit just INFURIATES me.
Click to expand...


One example of Obama fighting against your success? (i dont believe you or any bagger on here actually owns their own business, but for the sake of this discussion I will pretend that you do)


----------



## Truthmatters

bullshit 


your business ussed roads bridges, police and fire departments, healthdepartments, schools, emts and thousands of other people.


you may have had to deal with local gov to build your business but only an asshole would claim you gained NOTHING from you city, state and countires infrastructure


----------



## Mac1958

NYcarbineer said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> This was no gaffe, it was precisely what he thinks, never having started a business.
> 
> Look at the comments of his followers here.  They're behind his comments 100%.
> 
> And that's about it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said that the public and private sectors are a cooperative effort that work together to make this country prosper.
> 
> That people like you can't understand that is simply astonishing.
Click to expand...



And you're cherry-picking what he said.  

That people like you can't be honest is NOT astonishing.



.


----------



## Truthmatters

Bush crashed the entire world economy with his gaming of our system


----------



## Truthmatters

how many of your cutomers have government jobs that make it possible for them to buy your product?


----------



## Katzndogz

occupied said:


> Anyone want to admit openly that they owe nothing to our society? No taxes, no honesty, no compassion, no desire to build on the accomplishments of past generations for the sake of the future generations? Maybe you can tell us of your plans to take it all with you when you die?



Building on past generations for future generations has nothing to do with government.  It has to do with individuals using their talent, capital and innovation passing that on to the future.   Not government.

It's the same as saying your father isn't your father.  The government is your daddy and proving it by claiming that your grandfather was alive to birth your daddy.


----------



## Murf76

healthmyths said:


> really feel that way when he said:
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
> 76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?
> 
> If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?
> 
> Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
> hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
> So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
> SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?
> 
> NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
> His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
> Tearing the USA down???



Oh... he meant it alright.  And in case anyone's wondering how he managed  to put himself into a position where his true collectivist feelings burst forth from his mouth unbidden... his handlers are trying to wean him off the 'prompter. 
Obama Being Weaned Off the Teleprompter - President Obama - Fox Nation

All that's left to do now is to rank this gaffe in comparison to earlier ones.  Personally, while it doesn't sound quite as bad as "bitter-clingers" or "spread the wealth", I'd have to give it top billing since it so handily _confirms_ his socialist tendencies at a really critical point in the election.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Truthmatters said:


> bullshit
> 
> 
> your business ussed roads bridges, police and fire departments, healthdepartments, schools, emts and thousands of other people.
> 
> 
> you may have had to deal with local gov to build your business but only an asshole would claim you gained NOTHING from you city, state and countires infrastructure



Arent they cute  

I have a business partner who is an extreme racist con motherfucker, and I never speak to him about politics because he will only puke out what Hannity or Oreilly said the night before (kinda sad, he is very bright too, weird) and I would love to hear him tell me how he built this all on his own when in fact we had to rely heavily on all kinds of govt, roads, employees, banks, regulations, etc.

how funny


----------



## Truthmatters

more fucking lying from the right


----------



## CandySlice

healthmyths said:


> really feel that way when he said:
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
> 76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?
> 
> If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?
> 
> Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
> hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
> So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
> SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?
> 
> NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
> His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
> Tearing the USA down???



Personally I think it's the most brilliant statement he's ever made. NOW maybe people will finally see what an idiot he is.


----------



## Truthmatters

CandySlice said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your not going to deal with the facts i gave you huh candyslice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, how many times am I going to have to tell you your argument has value? And that is EXACTLY WHY I don't want these people taking credit for MY success. They fought AGAINST me, not FOR  me and for Obama to articulate such a pile of shit just INFURIATES me.
Click to expand...


your just going to keep lying about what he said huh?


----------



## NYcarbineer

What's ironic is that at the same time the Right is ranting about this, the GOP is ramping up its efforts to reverse the coming defense spending cuts,

and they are making an economic/JOBS argument in the process.

Attacking the president for saying that the government is part of the jobs equation while they're fighting for make-work defense projects funded by the government.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Well, liar, maybe Obama fought against you and your pretend business, but I can assure you he didnt fight against the Swiss Watch industry, record profits, or the stock market, record highs...

The rich love Obama, you can take that to the bank...morons


----------



## Truthmatters

CandySlice said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> you cant explain it because it outs the right as gamoing the system.
> 
> the congress and the president agreed on a bill and then Gramm left to cash in as UBS bank for his efforts.
> 
> then Bush took office and appointed an SEC head that gamed the bill to only allow the parts they wanted to be implimented.
> 
> 
> the bill that passed would have prevented this mess.
> 
> 
> the republicans made sure that didnt happen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, EVERYBODY games the system. That's the problem and I repeat: The Libs DIDN'T DO IT ON THEIR OWN.
> But when you tell me I have these same idiots to thank for MY success well, you've just over stepped yourself.
Click to expand...


Gramm


read the history of the law sometime.


see how you change what he said to fit your preconcieved ideas?


Obama said you have had help and you have.


how the FUCK is that evil?


----------



## Katzndogz

National defense is one of the few things government is supposed to do.   Democrats just happen to believe we don't need national defense.  After all, it's not like there's anyone out there that doesn't like us.


----------



## freedombecki

NYcarbineer said:


> What's ironic is that at the same time the Right is ranting about this, the GOP is ramping up its efforts to reverse the coming defense spending cuts,
> 
> and they are making an economic/JOBS argument in the process.
> 
> Attacking the president for saying that the government is part of the jobs equation while they're fighting for make-work defense projects funded by the government.


Sorry, dear, we righties ain'ta gonna let study-war-no-more yahoos screw the troops who lost arms and limbs.

Your'e welcome.


----------



## Truthmatters

ConzHateUSA said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit
> 
> 
> your business ussed roads bridges, police and fire departments, healthdepartments, schools, emts and thousands of other people.
> 
> 
> you may have had to deal with local gov to build your business but only an asshole would claim you gained NOTHING from you city, state and countires infrastructure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arent they cute
> 
> I have a business partner who is an extreme racist con motherfucker, and I never speak to him about politics because he will only puke out what Hannity or Oreilly said the night before (kinda sad, he is very bright too, weird) and I would love to hear him tell me how he built this all on his own when in fact we had to rely heavily on all kinds of govt, roads, employees, banks, regulations, etc.
> 
> how funny
Click to expand...


they work soooo hard to hate their fellow Americans and the system our founders left us.

its really sad


----------



## NYcarbineer

Mac1958 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> This was no gaffe, it was precisely what he thinks, never having started a business.
> 
> Look at the comments of his followers here.  They're behind his comments 100%.
> 
> And that's about it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said that the public and private sectors are a cooperative effort that work together to make this country prosper.
> 
> That people like you can't understand that is simply astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're cherry-picking what he said.
> 
> That people like you can't be honest is NOT astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So you people take one line out of what he said, that without context can be construed as having an entirely different meaning from what he actually said,

and I comment on what he really said, in context,

and I"M  the cherrypicker?

You're an idiot.


----------



## High_Gravity

That just sounds like a very un-American thing to say for me, sorry.


----------



## CandySlice

ConzHateUSA said:


> Well, liar, maybe Obama fought against you and your pretend business, but I can assure you he didnt fight against the Swiss Watch industry, record profits, or the stock market, record highs...
> 
> The rich love Obama, you can take that to the bank...morons



Well, lets see. Obama himself, right? Well we are now waiting to see how this new  healthcare mess plays out. And we are trying to decide whether to just pay the penalty or fire a couple of people.


----------



## Katzndogz

Clearly the democrats are losing it over this misstep by obama.

Obama Ad Accuses Romney of 'Launching a False Attack' for Quoting Obama | The Weekly Standard


----------



## freedombecki

Truthmatters said:


> more fucking lying from the right


Poor truthmatters, with her new page of commonish f-word speech emphasizing her broad-brushed calumnies in simplistic terms.


----------



## Truthmatters

what kind of mess was healthcare before this law you fool?


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said that the public and private sectors are a cooperative effort that work together to make this country prosper.
> 
> That people like you can't understand that is simply astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're cherry-picking what he said.
> 
> That people like you can't be honest is NOT astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you people take one line out of what he said, that without context can be construed as having an entirely different meaning from what he actually said,
> 
> and I comment on what he really said, in context,
> 
> and I"M  the cherrypicker?
> 
> You're an idiot.
Click to expand...


The context isn't really a defense on this one.  It only just expands upon the offensive statement.


----------



## edthecynic

asaratis said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> 
> English lessons available here....$300.00 per hour...sign up today and get a free set of  Ninja Knives and a bamboo steamer!
Click to expand...

Gee you left this very important part of what Obama told the crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together."*

" A text out of context, isolated form co-text, is always a pretext."  
Jacob Prasch


----------



## freedombecki

NYcarbineer said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said that the public and private sectors are a cooperative effort that work together to make this country prosper.
> 
> That people like you can't understand that is simply astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're cherry-picking what he said.
> 
> That people like you can't be honest is NOT astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So *you people* take one line out of what he said, that without context can be construed as having an entirely different meaning from what he actually said,
> 
> and I comment on what he really said, in context,
> 
> and I"M  the cherrypicker?
> 
> You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

No he didn't, and  no he isn't.


----------



## CandySlice

Truthmatters said:


> what kind of mess was healthcare before this law you fool?



We could afford to insure our people.


----------



## Truthmatters

CandySlice said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, liar, maybe Obama fought against you and your pretend business, but I can assure you he didnt fight against the Swiss Watch industry, record profits, or the stock market, record highs...
> 
> The rich love Obama, you can take that to the bank...morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, lets see. Obama himself, right? Well we are now waiting to see how this new  healthcare mess plays out. And we are trying to decide whether to just pay the penalty or fire a couple of people.
Click to expand...


what your not smart enough to do the needed research?

you do know other competitors are going to outplay you by actually doing the work to know how to deal with this right?


----------



## Truthmatters

in your own world view they will deserve to beat you out for being a lazy entreprenuer


----------



## ConzHateUSA

CandySlice said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, liar, maybe Obama fought against you and your pretend business, but I can assure you he didnt fight against the Swiss Watch industry, record profits, or the stock market, record highs...
> 
> The rich love Obama, you can take that to the bank...morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, lets see. Obama himself, right? Well we are now waiting to see how this new  healthcare mess plays out. And we are trying to decide whether to just pay the penalty or fire a couple of people.
Click to expand...


bullshit, that is a lie and how I know you arent faced with that dilemma is this is what i do for a living

you either know nothing about ACA or are lying about owning a biz


----------



## Murf76

Katzndogz said:


> Clearly the democrats are losing it over this misstep by obama.
> 
> Obama Ad Accuses Romney of 'Launching a False Attack' for Quoting Obama | The Weekly Standard



It's dawning on them just how bad a gaffe this was.  It's a game-changer, and they're hoping the can pass it off as an out-of-context remark.  But it's not.  Obama's comments in their entirety were damning.


----------



## CandySlice

CandySlice said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kind of mess was healthcare before this law you fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could afford to insure our people.
Click to expand...




AND we could afford to hire new ones. Not any more.


----------



## CandySlice

ConzHateUSA said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, liar, maybe Obama fought against you and your pretend business, but I can assure you he didnt fight against the Swiss Watch industry, record profits, or the stock market, record highs...
> 
> The rich love Obama, you can take that to the bank...morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, lets see. Obama himself, right? Well we are now waiting to see how this new  healthcare mess plays out. And we are trying to decide whether to just pay the penalty or fire a couple of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit, that is a lie and how I know you arent faced with that dilemma is this is what i do for a living
> 
> you either know nothing about ACA or are lying about owning a biz
Click to expand...


I think you've cursed at me and called me names just about enough, sweetie. Thank God for the ignore feature. You add NOTHING to ANY conversation.


----------



## healthmyths

NYcarbineer said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A conservative poster said to me last week that the truth was irrelevant.
> 
> I didn't see one conservative poster disagree with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "perception" of Obama elected him. Now the truth of Obama will be his end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you can say that while supporting Romney is heeee-larious.
Click to expand...


"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." (John F. Kennedy)

You seem enamored with Kennedy.. are you aware that Kennedy's top tax rate cut from 91% to 77% (14%) for incomes over $200,000 was the largest RATE cut in history .. far more then Bush that was 4.5% ?


----------



## buckeye45_73

ConzHateUSA said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, liar, maybe Obama fought against you and your pretend business, but I can assure you he didnt fight against the Swiss Watch industry, record profits, or the stock market, record highs...
> 
> The rich love Obama, you can take that to the bank...morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, lets see. Obama himself, right? Well we are now waiting to see how this new healthcare mess plays out. And we are trying to decide whether to just pay the penalty or fire a couple of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit, that is a lie and how I know you arent faced with that dilemma is this is what i do for a living
> 
> you either know nothing about ACA or are lying about owning a biz
Click to expand...

So why didnt congress and unions want to use the ACA? I find it funny how they have "exemptions" like all liberals, pass shit for the average joe and we're exempt!


----------



## ConzHateUSA

CandySlice said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kind of mess was healthcare before this law you fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could afford to insure our people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND we could afford to hire new ones. Not any more.
Click to expand...


liar

and again, how I know is it is my business to know


----------



## Truthmatters

Health Insurance Premiums Up 131% in Last Ten Years | Moneyland | TIME.com


----------



## ConzHateUSA

buckeye45_73 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, lets see. Obama himself, right? Well we are now waiting to see how this new healthcare mess plays out. And we are trying to decide whether to just pay the penalty or fire a couple of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, that is a lie and how I know you arent faced with that dilemma is this is what i do for a living
> 
> you either know nothing about ACA or are lying about owning a biz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why didnt congress and unions want to use the ACA? I find it funny how they have "exemptions" like all liberals, pass shit for the average joe and we're exempt!
Click to expand...


dont know what you are babbling on about, but i bet you are against universal health care, single payer ?

stop  making unsupported comments, forget about ACA for a minute and tell me if you want universal health care, yes or no


----------



## Truthmatters

"keep those facts away from me"


candyslice runs away from the facts


----------



## CandySlice

Wow, the whole atmosphere just sweetened up.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> 
> English lessons available here....$300.00 per hour...sign up today and get a free set of  Ninja Knives and a bamboo steamer!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee you left this very important part of what Obama told the crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together."*
> 
> " A text out of context, isolated form co-text, is always a pretext."
> Jacob Prasch
Click to expand...


How is that supposed to fix it? He's still presuming a public vested interest in private businesses, _"we do things together"_.

Who's "we"??? 

The infrastructure is built by the businesses themselves, sometimes directly but most often through taxes they pay.  People who don't pay taxes, or offset what little they do pay by taking welfare benefits didn't contribute squat.


----------



## occupied

healthmyths said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "perception" of Obama elected him. Now the truth of Obama will be his end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you can say that while supporting Romney is heeee-larious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." (John F. Kennedy)
> 
> You seem enamored with Kennedy.. are you aware that Kennedy's top tax rate cut from 91% to 77% (14%) for incomes over $200,000 was the largest RATE cut in history .. far more then Bush that was 4.5% ?
Click to expand...


There was a very good and demonstrable reason for that unlike this crappy trickle down snake oil the right continues to sell.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Truthmatters said:


> "keep those facts away from me"
> 
> 
> candyslice runs away from the facts



that person doesnt own a business anymore than the others calling  in to the shows or on here do

maybe a couple of them do, and if so they know that the ACA is not a liability for them, what they know is the *current system* puts a tremendous burden on them


----------



## CandySlice

Truthmatters said:


> "keep those facts away from me"
> 
> 
> candyslice runs away from the facts



 I think your problem is you're either too stubborn or too dumb to take YES for an answer.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

A gaffe indicates it was unintentional, it was not unintentional.  This is Obama's view of America... victims vs. victimizers.  What do you expect? He spent his formidable years surrounded by communists and other radicals... their view of America is so skewed and out of touch with reality, this has become Obama's world. A world of a finite economy with everybody fighting for a share of a finite economic pie.   The man is so far out of touch with reality that it is frankly, disturbing.  EVerything he espouses involves tearing people down to the same level... "he only got it at your expense", etc.


----------



## freedombecki

Truthmatters said:


> how well would your business be doing out in the middle of a forrest without any infrastructure?


And I suppose 'infrastructure' is somehow the exclusive domain of the Democrat Party headed by Kenyan-blooded President Barack Obama?

Oh yeah, right. 

Her post actually spanked yo naughty behiney, child.


----------



## freedombecki

Truthmatters said:


> "keep those facts away from me"
> 
> candyslice runs away from the facts


Oh, now, so facts are your exclusive domain and no one elses? What else are you hiding from yourself other than a monster case of narcissism?


----------



## CandySlice

freedombecki said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> how well would your business be doing out in the middle of a forrest without any infrastructure?
> 
> 
> 
> And I suppose 'infrastructure' is somehow the exclusive domain of the Democrat Party headed by Kenyan-blooded President Barack Obama?
> 
> Oh yeah, right.
> 
> Her post actually spanked yo naughty behiney, child.
Click to expand...


If I were a logger probably pretty good. That is to say loggers pretty much make there own 'infrastructure' as they go. They cut their own roads, build processing plants and float the main product downsteam. A place even the gov't hasn't figured out how to tax to death.


----------



## Too Tall

ConzHateUSA said:


> Well, liar, maybe Obama fought against you and your pretend business, but I can assure you he didnt fight against the Swiss Watch industry, record profits, or the stock market, record highs...
> 
> The rich love Obama, you can take that to the bank...morons



The stock market is nowhere near record highs, and with the devaluation of the dollar, the value is way less than what it was 5 years ago.

Now, if Obama could do something for an American watch maker, it would be saying something.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Truthmatters said:


> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections


Spoken like a true obamaturd butt kisser. The business owner started the business. His or hers. What obamaturd meant to say is that without government business would fail. What a socialist fool.


----------



## Truthmatters

no roads, no bridges, no minimum wage so people can buy your product, no fire department, no police, no schools to train people, no helath department, no post office, no sewers, no water, no electricity and what would your business look like?


----------



## Truthmatters

go build your business in the middle of a forrest and lets see how well you do?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

AmericanFirst said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true obamaturd butt kisser. The business owner started the business. His or hers. What obamaturd meant to say is that without government business would fail. What a socialist fool.
Click to expand...


No to mention the roads and bridges wouldn't exist if not for the taxes, fees, permits, etc. paid by private business.  Government generates $0.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Truthmatters said:


> go build your business in the middle of a forrest and lets see how well you do?



Try a world where business don't make money and pay the myriad of taxes, fees, permits etc.. and see how many bridges or roads get built.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Stephanie

Lakhota said:


>



such simple minds


----------



## bitterlyclingin

[Teleprompter failure. O just went off momentarily speaking on his own. He really didn't say the things you thought you heard him say. He accidentally reverted to his childhood when Frank Marshall Davis used to bounce him on his lap as punishment when young Obama failed to properly recite his mandatory memorization lines from Karl Marx's "Das kapital"
"Nothing to see here! Move along now!"]

"New Obama Campaign Ad Denies Obama Said &#8220;If You&#8217;ve Got A Business, You Didn&#8217;t Build That&#8221;&#8230;

Jedi mind trick?"

Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » New Obama Campaign Ad Denies Obama Said &#8220;If You&#8217;ve Got A Business, You Didn&#8217;t Build That&#8221;&#8230;


----------



## Mac1958

NYcarbineer said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said that the public and private sectors are a cooperative effort that work together to make this country prosper.
> 
> That people like you can't understand that is simply astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're cherry-picking what he said.
> 
> That people like you can't be honest is NOT astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you people take one line out of what he said, that without context can be construed as having an entirely different meaning from what he actually said,
> 
> and I comment on what he really said, in context,
> 
> and I"M  the cherrypicker?
> 
> You're an idiot.
Click to expand...



Well, I certainly may be an idiot.  You're not the first one to say that, you won't be the last, I suspect.  

Funny though, when a liberal is insulted or "offended" by mere words, even when those words are not meant to be malicious - say, calling someone else "handicapped" instead of "something-challenged" -- they expect an apology, a firing, or both.

When someone *else *is insulted by a President who mocks their effort and their sacrifice for something of great personal meaning to them, and that person does NOT expect an apology or anything else, just lay off a little, please, they're an idiot.

Okay.  I'm sure you're right.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Truthmatters said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened very carefully to what he said.  Why don't you?
> 
> If you&#8217;ve got a business, you didn&#8217;t build that.
> President Obama: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why do you keep omitting the part where he talks about roads and bridges?
Click to expand...


I commemted quite extensively on the roads and bridges.  The government did not build those roads and bridges to create my business.  They built roads and bridges to accommodate businesses, and the people who work in them, who were already there.  And they did so at the bidding of the people who had to vote letting of the bonds to do it.

For you or the President or anybody to suggest that those roads and business were built with the idea of making my business possible is so stupid as to boggle the mind.   I honestly think some leftists have been so brainwashed and indoctrinated that they honestly believe everything we have comes from the government instead of the other way around.


----------



## LoneLaugher

President Obama did not mock business owners, their sacrifices or their effort. 

Period.


----------



## saveliberty

Help me out here Obamabots.  I'm the owner AND sole worker.  Just how should I confront the ass who owns this business?


----------



## saveliberty

Foxfyre said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened very carefully to what he said.  Why don't you?
> 
> If youve got a business, you didnt build that.
> President Obama: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why do you keep omitting the part where he talks about roads and bridges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I commemted quite extensively on the roads and bridges.  The government did not build those roads and bridges to create my business.  They built roads and bridges to accommodate businesses, and the people who work in them, who were already there.  And they did so at the bidding of the people who had to vote letting of the bonds to do it.
> 
> For you or the President or anybody to suggest that those roads and business were built with the idea of my business in mind is so stupid as to boggle the mind.
Click to expand...


With this concept of Obama's, closed businesses should get a refund right?


----------



## CandySlice

Too Tall said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, liar, maybe Obama fought against you and your pretend business, but I can assure you he didnt fight against the Swiss Watch industry, record profits, or the stock market, record highs...
> 
> The rich love Obama, you can take that to the bank...morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stock market is nowhere near record highs, and with the devaluation of the dollar, the value is way less than what it was 5 years ago.
> 
> Now, if Obama could do something for an American watch maker, it would be saying something.
Click to expand...


God save us from people that don't even understand THAT.


----------



## Foxfyre

Lakhota said:


>



Well all that "stuff" exists because of ME.  Because my tax dollars created it and maintain it.  Because I voted the bonds that funded it.  And because I elected the people charged with the responsibility to provide it because it is more practical to share many services than it is for each citizen to do their own things.  Okay, some others also helped along the way with all that too.  I'm not going to suggest that I did it all by myself even if Fearless Leader suggests he got Osama bin Laden all by hmself. 

But believe me I know what it is to provide almost everything for yourself.  When we had our own generator, own well, wood burning stove, own septic system, and had to grade out, buy the gravel, and then clear our road of snow and fill in our own potholes, all that was expensive and took a lot of time.  The only reliable security was strong locks plus a loud dog and a loaded shotgun.  The only reliable  fire protection was fire extinguishers and a garden hose.  Sharing such services with other citizens in the city is much, much easier AND sometimes even more economical, but don't try to suggest that my neighbors and I aren't paying and paying dearly to have those services provided.  Nobody is giving any of them to us out of the goodness of their hearts.

And don't pretend anybody in government came up with the idea, took the risk of the investment, or put in any of the long hard hours required to create, make profitable, and run our new businesses.


----------



## Wiseacre

Soggy in NOLA said:


> A gaffe indicates it was unintentional, it was not unintentional.  This is Obama's view of America... victims vs. victimizers.  What do you expect? He spent his formidable years surrounded by communists and other radicals... their view of America is so skewed and out of touch with reality, this has become Obama's world. A world of a finite economy with everybody fighting for a share of a finite economic pie.   The man is so far out of touch with reality that it is frankly, disturbing.  EVerything he espouses involves tearing people down to the same level... "he only got it at your expense", etc.




I do think that Obama's speech was a clear statement of what he really believes.   It may turn out to be politically damaging, so in that sense it could be a gaffe.   But that's what he really thinks, and it should be a topic of discussion for this election.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> That people would voluntarily give up their voice in defense of the lucky sperm club members



Does the fascist liberal really want to deny people the right to be who they are. Do you want to take away their looks, parents, and money too  so they will be equal to you lowly status? This is exactly the world Stalin wanted.

In a free society we are free to be different. Some get high IQ's and get the right to write books or to be influential while others don't. Would the fool liberal tell Plato Aristotle and Socrates that they don't have a right to more speech and influence than a dolt loser liberal who wants welfare in everything, including speech.


----------



## freedombecki

Foxfyre said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened very carefully to what he said.  Why don't you?
> 
> If youve got a business, you didnt build that.
> President Obama: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why do you keep omitting the part where he talks about roads and bridges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I commemted quite extensively on the roads and bridges.  The government did not build those roads and bridges to create my business.  They built roads and bridges to accommodate businesses, and the people who work in them, who were already there.  And they did so at the bidding of the people who had to vote letting of the bonds to do it.
> 
> For you or the President or anybody to suggest that those roads and business were built with the idea of making my business possible is so stupid as to boggle the mind.   I honestly think some leftists have been so brainwashed and indoctrinated that they honestly believe everything we have comes from the government instead of the other way around.
Click to expand...

Not to worry, the Demmies just send a party hack over to Wikipedia with an eraser and history-rewriting keyboard, and cut and paste at whim whatever they want other people to know, then send it over to the team that pumps Wikipedia entries to the top 24/7 so people will be fooled again and again. Their arrogance makes them think they can get away with the lies forever and a day, especially in silly season election years.

Some are just brainwashed by party faithful who view them as useful idiots.


----------



## CandySlice

saveliberty said:


> Help me out here Obamabots.  I'm the owner AND sole worker.  Just how should I confront the ass who owns this business?



I think you might just render obama speechless with that one. Something it seems somebody ought to do anyway.


----------



## CandySlice

Stephanie said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> such simple minds
Click to expand...


And now we know how Obama got elected in the first place.


----------



## saveliberty

I'd like a few employees, but it costs too much to have them versus the risks, many of which are brought to bear by government.


----------



## BlindBoo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> In fact, the rich do get their on their own, i.e., in voluntary peaceful free capitalist transactions that they "on their own" initiated and completed.
> 
> 
> What BO wants is to violently interfere with or reverse the peaceful voluntary free Republican capitalist transactions and steal money from the rich!
> 
> Is this liberal socialist Nazi Fascist monarchial despotic attitude really American?



So back in the 90's when the tax rate was what the president wants to return to was stealing from the rich?  Or was Raygun stealing from the rich because he considered all income as taxable and did not exclude long term capital gain or tax that income at a lower rate?

How does wanting the top bracket by 3% (from 36% to 39%) make the Preisdent of the United States a Socialist Nazi Fascist.....?


----------



## Katzndogz

So any business owner who gets reliable power, police and fire protection, etc, has nothing to do but open their doors and sit there because government will make sure the customers come in, right?

That's why liberals can't run a business.   They still expect the government to run it for them.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Yeah. He really thinks that business owners use infrastructure that they have not personally built. So does anyone with a brain operating their pie hole.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

BlindBoo said:


> So back in the 90's when the tax rate was what the president wants to return to was stealing from the rich?  Or was Raygun stealing from the rich because he considered all income as taxable and did not exclude long term capital gain or tax that income at a lower rate?



Reagan yes considered it tantamount to stealing and wanted to reduce taxes and government as much as possible




BlindBoo said:


> How does wanting the top bracket by 3% (from 36% to 39%) make the Preisdent of the United States a Socialist Nazi Fascist.....?



BO wants single payer and far far higher taxes. He had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. You're very very confused about what presidents want and what they propose in a divided society in which elections are decided by independent voters.


----------



## occupied

Peaceful capitalism? No such thing, if it were not for strife, hoarding, panics and dirty deals there would be a lot less rich people in the world and a lot less poor people too.


----------



## CandySlice

saveliberty said:


> I'd like a few employees, but it costs too much to have them versus the risks, many of which are brought to bear by government.



Everybody who's really in business understands your plight. People that have either worked for other people all their life or have absolutely NO idea how the world works will differ. And you will know the fools by the premium they place on Gov't intrusion.


----------



## regent

The first thing the new government did  when the Constitution was ratified was to pass laws helping business and the government has been helping business ever since. It is in the government's best interests to build strong business enterprises, they need the tax dollars to continue helping businesses and to helping fill in the gaps that business is unable to do.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

occupied said:


> Peaceful capitalism? No such thing,



capitalism is based on peaceful voluntary transactions. Liberalism is based on government violence to intefere with those transactions





occupied said:


> if it were not for strife, hoarding, panics and dirty deals there would be a lot less rich people in the world and a lot less poor people too.



too stupid!! as an example China just switched to capitalism and saved 60 million from en masse liberal starvation. See why we are positive a liberal will be very very slow.


----------



## Some Guy

regent said:


> It is in the government's best interests to build strong business enterprises



Tell that to democrats.  They're not aware of that.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> I'd like a few employees, but it costs too much to have them versus the risks, many of which are brought to bear by government.



Yes, employees are expensive.  Even excluding any benefits, which most very small businesses have to do, you still have wages plus the employer's cost of FICA, SUTA, FUTA, and some other state and local taxes.  In addition, in most states if you have three or more employees you have to provide work comp insurance with a premium based on a minimum or, more usually, on the dollar amount of wages paid.  Many business liability policy premiums are also based on the amount of wages paid.  (Saveliberty's liability policy would be priced that way for instance.)  Then there is the cost of training them before they become profitably productive, and the cost of any uniforms or equipment or tools or supplies that they may use.   And then they have to be productive enough to earn their own salary plus make a reasonable profit for you, or there is no reason to take the risk of hiring them in the first place.

But after all that, after furnishing all that in order to have that employee, I would never in a million years say that what the employee accomplishes is not his or her own doing and I would not presume to take credit for it.  If he succeeds and prospers in the job, HE did it and nobody else.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Katzndogz said:


> So any business owner who gets reliable power, police and fire protection, etc, has nothing to do but open their doors and sit there because government will make sure the customers come in, right?
> 
> That's why liberals can't run a business.   They still expect the government to run it for them.



but its not just business owners who get power, police, and fire, its everyone so why is BO picking out business for higher taxes? Why not pick out all those who live on the dole and certainly didn't get there or stay their on their own??

the people who owe most to society are those liberals who leech off it.


----------



## saveliberty

The minimum worker's comp policy for me was $4,000 a year.  The insurance sompany wanted 25% down before the season even starts.


----------



## CandySlice

Katzndogz said:


> So any business owner who gets reliable power, police and fire protection, etc, has nothing to do but open their doors and sit there because government will make sure the customers come in, right?
> 
> That's why liberals can't run a business.   They still expect the government to run it for them.



Or so some of these idiots would have it. There is one way to determine for sure who here owns a business or not. The one's that own their own are FURIOUS right now. The others probably voted for Obama and are still waiting for the handouts that will never come.


----------



## Katzndogz

The poor who pay no taxes get power, police and fire.  They pay nothing.  They are owed, by virtue of their indolence everything.


----------



## freedombecki

Katzndogz said:


> So any business owner who gets reliable power, police and fire protection, etc, has nothing to do but open their doors and sit there because government will make sure the customers come in, right?
> 
> That's why liberals can't run a business.   They still expect the government to run it for them.


Or, like Immelt, they hide behind a Job Czar appointment while exporting their own company's jobs to China, along with American technology which is in turn, given to such terrorists states as Iran.

It's Gummint Uber Alles!


----------



## occupied

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peaceful capitalism? No such thing,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism is based on peaceful voluntary transactions. Liberalism is based on government violence to intefere with those transactions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> if it were not for strife, hoarding, panics and dirty deals there would be a lot less rich people in the world and a lot less poor people too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!! as an example China just switched to capitalism and saved 60 million from en masse liberal starvation. See why we are positive a liberal will be very very slow.
Click to expand...


Let me ask you this, if the stock market did not have wild swings between boom and bust how would people buy low and sell high? Stability, the mark of a healthy society, is an undesirable outcome to Wall Street. Natural beneficial economic growth is too slow and not profitable enough for them these days.


----------



## BlindBoo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So back in the 90's when the tax rate was what the president wants to return to was stealing from the rich?  Or was Raygun stealing from the rich because he considered all income as taxable and did not exclude long term capital gain or tax that income at a lower rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan yes considered it tantamount to stealing and wanted to reduce taxes and government as much as possible
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does wanting the top bracket by 3% (from 36% to 39%) make the Preisdent of the United States a Socialist Nazi Fascist.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BO wants single payer and far far higher taxes. He had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. You're very very confused about what presidents want and what they propose in a divided society in which elections are decided by independent voters.
Click to expand...


"Ronald Reagan agreed to raise the capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 28 percent, because he agreed with the Democrats that capital gains and ordinary income ought to be taxed at the same rate"

Times Have Changed Since Reagan's 1986 Tax Reform : NPR

During the current debate(not the one in your head) is over the soon to expire Bush era tax cuts that went from 39% to 36% for the top bracket.  So again how does that 3% make the President a Socialist Nazi Fascist Thief-in-Chief?


----------



## Katzndogz

occupied said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peaceful capitalism? No such thing,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism is based on peaceful voluntary transactions. Liberalism is based on government violence to intefere with those transactions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> if it were not for strife, hoarding, panics and dirty deals there would be a lot less rich people in the world and a lot less poor people too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!! as an example China just switched to capitalism and saved 60 million from en masse liberal starvation. See why we are positive a liberal will be very very slow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you this, if the stock market did not have wild swings between boom and bust how would people buy low and sell high? Stability, the mark of a healthy society, is an undesirable outcome to Wall Street. Natural beneficial economic growth is too slow and not profitable enough for them these days.
Click to expand...


Stability by its very definition inhibits growth.  Sweden and Switzerland have almost no growth.  They are very stable economies.   We are horrified at a growth rate of 1.5% in Sweden the growth rate is 0.4% and that's a huge improvement.    A healthy capitalist economy is going to have periods of boom and bust.   Stability is what kills economies.   The very poorest of jungle villages have stable economies that don't grow.


----------



## Wiseacre

"  Yeah. He really thinks that business owners use infrastructure that they have not personally built.  "

So does everybody else.   To suggest that a successful person owes more taxes to the gov't for infrastructure that is for everyone's benefit is ridiculous.


----------



## occupied

Katzndogz said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism is based on peaceful voluntary transactions. Liberalism is based on government violence to intefere with those transactions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!! as an example China just switched to capitalism and saved 60 million from en masse liberal starvation. See why we are positive a liberal will be very very slow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you this, if the stock market did not have wild swings between boom and bust how would people buy low and sell high? Stability, the mark of a healthy society, is an undesirable outcome to Wall Street. Natural beneficial economic growth is too slow and not profitable enough for them these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stability by its very definition inhibits growth.  Sweden and Switzerland have almost no growth.  They are very stable economies.   We are horrified at a growth rate of 1.5% in Sweden the growth rate is 0.4% and that's a huge improvement.    A healthy capitalist economy is going to have periods of boom and bust.   Stability is what kills economies.   The very poorest of jungle villages have stable economies that don't grow.
Click to expand...


Way to excuse manipulation, it is pretty clear by now that the same players are always positioned to gobble up their lesser competitors when the inevitable crash cycle comes around. We are not growing in any productive way when the bust comes along every 8-10 years to reset things back to where the vampire squids want it. The way things are now it is an obscenity of capitalism where no one can count on any kind of sustainable growth no matter what sector they are in and how good they are at their business. If something is not done to inject some stability into markets it will be the death of capitalism and the birth of something no one here wants.


----------



## Jackson

Everyone has the benefit of teachers, bridges and roads.  But there are certain individuals that create a path of their own with ideas and the fortitude to create a business of their own.  

That sets them apart from the rest of us.  And they did do it alone.  They had the idea, put everything materialistic and emotionally into their business and good ol' Obama just can't understand this!

That's why he was a community organizer, part of ACORN, didn't even open his own Law Office and put his own money into staff and supplies hoping for clients and make his career on his own. Sure he had the roads, bridges and the teachers, but no balls.  For it took fortitude, which he has none except to call out others for they did have the drive and the constitution to seek their dream. 

* His dream?  "Dreams of My Father", which is ironic for he has even said, he didn't even know him*.   What a fraud!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

occupied said:


> Let me ask you this, if the stock market did not have wild swings between boom and bust how would people buy low and sell high?



you lack the IQ for this but try to follow: wild stock swings are caused by liberal interference as in Great Depression and current depression. Buy low and sell high in free capitalist society would come from selling Nokia and buying Apple , for example.




occupied said:


> Stability, the mark of a healthy society, is an undesirable outcome to Wall Street. Natural beneficial economic growth is too slow and not profitable enough for them these days.



without crony capitalist liberal interference in the economy there is nothing Wall street can do to cause wild swings. Also, wild liberal swings don't help Wall Street, goof ball liberal. In the Depression they jumped out of windows; this time many of the major firms went bankrupt.

Where did you ever get idea you could understand the economy?? Its not for everyone.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Murf76 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're cherry-picking what he said.
> 
> That people like you can't be honest is NOT astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you people take one line out of what he said, that without context can be construed as having an entirely different meaning from what he actually said,
> 
> and I comment on what he really said, in context,
> 
> and I"M  the cherrypicker?
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The context isn't really a defense on this one.  It only just expands upon the offensive statement.
Click to expand...


To someone who can't read, maybe.  Get an education.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

occupied said:


> If something is not done to inject some stability into markets it will be the death of capitalism and the birth of something no one here wants.



capitalism is very very stable, until liberals interfere with it and thus prevent stability. Is that really over your head??

We are in a housing depression now, for example. Most of the federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the capitalist free market said they could not afford. Now even you can see how the liberals caused the current depression-right?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Too Tall said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, liar, maybe Obama fought against you and your pretend business, but I can assure you he didnt fight against the Swiss Watch industry, record profits, or the stock market, record highs...
> 
> The rich love Obama, you can take that to the bank...morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stock market is nowhere near record highs, and with the devaluation of the dollar, the value is way less than what it was 5 years ago.
> 
> Now, if Obama could do something for an American watch maker, it would be saying something.
Click to expand...


moron


http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/01/23/the-stock-market-loves-president-obama/





> The Dow Jones Industrial Average has surged 60% since Barack Obama was inaugurated as president three years ago, according to research firm Bespoke Investment Group. This means President Obama is one of only five presidents that have witnessed the blue-chip index surge more than 50% during their first three years in office.



Some days I have more patience than others for you disgusting, filthy America hating terrorists....


----------



## NYcarbineer

Katzndogz said:


> National defense is one of the few things government is supposed to do.   Democrats just happen to believe we don't need national defense.  After all, it's not like there's anyone out there that doesn't like us.



You're an idiot.  

Name Democrats who believe we don't need national defense.  Name the Democrats who advocate dismantling the entire military.


----------



## Moonglow

Pheonixops said:


> My response to this:
> 
> "(1)If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. (2)Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. (3) If youve got a business. you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."
> President Obama
> 
> 1:That's actually true in many cases, but a person can have many great people in their life but it's still up to the* individual* to follow through and make* themselves* a success.
> 
> 2: Yes, WE THE PEOPLE MADE THAT HAPPEN!
> 
> 3: That's complete BULLSHIT, the success or failure of a business depends on the INDIVIDUAL owner, their employees, the customers, the economy, and the state of that particular market.  Ultimately, it's the principles of the business that primarily determine the course of the business.



And if the economy is bad we expect our govt. to fix it.


----------



## Jackson

The stock market thrives on a stable enviroment when it is growing a modest but predictable rate.  Wild bubbles and crashes are not good because it takes people out of the market.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Katzndogz said:


> The poor who pay no taxes get power, police and fire.




and yet BO wants to point out that the only the rich did not get there on their own?? If the rich didn't get their on their own then the poor certainly didn't 1000 times more!!


----------



## Moonglow

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> If something is not done to inject some stability into markets it will be the death of capitalism and the birth of something no one here wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism is very very stable, until liberals interfere with it and thus prevent stability. Is that really over your head??
> 
> We are in a housing depression now, for example. Most of the federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the capitalist free market said they could not afford. Now even you can see how the liberals caused the current depression-right?
Click to expand...


So all bankers and financiers that have been sued and lost over what they did are leftist? I doubt so.


----------



## Jackson

Moonglow said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to this:
> 
> "(1)If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. (2)Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. (3) If youve got a business. you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."
> President Obama
> 
> 1:That's actually true in many cases, but a person can have many great people in their life but it's still up to the* individual* to follow through and make* themselves* a success.
> 
> 2: Yes, WE THE PEOPLE MADE THAT HAPPEN!
> 
> 3: That's complete BULLSHIT, the success or failure of a business depends on the INDIVIDUAL owner, their employees, the customers, the economy, and the state of that particular market.  Ultimately, it's the principles of the business that primarily determine the course of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the economy is bad we expect our govt. to fix it.
Click to expand...


And aren't they doing a dandy job?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor who pay no taxes get power, police and fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet BO wants to point out that the only the rich did not get there on their own?? If the rich didn't get their on their own then the poor certainly didn't 1000 times more!!
Click to expand...


never said that, moron

and why would a poor person like you hate yourself so much?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Moonglow said:


> So all bankers and financiers that have been sued and lost over what they did are leftist? I doubt so.



no idea what you're talking about. pure gibberish


----------



## Too Tall

ConzHateUSA said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, liar, maybe Obama fought against you and your pretend business, but I can assure you he didnt fight against the Swiss Watch industry, record profits, or the stock market, record highs...
> 
> The rich love Obama, you can take that to the bank...morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stock market is nowhere near record highs, and with the devaluation of the dollar, the* value *is way less than what it was 5 years ago.
> 
> Now, if Obama could do something for an American watch maker, it would be saying something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> moron
> 
> 
> The Stock Market Loves President Obama - MarketBeat - WSJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dow Jones Industrial Average has surged 60% since Barack Obama was inaugurated as president three years ago, according to research firm Bespoke Investment Group. This means President Obama is one of only five presidents that have witnessed the blue-chip index surge more than 50% during their first three years in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some days I have more patience than others for you disgusting, filthy America hating terrorists....
Click to expand...


There are some ignorant fucksticks that don't know what the word value means.


----------



## Pho_King

Everyone has equal access to the infrastructure that diminishes the personal culpability that lefties feel successful people have for their success.   So it would seem as though obammy and the lefties would be holding those successful people up as examples.  Instead, they want to take more money from them in order to make sure that those that chose not to do shit with that infrastructure can have some Obama bucks.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> never said that, moron



so then why is BO singling out the rich as if they are the only ones dependent on government when the poor are 1000 times more dependent??


----------



## CandySlice

Murf76 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're cherry-picking what he said.
> 
> That people like you can't be honest is NOT astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you people take one line out of what he said, that without context can be construed as having an entirely different meaning from what he actually said,
> 
> and I comment on what he really said, in context,
> 
> and I"M  the cherrypicker?
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The context isn't really a defense on this one.  It only just expands upon the offensive statement.
Click to expand...

Actually the less examined this statement is, the better for Obama.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Too Tall said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stock market is nowhere near record highs, and with the devaluation of the dollar, the* value *is way less than what it was 5 years ago.
> 
> Now, if Obama could do something for an American watch maker, it would be saying something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moron
> 
> 
> The Stock Market Loves President Obama - MarketBeat - WSJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dow Jones Industrial Average has surged 60% since Barack Obama was inaugurated as president three years ago, according to research firm Bespoke Investment Group. This means President Obama is one of only five presidents that have witnessed the blue-chip index surge more than 50% during their first three years in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some days I have more patience than others for you disgusting, filthy America hating terrorists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some ignorant fucksticks that don't know what the word value means.
Click to expand...


when we prove you wrong over and over over and overover and overover and overover and overover and overover and overover and overover and overover and over again, what do you tell yourself so you can sleep at night?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> never said that, moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so then why is BO singling out the rich as if they are the only ones dependent on government when the poor are 1000 times more dependent??
Click to expand...


he didnt, did you listen to the entire audio?


----------



## Moonglow

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all bankers and financiers that have been sued and lost over what they did are leftist? I doubt so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no idea what you're talking about. pure gibberish
Click to expand...


Sub prime loans.


----------



## Moonglow

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So back in the 90's when the tax rate was what the president wants to return to was stealing from the rich?  Or was Raygun stealing from the rich because he considered all income as taxable and did not exclude long term capital gain or tax that income at a lower rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan yes considered it tantamount to stealing and wanted to reduce taxes and government as much as possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does wanting the top bracket by 3% (from 36% to 39%) make the Preisdent of the United States a Socialist Nazi Fascist.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BO wants single payer and far far higher taxes. He had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. You're very very confused about what presidents want and what they propose in a divided society in which elections are decided by independent voters.
Click to expand...


But he did not, he raised taxes and tripled the debt.Increased government also.


----------



## occupied

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> If something is not done to inject some stability into markets it will be the death of capitalism and the birth of something no one here wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism is very very stable, until liberals interfere with it and thus prevent stability. Is that really over your head??
> 
> We are in a housing depression now, for example. Most of the federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the capitalist free market said they could not afford. Now even you can see how the liberals caused the current depression-right?
Click to expand...


No, even if you were right, the foreclosures alone would not have been the unprecedented disaster they were without the incredible magnifying effect of leveraging those mortgages far beyond what they were worth. No one told them to bet so heavily on such sorry horses, they did that all on their own and then insured them against loss so AIG ended up holding the bag, we all know what happened after that, besides the most damaging wave of foreclosures were on spec houses and investment properties, nothing to do any government program whatsoever.


----------



## Moonglow

Jackson said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to this:
> 
> "(1)If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. (2)Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. (3) If youve got a business. you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."
> President Obama
> 
> 1:That's actually true in many cases, but a person can have many great people in their life but it's still up to the* individual* to follow through and make* themselves* a success.
> 
> 2: Yes, WE THE PEOPLE MADE THAT HAPPEN!
> 
> 3: That's complete BULLSHIT, the success or failure of a business depends on the INDIVIDUAL owner, their employees, the customers, the economy, and the state of that particular market.  Ultimately, it's the principles of the business that primarily determine the course of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the economy is bad we expect our govt. to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And aren't they doing a dandy job?
Click to expand...


Then you do expect the govt to fix the economy, not the private sector. I am glad yoou can admit that.


----------



## tjvh

occupied said:


> Peaceful capitalism? No such thing, if it were not for strife, hoarding, panics and dirty deals there would be a lot less rich people in the world and a lot less poor people too.



So Capitalism is responsible for poor people... You sure it isn't just poor work ethics?


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you people take one line out of what he said, that without context can be construed as having an entirely different meaning from what he actually said,
> 
> and I comment on what he really said, in context,
> 
> and I"M  the cherrypicker?
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The context isn't really a defense on this one.  It only just expands upon the offensive statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To someone who can't read, maybe.  Get an education.
Click to expand...


Deny it all you like, but Obama's comments in their entirety are damning.  No singular part of it taken out of context changes his meaning.   I think maybe the problem lefties are having is that they actually AGREE with what he said, and thus don't find fault with it.  But the fact of the matter is that there's no "we did it together" involved in the success of these businesses.  We did NOT do it together.  Entrepreneurs assume all the risks associated with their businesses and THEY PAY for the infrastructure... and more than their "fair share" too when you consider that only 20% of earners are paying 94% of income tax and that 48% don't pay at all.  What little bit of taxes the bottom 50% are paying at the state and local level, they're taking right back out in welfare payments, so they're not truly contributing at all.

Obama was WRONG... in every possible way.  And his comments were insulting, whether we hear that one infamous sentence or we hear the entire speech, because what that one infamous sentence was, in essence, was simply a summing up of his thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Avorysuds

Defending stupid shit Obama says only makes you look stupid. Just wana point that out.


----------



## Moonglow

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> If something is not done to inject some stability into markets it will be the death of capitalism and the birth of something no one here wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism is very very stable, until liberals interfere with it and thus prevent stability. Is that really over your head??
> 
> We are in a housing depression now, for example. Most of the federal governemnt was organized to get people into homes the capitalist free market said they could not afford. Now even you can see how the liberals caused the current depression-right?
Click to expand...


Repubs like Hoover and the "29 crash!?
Like Bush Sr. and his loss of his second term presidency because _it's the economy stupid!(_Black Monday on his watch).
How about when Bush jr was president and the crash of 2008? (He had two recessions in his two terms.)


----------



## Moonglow

tjvh said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peaceful capitalism? No such thing, if it were not for strife, hoarding, panics and dirty deals there would be a lot less rich people in the world and a lot less poor people too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Capitalism is responsible for poor people... You sure it isn't just poor work ethics?
Click to expand...


Capitalism is a pyramid scheem,  the top tier control the most and money and controls what the bottom makes.


----------



## Moonglow

Avorysuds said:


> Defending stupid shit Obama says only makes you look stupid. Just wana point that out.



How in depth.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Hey, if you're a business owner, just keep your fuckin' mouth shut.  I think we can all agree on that.

.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Moonglow said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all bankers and financiers that have been sued and lost over what they did are leftist? I doubt so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no idea what you're talking about. pure gibberish
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sub prime loans.
Click to expand...


what about sub prime loans????????????????????????? fool!!!!!


----------



## Foxfyre

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So any business owner who gets reliable power, police and fire protection, etc, has nothing to do but open their doors and sit there because government will make sure the customers come in, right?
> 
> That's why liberals can't run a business.   They still expect the government to run it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but its not just business owners who get power, police, and fire, its everyone so why is BO picking out business for higher taxes? Why not pick out all those who live on the dole and certainly didn't get there or stay their on their own??
> 
> the people who owe most to society are those liberals who leech off it.
Click to expand...


Interesting concept.  Approximately half of Americans pay no income tax at all but still benefit from the same infrastructure that the rest of us paid for and are still paying for.  How about we start insisting that everybody pay for their infrastructure.  Deduct it from welfare and other government checks and from wages of all Americans who are working.  It would only be fair, yes?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Moonglow said:


> Capitalism is a pyramid scheem,  the top sthe most and control what the bottom makes.



1) China just switched to capitalism, now instead of slowly starving to death the bottom is buying cars


2) the top cant be on top unless they can make things the poor can afford. This is why GM sells more than RollsRoyce. The rewards of capitalism come from serving the poor. IN th elong run competition forces you to reduce profits to 0. Econ 101.


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

occupied said:


> No one told them to bet so heavily on such sorry horses, they did that all on their own and then insured them against loss so AIG ended up holding the bag, we all know what happened after that, besides the most damaging wave of foreclosures were on spec houses and investment properties, nothing to do any government program whatsoever.



you lack the IQ to understand. The liberals had been stimulating the housing market for years with low interest rates. It would be the same if the government were giving free cars to dealerships. The pressure would be to move the cars to keep up with the competition or lose your market share. Easy enough fo you??

As Chuck Prince said, "we had to keep dancing until the liberal music stopped".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Moonglow said:


> Repubs like Hoover and the "29 crash!?



as a liberal you will lack the IQ to know that Hoover acted liberally


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> when we prove you wrong over and over over




please provide your best example of this for the whole world to see or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> when we prove you wrong over and over over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please provide your best example of this for the whole world to see or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so?
Click to expand...


there isnt a single issue, not one, where righty is right and lefty is wrong

not one


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> How about we start insisting that everybody pay for their infrastructure.  Deduct it from welfare and other government checks and from wages of all Americans who are working.  It would only be fair, yes?



yes very fair since those on welfare entitlements certainly didn't get there on their own!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> there isnt a single issue, not one, where righty is right and lefty is wrong
> 
> not one



if true then why are you so afraid to identify your best example for the whole world to see?? What does your fear tell you??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> there isnt a single issue, not one, where righty is right and lefty is wrong
> 
> not one



how about when the left spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??????


See why we are 100% positive a liberal will  be slow, very slow??


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> there isnt a single issue, not one, where righty is right and lefty is wrong
> 
> not one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about when the left spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??????
> 
> 
> See why we are 100% positive a liberal will  be slow, very slow??
Click to expand...


your brain is broken, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you really dont, and I suggest you just sit back and google "funny videos" or something...really


----------



## GuyPinestra

CandySlice said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to build your business like everyone else who built a business in this country.
> 
> Because we work together to build infrastructure and we work together to protect each other from fraud and abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over-simplifying it and re-working old adages doesn't make up for experience and actual hands on work.
> 
> I think perhaps you've spent your life working for other people, something I was lucky enough not to have to do, and now you are angry about it. Because if you'd EVER got your hands dirty, fought against sometimes unbeatable odds and acheived something you could call your own that not only sustained you but an entire family and possibly generations to come you'd feel quite differently.
Click to expand...


Give her a break, I'm sure she gets that feeling of great accomplishment every time she wipes her ass without getting her hands dirty...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> your brain is broken, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about,



if true why be so afraid  to present your best example for the whole world to see. What does you fear tell you about your IQ and character?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

All of a sudden the internets and the radio call in shows are full of rightwing business owners

LOLOLOLOL

bullshit, none of you own a pot to pee in let alone your own business


----------



## occupied

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one told them to bet so heavily on such sorry horses, they did that all on their own and then insured them against loss so AIG ended up holding the bag, we all know what happened after that, besides the most damaging wave of foreclosures were on spec houses and investment properties, nothing to do any government program whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you lack the IQ to understand. The liberals had been stimulating the housing market for years with low interest rates. It would be the same if the government were giving free cars to dealerships. The pressure would be to move the cars to keep up with the competition or lose your market share. Easy enough fo you??
> 
> As Chuck Prince said, "we had to keep dancing until the liberal music stopped".
Click to expand...


The bankers thank you for finding them innocent of all wrong doing. I do not care who Chuck Prince is, does he suck banker cock too?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> your brain is broken, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if true why be so afraid  to present your best example for the whole world to see. What does you fear tell you about your IQ and character?
Click to expand...


example of what, moron, do you even know what anyone is talking about?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

occupied said:


> The bankers thank you for finding them innocent of all wrong doing.



dear, half of them went bankrupt so the free market rewarded them for their stupidity. But, low interest rates are like cancer. Before the bankers knew what was happening, or any of us knew for that matter, the die was cast, the liberal cancer had spread.


Still over your head??


----------



## healthmyths

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Hey, if you're a business owner, just keep your fuckin' mouth shut.  I think we can all agree on that.
> 
> .



Your comment makes NO sense!
Are you saying "business owners" have NO rights to comment?
Also You may "think" we can all agree.. BUT you are a party of one!

I strongly encourage ALL people to comment and in doing so show either idiocy or common sense!


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## GuyPinestra

regent said:


> The first thing the new government did  when the Constitution was ratified was to pass laws helping business and the government has been helping business ever since. It is in the government's best interests to build strong business enterprises, they need the tax dollars to continue helping businesses and to helping fill in the gaps that business is unable to do.



Find something else to do, you really suck at this DNC troll stuff. 

Maybe you could get a job in a call center pushing timeshares or something. 

Free estimates for pressure washing. 

Something simple that you can qualify for.


----------



## Moonglow

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start insisting that everybody pay for their infrastructure.  Deduct it from welfare and other government checks and from wages of all Americans who are working.  It would only be fair, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes very fair since those on welfare entitlements certainly didn't get there on their own!!
Click to expand...


Niether did this guy:


> &#8220;The way Bain % Co was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,&#8221; the ad says. &#8220;The rest of us had to absorb the loss &#8230; Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. &#8230; Mitt Romney: Could it be he&#8217;s just against government when it helps working men and women.&#8221; YES !



Harvey Edwards: WHO RUNS THE COUNTRY, THOSE WHO HAVE MONEY.


----------



## GuyPinestra

saveliberty said:


> The minimum worker's comp policy for me was $4,000 a year.  The insurance sompany wanted 25% down before the season even starts.



Season?? What do you do if yo don't mind me asking?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The only question is does rank and file righty support the people who are destroying them out of pure ignorance or is it a combination of racism, ignorance and the inability to admit they are wrong.

The second question is can us adults survive their ignorance and racism?


----------



## Dr Grump

jillian said:


> Google said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and therein lies the essential problem... they have been so limboticized that their perspective has been destroyed. we have always made fun of our presidents... like everyone, they often deserve to be made fun of.
> 
> the take no prisoners, make your opponent into the enemy... began with atwater and was perfected by rove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you brain dead or did you just forget the eight years of Bush's presidency. Perspective?!?  You are a fine example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what about the eight years when bush was president?
> 
> he was the worst president we had in my lifetime.
> 
> and just as a reminder, he left office with a 22% approval rating.
> 
> i'll also remind you that after 9/11 he had all of us rallying around him.
> 
> the right would never have done that for this president...who was elected and not appointed.
Click to expand...


That aside, Giggle seems to have missed the point that you were talking about Bush I...


----------



## OODA_Loop

All public services and infrastructure are paid for with tax dollars.


----------



## naturegirl

ConzHateUSA said:


> The only question is does rank and file righty support the people who are destroying them out of pure ignorance or is it a combination of racism, ignorance and the inability to admit they are wrong.
> 
> The second question is can us adults survive their ignorance and racism?



So Conz, since you are so convinced business is destroying America, how about they all just shut down??

If I had to chose what might "destroy" this country, Business or Government, I think I'd rather see a business man run this country than someone that thinks Americans are his enemy and businesses didn't get where they are without government help.

Bottom line, Obama was talking to unions, he was in Ohio.  Everyone he mentioned that helped was a government entity.  Putting down the very core of America wasn't a smart move.


----------



## Dr Grump

CandySlice said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian I made money under Bush. I made money under Clinton. Under this Mook I've made ZIP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you built it on your own remember?
> 
> so you blaming someone else when you fail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been retired for a long time. My business has been passed on to the youngsters and yes, they are struggling and uncertain about hiring people right now pending the outcome of this healthcare bill. We have a choice. Either pay the penalty and keep the current employees or accept the healthcare and fire a few of them.
Click to expand...


Can't be that great a business or they have cash flow problems, or demand has dried up...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

OODA_Loop said:


> All public services and infrastructure are paid for with tax dollars.



Tax dollars paid by people and industries that actually produce something.  That's where the lefties gt lost... they actually think the government builds roads.


----------



## Pho_King

Dr Grump said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> you built it on your own remember?
> 
> so you blaming someone else when you fail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been retired for a long time. My business has been passed on to the youngsters and yes, they are struggling and uncertain about hiring people right now pending the outcome of this healthcare bill. We have a choice. Either pay the penalty and keep the current employees or accept the healthcare and fire a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't be that great a business or they have cash flow problems, or demand has dried up...
Click to expand...


Well, if, as Obama said, we all built the business, then there is yet another possibility.  Maybe the efforts of the rest of us simply were not enough.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> Okay guys, don't let the loonies and desperate Obama worshipers drag the train off the tracks here.  The topic of this thread is quite capable of sustaining interest all by itself, I want to keep the focus there.
> 
> Let's see.  I didn't build my own business.  Somebody else did that for me.  Isn't that what he said?



I'll stop you right there. He did say that, but he qualified and put it in context. You know that. I know that. 

You call people who disagree with your summation loonies, and that they are dragging the train off the track. How can you accuse others of that, when that is exactly what you are doing.

Thought you were better than that...


----------



## OODA_Loop

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Tax dollars paid by people and industries that actually produce something.  That's where the lefties gt lost... they actually think the government builds roads.



Most local roads are built as conditions of development enforced by local governments which are then transfered to the public for control and maintenance.


----------



## Oddball

Foxfyre said:


> Okay guys, don't let the loonies and desperate Obama worshipers drag the train off the tracks here.  The topic of this thread is quite capable of sustaining interest all by itself, I want to keep the focus there.


----------



## Dr Grump

CandySlice said:


> Actually it was Bill Clintons 106th congress that relaxed the banking rules and got us into this mess. Sometimes it takes 20 years to find out how badly we've screwed up. But I will give you this. They had plenty of help from both sides.



Um, no it was Raygun who started it by relaxing the rules on Building Societies...


----------



## Dr Grump

CandySlice said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your not going to deal with the facts i gave you huh candyslice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, how many times am I going to have to tell you your argument has value? And that is EXACTLY WHY I don't want these people taking credit for MY success. They fought AGAINST me, not FOR  me and for Obama to articulate such a pile of shit just INFURIATES me.
Click to expand...


Well, if you insist on taking things out of context, that is on you....


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> And don't pretend anybody in government came up with the idea, took the risk of the investment, or put in any of the long hard hours required to create, make profitable, and run our new businesses.



Nobody is saying that. No even Obama...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Righty always lies, about everything, this issue proves my point completely

We are not debating you, we are calling you filthy, disgusting liars, end of story


----------



## WillowTree

Everytime I buy a gallon of gasoline I help build a road or a bridge. obama didn't do that, he had help. bussiness is the engine of American life.


----------



## clevergirl

Obama is an ideological idiot. He has never actually had a private sector job. He couldn't run a business- except into the ground, if you paid him. His statement reveals how he sees the world. The "government" in his world belongs to the political class and not to the people...I mean WTF financially supports the government, but tax payers.


----------



## occupied

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bankers thank you for finding them innocent of all wrong doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, half of them went bankrupt so the free market rewarded them for their stupidity. But, low interest rates are like cancer. Before the bankers knew what was happening, or any of us knew for that matter, the die was cast, the liberal cancer had spread.
> 
> 
> Still over your head??
Click to expand...


Bankers had a 50% bankruptcy rate in the housing crash? You are going to have provide some kind of evidence of that, I understand most of them that left their respective banks had some pretty handsome severance packages.


----------



## Dr Grump

Oddball said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay guys, don't let the loonies and desperate Obama worshipers drag the train off the tracks here.  The topic of this thread is quite capable of sustaining interest all by itself, I want to keep the focus there.
Click to expand...


I'll put this in real simple terms so even you can understand:

Let's say I make a statement that:
All arab men need to be shot who perform honour killings

In your world, you quote the first seven words and that is the statement you present to the world...without the qualification.

That is what you 'loons' are doing with Obama. Thing is, the lefties, independents and us centrists can see that. You're playing to the peanut gallery of your own. Which must makes you look silly.

You can zing off slick one-liners and sit there or smug with yourself, giving yourself a nice pat on the back "How good am I". But it adds nothing to the debate and shows up your (very) shallow thought processes.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Funny, when OBL was killed nearly every lefty on this board all hollered that Bush had nothing to do with it.  Some even put it in their siggies and to this day still tout that _Obama_ was da man who got Osama.

Blah, blah, blah.


----------



## OODA_Loop

occupied said:


> I understand most of them that left their respective banks had some pretty handsome severance packages.



Handsome severance packages kick ass.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-z-U57BaSc]Mitt Romney: Saying Anything to Get Elected - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dr Grump

clevergirl said:


> He couldn't run a business- except into the ground, if you paid him.



The only president in recent memory who has done that is Bush...twice....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Point is he did say that.


----------



## Moonglow

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is a pyramid scheem,  the top sthe most and control what the bottom makes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) China just switched to capitalism, now instead of slowly starving to death the bottom is buying cars
> 
> 
> 2) the top cant be on top unless they can make things the poor can afford. This is why GM sells more than RollsRoyce. The rewards of capitalism come from serving the poor. IN th elong run competition forces you to reduce profits to 0. Econ 101.
> 
> 
> See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??
Click to expand...


Sorry, here's the real reason for high unemployment and the loss of jobs, trade imbalance.
The consumer in the USA is not buying enough US products.


----------



## Oddball




----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama lying? Again?


----------



## Moonglow

occupied said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bankers thank you for finding them innocent of all wrong doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, half of them went bankrupt so the free market rewarded them for their stupidity. But, low interest rates are like cancer. Before the bankers knew what was happening, or any of us knew for that matter, the die was cast, the liberal cancer had spread.
> 
> 
> Still over your head??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bankers had a 50% bankruptcy rate in the housing crash? You are going to have provide some kind of evidence of that, I understand most of them that left their respective banks had some pretty handsome severance packages.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's why Bush's TARP saved his buddies, he believed in capitalism.


----------



## Zoom-boing

And it's recorded for posterity!  

Obama, the expert at the mis-spoke, walk-it-back, double speak.


----------



## konradv

Is Mitt firing somebody again?


----------



## Buford

So who are you going to believe........Obama or your lying ears?


----------



## konradv

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Point is he did say that.



Said what?


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## ConzHateUSA

Dr Grump said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He couldn't run a business- except into the ground, if you paid him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only president in recent memory who has done that is Bush...twice....
Click to expand...


Yep...matter of fact


----------



## Zander

Oh no you di'int!!!


----------



## occupied

Moonglow said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, half of them went bankrupt so the free market rewarded them for their stupidity. But, low interest rates are like cancer. Before the bankers knew what was happening, or any of us knew for that matter, the die was cast, the liberal cancer had spread.
> 
> 
> Still over your head??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bankers had a 50% bankruptcy rate in the housing crash? You are going to have provide some kind of evidence of that, I understand most of them that left their respective banks had some pretty handsome severance packages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why Bush's TARP saved his buddies, he believed in capitalism.
Click to expand...


People who cannot accept that our financial system is the most rigged and corrupt of games are even more insane and deluded than the birthers. Convenient for them to blame it all on the liberals in spite of the fact that they are not allowed anywhere near banking regulation and oversight because they would give it some teeth.


----------



## Mac1958

.

"Those business owners are too stupid and worthless to realize I was kidding"

.


----------



## Rozman

The Obama gets into trouble.
In other words we get an insight as to how 
he really feels about this country when he 
goes off the teleprompter and off script.


----------



## Buford

Lakhota said:


>



Everyone of us pays for that and it has nothing to do with building your own business.  Stating the obvious doesn't mean govt built your business for you.  Do you know what a useful idiot is?


----------



## konradv

Are the wingnuts parsing every word and throwing in translations again, like we don't know what he really said?  It's really sad the way you embarrass yourselves on a daily basis.


----------



## konradv

Buford said:


> Everyone of us pays for that and it has nothing to do with building your own business.  Stating the obvious doesn't mean govt built your business for you.  Do you know what a useful idiot is?



Except Obama never said the government built their businesses for them.  You're hearing voices again.


----------



## Buford

Beware.  Obama is pissing on our shoes and calling it rain again.


----------



## Buford

konradv said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of us pays for that and it has nothing to do with building your own business.  Stating the obvious doesn't mean govt built your business for you.  Do you know what a useful idiot is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Obama never said the government built their businesses for them.  You're hearing voices again.
Click to expand...


What he was saying is that a business owner couldn't do it without govt help.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Barb said:


> as to what is generally quoted:



As to what is generally bullshitted:

Context doesn't help THIS in the slightest, no matter how badly you Obama-worshippers wish it did.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Plasmaball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you get more vapid by the post, dear.
> 
> try harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no response other than personal attacks.  Gosh, I love that liberal "tolerance".  Do please tell me more about how "respectful" you are of alternative lifestyles.    You liberal hypocrites tolerate differences the way the Pope tolerates religion:  Only the ones who agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you talk about tolerance,lol coming from a racist sack of shit that you are...
> 
> Fuck off.
Click to expand...


Racist?!  ME?!!  

WHEN are you illiterate leftist dipshits going to learn that "racist" doesn't mean "someone I don't like"?

Funniest fucking thing I've heard in days.


----------



## konradv

Buford said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of us pays for that and it has nothing to do with building your own business.  Stating the obvious doesn't mean govt built your business for you.  Do you know what a useful idiot is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Obama never said the government built their businesses for them.  You're hearing voices again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What he was saying is that a business owner couldn't do it without govt help.
Click to expand...


Is that the exact quote?  Sure doesn't sound like it.  I'm not really interested in your interpretations.


----------



## Zander

konradv said:


> Are the wingnuts parsing every word and throwing in translations again, like we don't know what he really said?  It's really sad the way you embarrass yourselves on a daily basis.



Parse? There is nothing to parse. He made a statement that fully explains his view of the world- his entire ideology summed up for all to view. He was proud of it too!  A few of the morons in the audience applauded.  Obama believes that people who build businesses really aren't responsible for it. He believes that it's a "collective" of the whole society that somehow builds businesses.  


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng]Obama: If You&#39;ve Got A Business, You Didn&#39;t Build That - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Vidi

occupied said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bankers thank you for finding them innocent of all wrong doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, half of them went bankrupt so the free market rewarded them for their stupidity. But, low interest rates are like cancer. Before the bankers knew what was happening, or any of us knew for that matter, the die was cast, the liberal cancer had spread.
> 
> 
> Still over your head??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bankers had a 50% bankruptcy rate in the housing crash? You are going to have provide some kind of evidence of that, I understand most of them that left their respective banks had some pretty handsome severance packages.
Click to expand...



Although I think Little Eddie stated it incorrectly, the overall point of his post is fairly accurate. The number of failed BANKS dramatically increased during and after the housing crash. 

Take a look at this list. Its the FDIC Failed Bank list.  Notice that it listed only 4 failed banks in ALL of 2001 and 9 in just the last three weeks. 

FDIC: Failed Bank List

As you can see though, most of these banks, while listed as failed, are being acquired by other banks.  But notice how the activity greatly increases around May of 2008.


----------



## Buford

konradv said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except Obama never said the government built their businesses for them.  You're hearing voices again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What he was saying is that a business owner couldn't do it without govt help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the exact quote?  Sure doesn't sound like it.  I'm not really interested in your interpretations.
Click to expand...


Then find another topic or ignore me.


----------



## MuadDib

Cecilie1200 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no response other than personal attacks.  Gosh, I love that liberal "tolerance".  Do please tell me more about how "respectful" you are of alternative lifestyles.    You liberal hypocrites tolerate differences the way the Pope tolerates religion:  Only the ones who agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you talk about tolerance,lol coming from a racist sack of shit that you are...
> 
> Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist?!  ME?!!
> 
> WHEN are you illiterate leftist dipshits going to learn that "racist" doesn't mean "someone I don't like"?
> 
> Funniest fucking thing I've heard in days.
Click to expand...


When they don't have facts to support their position, they play on strong emotions.


----------



## Avatar4321

konradv said:


> Is Mitt firing somebody again?



Yep. He along with the rest of the American people are firing Obama.


----------



## Trajan

you know its funny, take  "Strategery", I admit I laugh whenever I hear it and can image bush might say that except, he never did.  

It was a SNL opening skit take off on Jim Lehrer, but, I cannot count the number number of folks who believe he said it...

here we have obama saying 'it'  (and several other things to boot in his past) ...but, nope.  see whenever he make a statement or says something that doesn't play well, we are bombarded with folks who rush to explain thats not really what he said....and the media makes darn sure they get plenty of airtime to tell us so, yet ......here we are; Strategery.....


----------



## Dick Tuck

Great ad.  It makes Mr. Etch-A-Sketch look like a fool.


----------



## Trajan

Zander said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the wingnuts parsing every word and throwing in translations again, like we don't know what he really said?  It's really sad the way you embarrass yourselves on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parse? There is nothing to parse. He made a statement that fully explains his view of the world- his entire ideology summed up for all to view. He was proud of it too!  A few of the morons in the audience applauded.  Obama believes that people who build businesses really aren't responsible for it. He believes that it's a "collective" of the whole society that somehow builds businesses.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng]Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


its actually worse when you listen to it all.


----------



## Zander

Trajan said:


> you know its funny, take  "Strategery", I admit I laugh whenever I hear it and can image bush might say that except, he never did.
> 
> It was a SNL opening skit take off on Jim Lehrer, but, I cannot count the number number of folks who believe he said it...
> 
> here we have obama saying 'it'  (and several other things to boot in his past) ...but, nope.  see whenever he make a statement or says something that doesn't play well, we are bombarded with folks who rush to explain thats not really what he said....and the media makes darn sure they get plenty of airtime to tell us so, yet ......here we are; Strategery.....



Racist!!


----------



## Vidi

clevergirl said:


> Obama is an ideological idiot. He has never actually had a private sector job. He couldn't run a business- except into the ground, if you paid him. His statement reveals how he sees the world. The "government" in his world belongs to the political class and not to the people...I mean WTF financially supports the government, but tax payers.




I have run a business. Several in fact. Successfully if I may be allowed to brag a bit.

And Obama is correct. I didnt go from start up to success on my own. I had help. I had good employees who were educated on someone elses tax money. I had roads on which supplies and customers came into my business and on which product was shipped out. I pay my employees a fair wage but I always need them to produce more value than I am investing in them or I do not profit.

For people to pretend that they dont understand how our economic well being is interconnected to one another AFTER the housing crisis took down our entire economy is just plain deception.


----------



## rightwinger

Buford said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of us pays for that and it has nothing to do with building your own business.  Stating the obvious doesn't mean govt built your business for you.  Do you know what a useful idiot is?
Click to expand...


Nobody said government built your business for you, that is stupid

What was said was you did not do it on your own and you were able to take advantage of a lot of benefits provided by Joe Taxpayer


----------



## Zxereus




----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Great ad.  It makes Mr. Etch-A-Sketch look like a fool.



It proves Obama is a liar and there are many people who will swallow whatever he dishes out.


----------



## Buford

rightwinger said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of us pays for that and it has nothing to do with building your own business.  Stating the obvious doesn't mean govt built your business for you.  Do you know what a useful idiot is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said government built your business for you, that is stupid
> 
> What was said was you did not do it on your own and you were able to take advantage of a lot of benefits provided by Joe Taxpayer
Click to expand...


Business owners don't pay taxes?  Wow, learn something every day.  You're really really smart.  Have you written any books?


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> 
> English lessons available here....$300.00 per hour...sign up today and get a free set of  Ninja Knives and a bamboo steamer!
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you left this very important part of what Obama told the crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together."*
> 
> " A text out of context, isolated form co-text, is always a pretext."
> Jacob Prasch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that supposed to fix it? He's still presuming a public vested interest in private businesses, _"we do things together"_.
> 
> Who's "we"???
> 
> The infrastructure is built by the businesses themselves, sometimes directly but most often through taxes they pay.  People who don't pay taxes, or offset what little they do pay by taking welfare benefits didn't contribute squat.
Click to expand...

And by the same token Businesses that don't pay taxes didn't contribute squat either. 

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.


----------



## jillian

Zoom-boing said:


> Funny, when OBL was killed nearly every lefty on this board all hollered that Bush had nothing to do with it.  Some even put it in their siggies and to this day still tout that _Obama_ was da man who got Osama.
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.



He wasn't?

Man, you guys are creative.


----------



## Zxereus




----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of us pays for that and it has nothing to do with building your own business.  Stating the obvious doesn't mean govt built your business for you.  Do you know what a useful idiot is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said government built your business for you, that is stupid
> 
> What was said was you did not do it on your own and you were able to take advantage of a lot of benefits provided by Joe Taxpayer
Click to expand...


the very same taxpayer who owns the biz too...hello....


----------



## Vidi

Cecilie1200 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think any of us can even begin to comprehend what the government has built in the United States, the railroads, TVA, Panama Canal, dams, dams that no private company would even look at.
> But take just one little unit created during the depression, the CCC. They built 125,000 miles of roads, 46,854 bridges 300,000 dams for erosion, planted 3 billion trees, and the list goes on. For years I traveled over one of these CCC bridges. Business needs government and government needs business. Maybe what we don't need is politicians always trying to split the nation into two political camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, regent, perhaps you could tell us where the government got the money for all their lovely little make-work programs, before you start singing paeons to the "glories" of government.
> 
> Human beings create government to perform those functions that are best accomplished as a community.  No one has ever argued that there's a valid reason that government exists, so please don't even try to pretend otherwise.
> 
> Nevertheless, there's a big difference between "society needs an organized structure" and "you owe your success to government", just as there's a big difference between a basic, rudimentary government which builds roads and dams and the godawful, bloated, micro-managing monolith we actually have, intruding into every aspect of our lives, getting in the way much, MUCH more often than it helps anyone, and then expecting applause and gratitude in the person of our narcissistic, hubristic "community organizing" President.
Click to expand...



While I agree with your sentiment... ( very well said by the way...except the last line. I feel thats a mischaracterization...but other than that...) ...without government, there are no police, there are no firemen, to protect and serve the community. 

So I ask the following:

Dont we "owe" some of our success NOT to government itself, but to the community from which that success is dirived? And if so, isnt the government supposed to be the represenative of that community?


----------



## Rozman

"If you got a business you didn't build that".....

The prosecution rests Your Honor...
These are pretty damming words from our private sector hater in chief...
And now the Libs are gonna try and clean up this mess for him....


----------



## Avatar4321

No what was said is "If you own a business, you didn't build that"

But the fact is every business is built by an owner.


----------



## Buford

The left doesn't think about what Obama says.  Obama states the obvious and his minions run around spewing it, not realizing that what Obama said is nothing but the obvious.  We all pay taxes, even business owners.  Duh!!

Dumb asses.


----------



## konradv

Buford said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he was saying is that a business owner couldn't do it without govt help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the exact quote?  Sure doesn't sound like it.  I'm not really interested in your interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then find another topic or ignore me.
Click to expand...


Admitting it was merely an interpretation then?  That's what I get out of it.


----------



## konradv

Avatar4321 said:


> No what was said is "If you own a business, you didn't build that"
> 
> But the fact is every business is built by an owner.



I don't see a period at the end of that.  What are you leaving out?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Yo Barry if you want to know why the economy sucks I'll give you a hint. It's not bank atm's it's not airport kiosks, look in a mirror, it's you!

You're a clueless rube and you lead a political party that thinks food stamps and unemployment stimulates the economy while you haven't passed a budget in 4 years

Come November it's adios dickwad!


----------



## Zander

The Private sector is doing fine.....


----------



## Zxereus

*Romney: Obamas you didnt build that comment wasnt a gaffe
*





> ROXBURY, Mass.For the third day in a row, Mitt Romney attacked President Obama's "you didn't build that" comment, arguing the president's words weren't an accident but rather a reflection of his hostility toward private business.
> 
> "It wasn't a gaffe. It was his ideology," Romney argued Thursday at a last-minute campaign stop at Middlesex Truck and Coach, a small truck repair shop just outside Boston. "I don't think the president understands what makes this country great."
> 
> Speaking against the backdrop of more than a dozen mechanics, Romney pointed to the repair shop as a symbol of the businesses that have kept the American dream alive.
> 
> "This is the kind of place that has put people to work over the years, over the decades.  Someone else isn't responsible for what he did here," Romney said, referring to the shop's owner. "This is not the result of government. This is the result of people who take risks, create dreams, who build for themselves and for their families."
> 
> Romney insisted Obama's comments suggest he doesn't really understand how business works. And he pointed to a new report showing more Americans sought unemployment last week as more proof that Obama doesn't deserve a second term.


----------



## Buford

konradv said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the exact quote?  Sure doesn't sound like it.  I'm not really interested in your interpretations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then find another topic or ignore me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admitting it was merely an interpretation then?  That's what I get out of it.
Click to expand...


What did Obama mean when he said......"You didn't build that".


----------



## Zander

I will cut the deficit in half during my first term.....


----------



## Zxereus




----------



## Moonglow

alright! Two threads at one time on the story


----------



## Zander

Share the wealth......


----------



## Trajan

Zander said:


> The Private sector is doing fine.....












yup....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

konradv said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is he did say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said what?
Click to expand...


This.



> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that.


----------



## Sallow

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Point is he did say that.



Said what?


----------



## Trajan

Zander said:


> Share the wealth......


----------



## Zander

Next....?? 
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ........


----------



## Truthmatters

dont you guys realise that op tape proves robmoney is a lying twisting ashole?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is he did say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said what?
Click to expand...


This.



> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that.


----------



## Trajan

Quantum Windbag said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is he did say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Trajan

Zander said:


> Next....??
> From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ........


----------



## Sallow

Quantum Windbag said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is he did say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That's a fine cutting out of a phrase..that was said along with other phrases.

Obama said that no one in this country builds a business with out the help of infrastructure and community.

He's right.

Even Romney admitted that.


----------



## Peach

LoneLaugher said:


> Yeah. He really thinks that business owners use infrastructure that they have not personally built. So does anyone with a brain operating their pie hole.



We all benefit from the sacrifices of those before us, and at this time, to preserve the liberties we enjoy. Obama is correct, those who make large amounts of money in the US do so because many served to keep this nation free.


----------



## OODA_Loop

You didn't start this thread without help from Obama.


----------



## Zxereus




----------



## midcan5

"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States.  By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country.  The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals."  William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"


No rich man ever made a single dime outside of society. No so called entrepreneur made their wealth in a vacuum from nothing. Obama was right, but the thought does not appeal to the cowboy mentality of the modern right wingnut. Oh, and no cowboy roped a steer before there was a steer to rope, someone made the rope, and someone taught him how to ride the horses.


*'It&#8217;S Mitt Romney Who Doesn&#8217;T Understand America'*

"If this country is to continue leading the world both economically and technologically, then someone has to be willing to spend money on silly risks. Someone has to fund a production line for the integrated circuit computers that T.I. can&#8217;t see a use for. Someone has to send rockets into space for no other reason than because we can, and because we should see what happens after that. It&#8217;s the American way." Romney and Obama on American Inventions : The New Yorker

The rich get rich because of their merit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs]Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation - YouTube[/ame]

*"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.* In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


----------



## Zxereus

OODA_Loop said:


> You didn't start this thread without help from Obama.



I know, but I should at least get 4% of the credit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> The number of failed BANKS dramatically increased during and after the housing crash.



yes the banks paid the price for not seeing the invisible liberal cancer that had been unleashed but remained unseen by all of us.

Still, liberals want to punish them even more than capitalism already did?

It makes no sense except to Marx who the liberals parrot having no idea they are doing his bidding.  

Capitalism wiped out half the banks, can the liberals do more? No, but they could regulate or socialisze the system so the next time there will be no corrective capitalism, just soviet inefficiency and stagnation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Truthmatters said:


> your just going to keep lying about what he said no matter what the facts are?
> 
> 
> gee imagine my surprise



"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.

"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."

Where did Foxy lie about what he said, precisely?

Suck it up, Obama worshipper.  He fucked up.

And while we're on the subject of you leftists desperately twisting and squirming and spinning to say, "Conservatives are taking it out of context.  They're reading into it.  It doesn't really mean that," go back to the beginning of the thread and look at how many pages it took for leftists to stop telling us how right the President's remarks were (read exactly the way conservatives were reading it) and to start telling us we were "misinterpreting" them.  I think when every single person in the world interprets what he said the same way when they first hear it, and it requires a talking-point memo to make you hear it otherwise, there's not really any serious doubt about what he was saying.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Vidi said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is an ideological idiot. He has never actually had a private sector job. He couldn't run a business- except into the ground, if you paid him. His statement reveals how he sees the world. The "government" in his world belongs to the political class and not to the people...I mean WTF financially supports the government, but tax payers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have run a business. Several in fact. Successfully if I may be allowed to brag a bit.
> 
> And Obama is correct. I didnt go from start up to success on my own. I had help. I had good employees who were educated on someone elses tax money. I had roads on which supplies and customers came into my business and on which product was shipped out. I pay my employees a fair wage but I always need them to produce more value than I am investing in them or I do not profit.
> 
> For people to pretend that they dont understand how our economic well being is interconnected to one another AFTER the housing crisis took down our entire economy is just plain deception.
Click to expand...


You just contradicted yourself at the expense of your unbridled partisanship. Actually, you are not allowed to brag about it nor use the word "I".  *based on your own logic*,  10 Times you use a pronoun to refer to yourself and not once did you refer to the collective "We".  You are so full of shit.


----------



## Zxereus

Ohhhhhhhhhhh shit ! 
I should have never admitted I have a 4% stake in this !
Now the Dems have a specific amount that they can go after me with !
I wonder what the tax liability will be for 4% ownership of this thread ?


----------



## Sallow

Romney is one of those unique people that was born without parents. Seeing that there was work to be done, Romney set out into the wilds. He killed his first buffalo with his bare hands and made a fine suit out of it. Then..with his broad shoulders and huge hands..Romney pulled trees from the ground and fashioned himself a house. Using some of the left over wood and stone..Romney made a pick ax..so that he may mine the earth for materials. Romney smelted steel and built the his first sky scraper. He called it the tower of Bain.

The rest is history.


----------



## MuadDib

Vidi said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is an ideological idiot. He has never actually had a private sector job. He couldn't run a business- except into the ground, if you paid him. His statement reveals how he sees the world. The "government" in his world belongs to the political class and not to the people...I mean WTF financially supports the government, but tax payers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have run a business. Several in fact. Successfully if I may be allowed to brag a bit.
> 
> And Obama is correct. I didnt go from start up to success on my own. I had help. I had good employees who were educated on someone elses tax money. I had roads on which supplies and customers came into my business and on which product was shipped out. I pay my employees a fair wage but I always need them to produce more value than I am investing in them or I do not profit.
> 
> For people to pretend that they dont understand how our economic well being is interconnected to one another AFTER the housing crisis took down our entire economy is just plain deception.
Click to expand...


Then you should be well aware that excessive government regulations and tax laws were the biggest impediment to your success.


----------



## Trajan

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Said what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a fine cutting out of a phrase..that was said along with other phrases.
> 
> Obama said that no one in this country builds a business with out the help of infrastructure and community.
> 
> He's right.
> 
> Even Romney admitted that.
Click to expand...


uh huh read his whole statement and this, most especially  is telling;

"Roads and bridges" is plural; "that" is singular.  he should have said, "You didn't build those."But he didn't becasue his whole statement speaks to to the punchline. 


suck it up, hes spoken the truth, _ again_ and should have used a teleprompter.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> your brain is broken,



if so why be so afraid to give your best example for the whole world to see? what does your fear tell you?


----------



## Zxereus

Sallow said:


> Romney is one of those unique people that was born without parents. Seeing that there was work to be done, Romney set out into the wilds. He killed his first buffalo with his bare hands and made a fine suit out of it. Then..with his broad shoulders and huge hands..Romney pulled trees from the ground and fashioned himself a house. Using some of the left over wood and stone..Romney made a pick ax..so that he may mine the earth for materials. Romney smelted steel and built the his first sky scraper. He called it the tower of Bain.
> 
> The rest is history.



While all of that is true, he didn't build the thread that he used to sew his fine suit with.


----------



## Trajan

Dante said:


> Another lying you didn't get there on your own thread that isn't merged the way threads that criticize Romney are.
> 
> not that anyone is complaining.
> 
> nothing in life, or message boarding is fair



how many of your alike threads were merged? not many, suck it up, move along.


----------



## Zxereus

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> there isnt a single issue, not one, where righty is right and lefty is wrong
> 
> not one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about when the left spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??????
> 
> 
> See why we are 100% positive a liberal will  be slow, very slow??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your brain is broken, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you really dont, and I suggest you just sit back and google "funny videos" or something...really
Click to expand...


Oh yeah ? My brain may be broken, but your Bain is broken !


----------



## OODA_Loop

Sallow said:


> Romney is one of those unique people that was born without parents. Seeing that there was work to be done, Romney set out into the wilds. He killed his first buffalo with his bare hands and made a fine suit out of it. Then..with his broad shoulders and huge hands..Romney pulled trees from the ground and fashioned himself a house. Using some of the left over wood and stone..Romney made a pick ax..so that he may mine the earth for materials. Romney smelted steel and built the his first sky scraper. He called it the tower of Bain.
> 
> The rest is history.



And most importantly he is the better choice of the two for the next four years.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> For people to pretend that they dont understand how our economic well being is interconnected to one another AFTER the housing crisis took down our entire economy is just plain deception.



more to the point it should be inter connected through peaceful voluntary Republican capitalist relationships that are not violently transgressed through government tax and regulatory violence.

The 1929 depression and this liberal depression ought to be enough evidence for you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Truthmatters said:


> how well would your business be doing out in the middle of a forrest without any infrastructure?



Someone should really read you the works of Laura Ingalls Wilder, so you can get over this obsessive modern-day-only viewpoint on life.

Furthermore, expecting businesses to "thank" government for providing services that they, the businesses, are paying for is ludicrous.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Zxereus said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about when the left spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??????
> 
> 
> See why we are 100% positive a liberal will  be slow, very slow??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your brain is broken, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you really dont, and I suggest you just sit back and google "funny videos" or something...really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah ? My brain may be broken, but your Bain is broken !
Click to expand...


how about when the left spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb?????
how about when the left elected a president who had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders and is beloved by the CPUSA??


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened very carefully to what he said.  Why don't you?
> 
> If youve got a business, you didnt build that.
> President Obama: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of the propaganda and the brain damage...
> 
> What is in evidence?  What is absolutely and entirely undeniable is that the following statement is true "If you own a business in the US, you did NOT build it entirely on your own"
> 
> There is no debate about this factual statement...none
> 
> So when these brain-dead, talking point repeating, rightwing terrorists continue to repeat the opposite, it is an important development to note...
> 
> the interesting thing to note is these comments arent even controversial, unless you are running a campaign and have nothing, absolutely nothing to show the people...then you *make up* controversial issues like this
Click to expand...


Pity you're defending a statement that Obama didn't make.  I'm sure you WISH he'd said, "you did not build it entirely on your own", but what he ACTUALLY said was, "You didn't build that."

The interesting thing to note is that there are so many braindead slackers in the world who've accomplished nothing in their lives, and therefore don't see anything controversial about the President of the United States trying to claim credit for the success of businesses.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Truthmatters said:


> how well would your business be doing out in the middle of a forrest without any infrastructure?



how well would those who leech off of government be doing without  infrastructure built by the rich???


----------



## edthecynic

Cecilie1200 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> how well would your business be doing out in the middle of a forrest without any infrastructure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should really read you the works of Laura Ingalls Wilder, so you can get over this obsessive modern-day-only viewpoint on life.
> 
> Furthermore, expecting businesses to "thank" government for providing services that they, the businesses, are paying for is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

The Government Accountability Office said *72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes* for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

*More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period*, the report said.


----------



## occupied

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number of failed BANKS dramatically increased during and after the housing crash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes the banks paid the price for not seeing the invisible liberal cancer that had been unleashed but remained unseen by all of us.
> 
> Still, liberals want to punish them even more than capitalism already did?
> 
> It makes no sense except to Marx who the liberals parrot having no idea they are doing his bidding.
> 
> Capitalism wiped out half the banks, can the liberals do more? No, but they could regulate or socialisze the system so the next time there will be no corrective capitalism, just soviet inefficiency and stagnation.
Click to expand...


Banks failed to be sure but what about the bankers? You said half of them went bankrupt which is ludicrous, their asses were covered by pay and severance packages that were obscene insults to all the people who lost big due to their cavalier attitude with depositors accounts. It's like they cartoonishly got off the elevator just before it hit bottom. They did not share in the chaos they unleashed upon us and happily allowed the government to cover their gambling losses. Just to be clear, I am not talking about branch managers and tellers but the big players who came out of this looking like the won the powerball lottery. If just one of those pigs had been rendered penniless and locked up I would not be so bitter about it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Cecilie1200 said:


> The interesting thing to note is that there are so many braindead slackers in the world who've accomplished nothing in their lives, and therefore don't see anything controversial about the President of the United States trying to claim credit for the success of businesses.



yep, the most tragic thing we can do is to encourage people to look  for welfare, not work! Its a great way to acquire political power. The more welfare the more votes you get from your infantalized liberal constituency

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Cecilie1200

Truthmatters said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened very carefully to what he said.  Why don't you?
> 
> If youve got a business, you didnt build that.
> President Obama: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why do you keep omitting the part where he talks about roads and bridges?
Click to expand...


Maybe because it doesn't change what he said, or how noxious it was, in the slightest.  EVERYONE uses those roads and bridges, but NOT everyone has a successful business.  To any thinking person (ie. not you), that means that it's not the roads and bridges that deserve the credit for the success of the business; they're just the playing field everyone started with.  The credit for the success goes to the people who worked and worried and risked to build something upon the common foundation we all had.

And by the way, while I'm thinking on it, it's also noxious - and dishonest - for you and Obama and all the other leftist twerps out there to pretend that every cent of our tax dollars goes to roads, bridges, sewers, and what-have-you, and that objecting to paying ever-higher taxes is a vote against infrastructure.  The fact that Obama took the noxiousness even farther by saying, in essence, "You should want to pay more taxes, because it's all those taxes that REALLY made you successful" is just an extension of lying bullshit that went on too long even before he opened his flapping gob.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

edthecynic said:


> *More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period*, the report said.



a business is a tax collector not a taxpayer. The tax is passed on to customers like any cost. We have the corporate tax only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals who lack the IQ to understand basic economics .


----------



## healthmyths

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you left this very important part of what Obama told the crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together."*
> 
> " A text out of context, isolated form co-text, is always a pretext."
> Jacob Prasch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that supposed to fix it? He's still presuming a public vested interest in private businesses, _"we do things together"_.
> 
> Who's "we"???
> 
> The infrastructure is built by the businesses themselves, sometimes directly but most often through taxes they pay.  People who don't pay taxes, or offset what little they do pay by taking welfare benefits didn't contribute squat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And by the same token Businesses that don't pay taxes didn't contribute squat either.
> 
> Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
Click to expand...


100% of These same corporations PAID the following which YOU obviously have NO idea as to what this means so this is for other more intelligent people!
Social Security tax withholding (6.2% up to the annual maximum)
Medicare tax withholding (1.45%)
Federal unemployment taxes (FUTA) rate is 6.2 percent of the employee's wages

So 100% of these employers PAY additional Social security,Medicare FUTA TAXES!!!
NOT one gets away with NOT paying these TAXES


----------



## CandySlice

Cecilie1200 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I listened very carefully to what he said.  Why don't you?
> 
> If youve got a business, you didnt build that.
> President Obama: If you've got a business -- you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of the propaganda and the brain damage...
> 
> What is in evidence?  What is absolutely and entirely undeniable is that the following statement is true "If you own a business in the US, you did NOT build it entirely on your own"
> 
> There is no debate about this factual statement...none
> 
> So when these brain-dead, talking point repeating, rightwing terrorists continue to repeat the opposite, it is an important development to note...
> 
> the interesting thing to note is these comments arent even controversial, unless you are running a campaign and have nothing, absolutely nothing to show the people...then you *make up* controversial issues like this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pity you're defending a statement that Obama didn't make.  I'm *sure you WISH he'd said, "you did not build it entirely on your own", but what he ACTUALLY said was, "You didn't build that."*The interesting thing to note is that there are so many braindead slackers in the world who've accomplished nothing in their lives, and therefore don't see anything controversial about the President of the United States trying to claim credit for the success of businesses.
Click to expand...


Geez, you mean it's even worse than we thought???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Cecilie1200 said:


> The credit for the success goes to the people who worked and worried and risked to build something upon the common foundation we all had.



 great point!! we all had help!! the poor  get the most help and live 100% on help yet BO singles out the rich as if they are the greatest benificiaries when in fact they are the greatest contributors both in terms of taxes and the goods and services we need to survive.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Sallow said:


> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.



Your belief that Obama is not mocking business owners? That's the truth?


----------



## edthecynic

healthmyths said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that supposed to fix it? He's still presuming a public vested interest in private businesses, _"we do things together"_.
> 
> Who's "we"???
> 
> The infrastructure is built by the businesses themselves, sometimes directly but most often through taxes they pay.  People who don't pay taxes, or offset what little they do pay by taking welfare benefits didn't contribute squat.
> 
> 
> 
> And by the same token Businesses that don't pay taxes didn't contribute squat either.
> 
> Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% of These same corporations PAID the following which YOU obviously have NO idea as to what this means so this is for other more intelligent people!
> Social Security tax withholding (6.2% up to the annual maximum)
> Medicare tax withholding (1.45%)
> Federal unemployment taxes (FUTA) rate is 6.2 percent of the employee's wages
> 
> So 100% of these employers PAY additional Social security,Medicare FUTA TAXES!!!
> NOT one gets away with NOT paying these TAXES
Click to expand...

None of those taxes build roads and bridges.
Try again.


----------



## Zander

Obama believes in BIG GOVERNMENT and  Little People.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

It's a myth that we even need the govt to build those roads and bridges IMO. You think private business wouldn't figure out a way? Come on. 

Anyways, I think it's not the fact that he believes what he said. That's fine I guess. I think it's the fact that he overstated it. He really wants to pretend that government is the engine of the economy? More like the leak in the radiator.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

occupied said:


> Banks failed to be sure but what about the bankers? .




http://www.americanbanker.com/magazine/120_3/life-after-banking-1014712-1.html

Too stupid but perfectly liberal. The shareholders at Merryl Lynch for example lost everything. Do you really think they or anyone else will hire the management that bankrupted their company?

"The shock starts long about 5:30 on the Friday afternoon that the FDIC comes in to close the bank," Moeling says. "It is very abrupt: The CEO and others on the executive management team are physically escorted from the building, and they are allowed to pick a time when they can come back and pick up their personal things."

The summary dismissal and lack of discussion can be disconcerting to those used to being in charge," he says. "The regulators don't want their information, their help, their history - they just want them to go home."

Martin says denial is another typical reaction, though it's usually fleeting.

"They say things like, 'It wasn't anything we did: It was all the economy; the regulators had it out for us; if we had only had more time it would have been all okay.'"

Some experience intense anger, then an overwhelming sense of loss. Not only are the bank and their job gone, but so is their position of prestige in the community. They


----------



## Peach

midcan5 said:


> "In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States.  By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country.  The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals."  William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"
> 
> 
> No rich man ever made wealth on a deserted island. No so called entrepreneur made their wealth in a vacuum. Obama was right, but the thought does not appeal to the cowboy mentality of the modern right wingnut. Oh, and no cowboy roped a steer before there was a steer to rope.
> 
> 
> *'ItS Mitt Romney Who DoesnT Understand America'*
> 
> "If this country is to continue leading the world both economically and technologically, then someone has to be willing to spend money on silly risks. Someone has to fund a production line for the integrated circuit computers that T.I. cant see a use for. Someone has to send rockets into space for no other reason than because we can, and because we should see what happens after that. Its the American way." Romney and Obama on American Inventions : The New Yorker
> 
> The rich get rich because of their merit.
> 
> Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation - YouTube
> 
> *"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.* In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax



Cowboys have enough sense to know they did not create the ropes they used.


----------



## Vidi

MuadDib said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is an ideological idiot. He has never actually had a private sector job. He couldn't run a business- except into the ground, if you paid him. His statement reveals how he sees the world. The "government" in his world belongs to the political class and not to the people...I mean WTF financially supports the government, but tax payers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have run a business. Several in fact. Successfully if I may be allowed to brag a bit.
> 
> And Obama is correct. I didnt go from start up to success on my own. I had help. I had good employees who were educated on someone elses tax money. I had roads on which supplies and customers came into my business and on which product was shipped out. I pay my employees a fair wage but I always need them to produce more value than I am investing in them or I do not profit.
> 
> For people to pretend that they dont understand how our economic well being is interconnected to one another AFTER the housing crisis took down our entire economy is just plain deception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be well aware that excessive government regulations and tax laws were the biggest impediment to your success.
Click to expand...


As long as you understand that the operative word in your statement is excessive, you and I are in agreement.


----------



## Peach

Zander said:


> Obama believes in BIG GOVERNMENT and  Little People.



Yes, the defense industry leaves little room for the people, but many defense contractors and corporations made billions off of Iraq.


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> your brain is broken,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to give your best example for the whole world to see? what does your fear tell you?
Click to expand...


Theres your standard default position. Try to come up with something new please. Its redundant to see you fall back to the same fail every single thread. Try to grow as a person huh?


----------



## CandySlice

thereisnospoon said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your belief that Obama is not mocking business owners? That's the truth?
Click to expand...


Personally I think it's one of the most brilliant statements he's ever made. Now EVERYBODY can see what an idiot Obama is.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


>



Spoken like a true Communist...

By the way, everything you listed has NOTHING to do with a person building a business.

"Police Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?

"Military Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?

"Good Schools" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?

"Reliable Power" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?

"Clean Water" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?

"Road" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?

Thank you for defeating yourselves with your own arguments. Glaring example of how fucking stupid you Communist liberals are....


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> For people to pretend that they dont understand how our economic well being is interconnected to one another AFTER the housing crisis took down our entire economy is just plain deception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more to the point it should be inter connected through peaceful voluntary Republican capitalist relationships that are not violently transgressed through government tax and regulatory violence.
> 
> The 1929 depression and this liberal depression ought to be enough evidence for you.
Click to expand...


Youre wearing partisan glasses that taint everything you see. If you didnt, then you wouldnt label anything the Liberal Depression. Because you do and I dont speak partisan idiot, I have no idea what youre refering to. Perhaps if you chose to speak through a translator...your psycologist perhaps?


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Communist...
> 
> By the way, everything you listed has NOTHING to do with a person building a business.
> 
> "Police Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Military Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Good Schools" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Reliable Power" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Clean Water" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Road" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> Thank you for defeating yourselves with your own arguments. Glaring example of how fucking stupid you Communist liberals are....
Click to expand...


Yes its provided TO everyone but its not provided BY everyone and THAT is the whole damned point.

When you have Romney ADMITTING hes set up offshore accoutns to keep money from being taxed, then he has chosen to keep his money out of the provided BY column and only in the provided FOR column...and THAT is what has people so pissed off. 

You cant have it provided FOR you and expect not to pay into the system so you can provide it FOR the next guy.

Now if you want to talk about the rights and wrongs of a progressive tax system, Im willing to have that conversation ( and I might even agree with you on most of it ) but to actually move money out of the country isnt about progressive taxes its about evasion


----------



## P@triot

If everybody else builds a business for you, how come *none* of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?

Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it _for_ you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!

No? Yeah, didn't think so.... 

Fucking moron's....


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Communist...
> 
> By the way, everything you listed has NOTHING to do with a person building a business.
> 
> "Police Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Military Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Good Schools" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Reliable Power" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Clean Water" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Road" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> Thank you for defeating yourselves with your own arguments. Glaring example of how fucking stupid you Communist liberals are....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes its provided TO everyone but its not provided BY everyone and THAT is the whole damned point.
> 
> When you have Romney ADMITTING hes set up offshore accoutns to keep money from being taxed, then he has chosen to keep his money out of the provided BY column and only in the provided FOR column...and THAT is what has people so pissed off.
> 
> You cant have it provided FOR you and expect not to pay into the system so you can provide it FOR the next guy.
Click to expand...


Like a typical liberal asshole, you avoided the question and changed the subject. Answer the fucking question:

*If EVERYONE has these items, which according to YOU - is why business owners have their business - then why doesn't EVERYONE have a business? Why isn't EVERYONE as successful as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?*


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> If everybody else builds a business for you, how come *none* of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?
> 
> Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it _for_ you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!
> 
> No? Yeah, didn't think so....
> 
> Fucking moron's....



How many businesses do you own? 

Unless you have some under your belt to bring up, youre just waving your dick around.


----------



## thereisnospoon

edthecynic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> how well would your business be doing out in the middle of a forrest without any infrastructure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should really read you the works of Laura Ingalls Wilder, so you can get over this obsessive modern-day-only viewpoint on life.
> 
> Furthermore, expecting businesses to "thank" government for providing services that they, the businesses, are paying for is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said *72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes* for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> *More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period*, the report said.
Click to expand...


You can cite the US Tax Code for that.
One of every two small businesses will FAIL within 2 years. Most small businesses LOSE money for their first 5 years in of existence.
In each case the US Tax Code permits the owner of the business to write off losses.
As far as large companies are concerned, they LOSE money as well. 
For example, if the XYZ corporation suffers a down turn in operations with the result of a NET LOSS, the XYZ Corp gets to write off the loss. The end result is they pay a zero % effective tax rate. That is the US Tax Code.
Blame nothing else.
This argument from the left about roads and other infrastructure is a lot of garbage. 
Those are essential functions of government. In other words, the infrastructure would be there anyway. 
Oh, say a new industrial or mixed use complex is approved. More often than not, localities enforce what are called "impact fees". These fees go to pay for expansion of utilities or road improvements. Essentially the business or developer pays for the improvements.
Or, on occasions the developer pays for all road and utility improvements.
Obama's statement reveals his Marxist/Lenonist agenda.
Obama is a central planner. He believes government is the chicken AND the egg.
 Obama's ONLY use for the private sector is as a source of tax revenue.


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> When you have Romney ADMITTING hes set up offshore accoutns to keep money from being taxed, then he has chosen to keep his money out of the provided BY column and only in the provided FOR column...and THAT is what has people so pissed off.



You're so uninformed, it's just tragic.

First of all, the CBO already independently confirmed that the wealthy are paying WAY more than their "fair share". So your argument is 100% bullshit. False. Made up. Fantasy.

Second, liberals are the biggest offenders for hiding their money and tax evasion! Do you know how many people on Obama's own staff are guilty of tax evasion? How about John Kerry who bought a $7 million yacht and then HID it in Rhode Island to avoid paying taxes on it in Massachusetts (taxes the state DESPERATELY needed and which Kerry kept calling for people to pay more to help the state). So spare me

Third, people are FORCED to take these steps because the greedy, lazy liberal like YOU want everything they earn, until they have nothing left. And then you'll want to take their blood. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the WORLD. That is bullshit and completely unacceptable. Maybe if you Communist liberals taxed FAIR for once, people wouldn't have to hide their money in off shore accounts. They EARNED it, they should be allowed to KEEP it. That is what America was founded on....


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Communist...
> 
> By the way, everything you listed has NOTHING to do with a person building a business.
> 
> "Police Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Military Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Good Schools" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Reliable Power" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Clean Water" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Road" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> Thank you for defeating yourselves with your own arguments. Glaring example of how fucking stupid you Communist liberals are....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its provided TO everyone but its not provided BY everyone and THAT is the whole damned point.
> 
> When you have Romney ADMITTING hes set up offshore accoutns to keep money from being taxed, then he has chosen to keep his money out of the provided BY column and only in the provided FOR column...and THAT is what has people so pissed off.
> 
> You cant have it provided FOR you and expect not to pay into the system so you can provide it FOR the next guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like a typical liberal asshole, you avoided the question and changed the subject. Answer the fucking question:
> 
> *If EVERYONE has these items, which according to YOU - is why business owners have their business - then why doesn't EVERYONE have a business? Why isn't EVERYONE as successful as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?*
Click to expand...



Youre missing the point completely. Its not abotu EVERYONE owning a business. Its about once you have that successful business, do you put back into the system the way other put in so you could be successful?

Conrad Hilton never paid less than 70% during his rise from small time business to international hotel mogel. He paid back into the system so the next guy had a chance at success too. And Mr Hilton wasnt a liberal. He was a Patriotic American. 

Look, its not about fairness in the sense that everyone should have a business or everyone should ahve an equal amount of wealth, thats utter nonsense ( and communism ) Its about those who benefit the most from the system have the biggest duty to maintain that system, not tear it down by hiding the wealth they recieved from it so they dont have to pay back in.


----------



## Bloodline

Rottweiler said:


> If everybody else builds a business for you, how come *none* of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?
> 
> Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it _for_ you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!
> 
> No? Yeah, didn't think so....
> 
> Fucking moron's....



In the same sentence you went from BUILDING a business to OWNING a business numb nuts!

There's a difference.

Unless you have been the SOLE employee of this business you own and you did your own financing with no need for a bank (that would have simply loaned you OTHER people's money) and your business produces NO products or services that OTHER people purchased from your business then yes....

Others helped build your business!

Do you get it now???


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everybody else builds a business for you, how come *none* of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?
> 
> Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it _for_ you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!
> 
> No? Yeah, didn't think so....
> 
> Fucking moron's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many businesses do you own?
> 
> Unless you have some under your belt to bring up, youre just waving your dick around.
Click to expand...


I have to own a business to speak intelligently? Since you don't own a business, you must be "waving your dick around" (very classy by the way - but what else would we expect from the parasite class, right).


----------



## P@triot

Bloodline said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everybody else builds a business for you, how come *none* of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?
> 
> Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it _for_ you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!
> 
> No? Yeah, didn't think so....
> 
> Fucking moron's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the same sentence you went from BUILDING a business to OWNING a business numb nuts!
> 
> There's a difference.
> 
> Unless you have been the SOLE employee of this business you own and you did your own financing with no need for a bank (that would have simply loaned you OTHER people's money) and your business produces NO products or services that OTHER people purchased from your business then yes....
> 
> Others helped build your business!
> 
> Do you get it now???
Click to expand...


If everybody else builds a business for you, how come none of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?

Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it for you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!

No? Yeah, didn't think so.... 

Fucking moron's....  Now answer the question!  Can't? Didn't think so....


----------



## edthecynic

thereisnospoon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should really read you the works of Laura Ingalls Wilder, so you can get over this obsessive modern-day-only viewpoint on life.
> 
> Furthermore, expecting businesses to "thank" government for providing services that they, the businesses, are paying for is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said *72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes* for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> *More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period*, the report said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can cite the US Tax Code for that.
> One of every two small businesses will FAIL within 2 years. Most small businesses LOSE money for their first 5 years in of existence.
> In each case the US Tax Code permits the owner of the business to write off losses.
> As far as large companies are concerned, they LOSE money as well.
> For example, if the XYZ corporation suffers a down turn in operations with the result of a NET LOSS, the XYZ Corp gets to write off the loss. The end result is they pay a zero % effective tax rate. That is the US Tax Code.
> Blame nothing else.
> This argument from the left about roads and other infrastructure is a lot of garbage.
> Those are essential functions of government. In other words, the infrastructure would be there anyway.
> Oh, say a new industrial or mixed use complex is approved. More often than not, localities enforce what are called "impact fees". These fees go to pay for expansion of utilities or road improvements. Essentially the business or developer pays for the improvements.
> Or, on occasions the developer pays for all road and utility improvements.
> Obama's statement reveals his Marxist/Lenonist agenda.
> Obama is a central planner. He believes government is the chicken AND the egg.
> Obama's ONLY use for the private sector is as a source of tax revenue.
Click to expand...

First of all, those were boom years that the corps were paying no taxes. And any impact fees are passed on to the consumer.


----------



## P@triot

Bloodline said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everybody else builds a business for you, how come *none* of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?
> 
> Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it _for_ you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!
> 
> No? Yeah, didn't think so....
> 
> Fucking moron's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the same sentence you went from BUILDING a business to OWNING a business numb nuts!
> 
> There's a difference.
> 
> Unless you have been the SOLE employee of this business you own and you did your own financing with no need for a bank (that would have simply loaned you OTHER people's money) and your business produces NO products or services that OTHER people purchased from your business then yes....
> 
> Others helped build your business!
> 
> Do you get it now???
Click to expand...


How can you "build" a business if you don't "own" it? Fucking *moron*.... 

You're so desperate to attempt to defend that which cannot be defended that you're making ZERO sense...


----------



## Zxereus

Stephanie said:


> I'm sure all the BUSINESS people in the country LOVE hearing this shit from Obama
> 
> UnFrikenbelievable
> 
> please vote this Progressive idiot out



And that's why we are ecstatic when he opens his mouth and speaks the real Barack !


----------



## Zxereus




----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have Romney ADMITTING hes set up offshore accoutns to keep money from being taxed, then he has chosen to keep his money out of the provided BY column and only in the provided FOR column...and THAT is what has people so pissed off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so uninformed, it's just tragic.
> 
> First of all, the CBO already independently confirmed that the wealthy are paying WAY more than their "fair share". So your argument is 100% bullshit. False. Made up. Fantasy.
> 
> Second, liberals are the biggest offenders for hiding their money and tax evasion! Do you know how many people on Obama's own staff are guilty of tax evasion? How about John Kerry who bought a $7 million yacht and then HID it in Rhode Island to avoid paying taxes on it in Massachusetts (taxes the state DESPERATELY needed and which Kerry kept calling for people to pay more to help the state). So spare me
> 
> Third, people are FORCED to take these steps because the greedy, lazy liberal like YOU want everything they earn, until they have nothing left. And then you'll want to take their blood. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the WORLD. That is bullshit and completely unacceptable. Maybe if you Communist liberals taxed FAIR for once, people wouldn't have to hide their money in off shore accounts. They EARNED it, they should be allowed to KEEP it. That is what America was founded on....
Click to expand...



Bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit. Im an Eisenhower Republican, which according to you makes me a socialist.

And Im going to debunk your "earned it" bullshit right here and now.

When an employer employees people, they are hriing people to do work they CANNOT do. Either because they lack the expertise or the number of hours in a day prohibit the growth of the business without an increase in production. The employee EARNS their wage, but the money brought in by that employees labor is not EARNED by the employer because the sweat of their brow did not produce the product. That was someone else. Any business owner HAS to rely on others in order to be successful. And anyone with a business knows this...at least successful ones. So in this example, they didnt do it alone.

Now look at people like the Koch Borthers. Did they EARN their money? Or did they inherit something that was built by their father? They inherited it. It wasnt THEIR sweat or THEIR great idea that built the empire, it was the work of their father and the people their father employed. So in this case, they didnt do it themselves at all.

So in each case, either through the growing of a business or the inheriting of business, it is always the efforts of a group that brings about success. There are no multinational companies that can attribute their entire success to the contributions of a single individual.


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its provided TO everyone but its not provided BY everyone and THAT is the whole damned point.
> 
> When you have Romney ADMITTING hes set up offshore accoutns to keep money from being taxed, then he has chosen to keep his money out of the provided BY column and only in the provided FOR column...and THAT is what has people so pissed off.
> 
> You cant have it provided FOR you and expect not to pay into the system so you can provide it FOR the next guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a typical liberal asshole, you avoided the question and changed the subject. Answer the fucking question:
> 
> *If EVERYONE has these items, which according to YOU - is why business owners have their business - then why doesn't EVERYONE have a business? Why isn't EVERYONE as successful as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Youre missing the point completely. Its not abotu EVERYONE owning a business. Its about once you have that successful business, do you put back into the system the way other put in so you could be successful?
> 
> Conrad Hilton never paid less than 70% during his rise from small time business to international hotel mogel. He paid back into the system so the next guy had a chance at success too. And Mr Hilton wasnt a liberal. He was a Patriotic American.
> 
> Look, its not about fairness in the sense that everyone should have a business or everyone should ahve an equal amount of wealth, thats utter nonsense ( and communism ) Its about those who benefit the most from the system have the biggest duty to maintain that system, not tear it down by hiding the wealth they recieved from it so they dont have to pay back in.
Click to expand...


OMG!!! Who *ISN'T* "paying back into the system"?!?!?  Name me *ONE* business owner *not* paying taxes.

In fact, the _*ONLY*_ people not "paying back into the system" is the 49% of parasites that _you_ support!

You make no sense! 100% of successful business owners pay taxes, yet you attack them for not "paying back into the system". Meanwhile, the parasite class literally does not "pay back into the system" and you love, worship, defend, and support them.

Do you see how you don't make any sense? You're tripping over yourself now that I've pointed out the fatal flaw in the liberal attack on successful people....


----------



## edthecynic

Rottweiler said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everybody else builds a business for you, how come *none* of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?
> 
> Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it _for_ you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!
> 
> No? Yeah, didn't think so....
> 
> Fucking moron's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many businesses do you own?
> 
> Unless you have some under your belt to bring up, youre just waving your dick around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to own a business to speak intelligently? Since you don't own a business, you must be "waving your dick around" (very classy by the way - but what else would we expect from the parasite class, right).
Click to expand...

Get a job you lazy CON$ervoFascist parasite. 

On the average Libs are more financially successful than you lazy CON$ervoFascist slackers. And the laziest CON$ervoFascist parasites are the ones who claim to be successful.


----------



## Bloodline

Rottweiler said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everybody else builds a business for you, how come *none* of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?
> 
> Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it _for_ you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!
> 
> No? Yeah, didn't think so....
> 
> Fucking moron's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the same sentence you went from BUILDING a business to OWNING a business numb nuts!
> 
> There's a difference.
> 
> Unless you have been the SOLE employee of this business you own and you did your own financing with no need for a bank (that would have simply loaned you OTHER people's money) and your business produces NO products or services that OTHER people purchased from your business then yes....
> 
> Others helped build your business!
> 
> Do you get it now???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you "build" a business if you don't "own" it? Fucking *moron*....
> 
> You're so desperate to attempt to defend that which cannot be defended that you're making ZERO sense...
Click to expand...


You still don't get it do you?

You hire employees to do the work that builds your business for you.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you left this very important part of what Obama told the crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together."*
> 
> " A text out of context, isolated form co-text, is always a pretext."
> Jacob Prasch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that supposed to fix it? He's still presuming a public vested interest in private businesses, _"we do things together"_.
> 
> Who's "we"???
> 
> The infrastructure is built by the businesses themselves, sometimes directly but most often through taxes they pay.  People who don't pay taxes, or offset what little they do pay by taking welfare benefits didn't contribute squat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And by the same token Businesses that don't pay taxes didn't contribute squat either.
> 
> Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and *about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.*
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and *about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.*
Click to expand...


I'm sure, since you printed some excerpts from the article yourself, that you must realize that the headline and text don't match, right?  The fact is, that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  It's also not surprising, given the overly complex nature of our tax law that some corporations don't pay on years when they can find a legal excuse not to.  Wasn't it GE under Jeffrey Immelt who, after every sort of sweet government deal one could imagine, not to mention having a warm, fuzzy relationship with Barack Obama, who didn't pay anything recently?


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everybody else builds a business for you, how come *none* of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?
> 
> Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it _for_ you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!
> 
> No? Yeah, didn't think so....
> 
> Fucking moron's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many businesses do you own?
> 
> Unless you have some under your belt to bring up, youre just waving your dick around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to own a business to speak intelligently? Since you don't own a business, you must be "waving your dick around" (very classy by the way - but what else would we expect from the parasite class, right).
Click to expand...



No you dont have to own a business to speak intelligently, but as you have yet to speak intelligently, Im checking to see if you have any experience with what you speak. Based on your respose the answer is obviously no.

I do own businesses. And as a business owner, I dont for a second believe that the success of my businesses can be attributed to ONLY my contributions. I have employees that work their asses off to ensure the success of the businesses and they deserve some of the credit. I found the idea, the capital and I did the groundwork to begin those businesses, but it was others who helped me streamline the processes by which I could turn a greater and greater profit.

And if you think Im classless for saying things in the way I say them tough shit. Grow a pair and quit being such a whiney little bitch.

If you cant hang with the BIG dogs, stay on the porch.


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> Youre missing the point completely. Its not abotu EVERYONE owning a business. Its about once you have that successful business, do you put back into the system the way other put in so you could be successful?



Actually, you are missing the point completely. The entire thread/debate is about Obama's asinine comment that people who built their businesses "didn't build it - somebody else did". Then some idiot liberals here tried to support that by mentioning asinine things such as "clean water, police, and electricity".

I merely pointed out how asinine that is, since 100% of American's have all of those things, yet only a rare few are successful. It just proves that NOBODY else built that for them. That it was their talent and work ethic ONLY that was responsbile for their success.

Obama is a fucking idiot and embarassed himself in front of the world once again with that absolutely stupid Marxist comment.


----------



## Buford

Govt didn't build those roads and bridges.  Private construction businesses contracted by govt officials built them.  Obama is stupid.


----------



## Zxereus

Bloodline said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the same sentence you went from BUILDING a business to OWNING a business numb nuts!
> 
> There's a difference.
> 
> Unless you have been the SOLE employee of this business you own and you did your own financing with no need for a bank (that would have simply loaned you OTHER people's money) and your business produces NO products or services that OTHER people purchased from your business then yes....
> 
> Others helped build your business!
> 
> Do you get it now???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you "build" a business if you don't "own" it? Fucking *moron*....
> 
> You're so desperate to attempt to defend that which cannot be defended that you're making ZERO sense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it do you?
> 
> You hire employees to do the work that builds your business for you.
Click to expand...


Wrong ! You hire employess to HELP you build your business !
Something you leftists will never understand !


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Mac1958 said:


> *"You didn't get there on your own"*






> *12/15/09*​
> "What is so special about place of birth?
> 
> First off, economists agree that the presence of a stable market for goods and assets adds 30% to the value of everything we ownwe have that in America, and that increases wealth.
> 
> Second, economists tell us that 50% of the annual growth in our economy is a function of the introduction of new technologywe have that in America, and my family knows first-hand about how new technology can increase wealth.
> 
> But the benefits of being an American dont stop there.
> 
> In no other country in the world is the federal government spending more money on research.  The United States spends some $96 billion every year on fundamental research in universities and laboratories all over this country.
> 
> And what comes of this research?  Well for starters how about things like jet engines, integrated circuits, the human genome, or the Internet.  Clearly the largest and most generous venture capitalist in the universe is Uncle Sam.
> 
> *It is clear that the folks who have become wealthy from this significant social investment did not do it alone.  I believe their estates owe something back to the society that enabled the creation of that wealth.*"
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates, Sr.*​




​


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everybody else builds a business for you, how come *none* of the liberals on this site (with a very few exceptions of course) own their own business?
> 
> Come on lazy liberals - everyone else is building it _for_ you! So lets get cracking on starting your own business!!!
> 
> No? Yeah, didn't think so....
> 
> Fucking moron's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the same sentence you went from BUILDING a business to OWNING a business numb nuts!
> 
> There's a difference.
> 
> Unless you have been the SOLE employee of this business you own and you did your own financing with no need for a bank (that would have simply loaned you OTHER people's money) and your business produces NO products or services that OTHER people purchased from your business then yes....
> 
> Others helped build your business!
> 
> Do you get it now???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you "build" a business if you don't "own" it? Fucking *moron*....
> 
> You're so desperate to attempt to defend that which cannot be defended that you're making ZERO sense...
Click to expand...



I have employees who offered their ideas to my business. I own it but they helped grow it with their own contributions.

You dont understand that because youre too busy being blinded by the stupid partisan glasses. Take them off.


----------



## Vidi

Zxereus said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you "build" a business if you don't "own" it? Fucking *moron*....
> 
> You're so desperate to attempt to defend that which cannot be defended that you're making ZERO sense...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it do you?
> 
> You hire employees to do the work that builds your business for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong ! You hire employess to HELP you build your business !
> Something you leftists will never understand !
Click to expand...


No dogboy, YOU dont get it. A business OWNER needs to be able to step away from the business and let the employees mainatain and build it FOR them. Otherwise, the owner has only bought themselves a JOB. Once the employees are building the business for you, you are free to go build ANOTHER business. Its in that way you can make some serious money and provide a MUCH better life for your family.


----------



## Zxereus

> The Radical Right - You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy



Mmmmmm, no, the radical left is much worse.


----------



## buckeye45_73

ConzHateUSA said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, that is a lie and how I know you arent faced with that dilemma is this is what i do for a living
> 
> you either know nothing about ACA or are lying about owning a biz
> 
> 
> 
> So why didnt congress and unions want to use the ACA? I find it funny how they have "exemptions" like all liberals, pass shit for the average joe and we're exempt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dont know what you are babbling on about, but i bet you are against universal health care, single payer ?
> 
> stop making unsupported comments, forget about ACA for a minute and tell me if you want universal health care, yes or no
Click to expand...

 
no I'm not a single payer nut.... I'd rather get good healthcare then force people to buy it....and sorry bro, what's unsupported?

Look son when you play with the big boys, atleast know your facts and how things work. 

Exempted from "Obamacare:" The Authors - CBS News


----------



## buckeye45_73

Mr. Shaman said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"You didn't get there on your own"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *12/15/09*​
> 
> "What is so special about place of birth?
> 
> First off, economists agree that the presence of a stable market for goods and assets adds 30% to the value of everything we ownwe have that in America, and that increases wealth.
> 
> Second, economists tell us that 50% of the annual growth in our economy is a function of the introduction of new technologywe have that in America, and my family knows first-hand about how new technology can increase wealth.
> 
> But the benefits of being an American dont stop there.
> 
> In no other country in the world is the federal government spending more money on research. The United States spends some $96 billion every year on fundamental research in universities and laboratories all over this country.
> 
> And what comes of this research? Well for starters how about things like jet engines, integrated circuits, the human genome, or the Internet. Clearly the largest and most generous venture capitalist in the universe is Uncle Sam.
> 
> *It is clear that the folks who have become wealthy from this significant social investment did not do it alone. I believe their estates owe something back to the society that enabled the creation of that wealth.*"
> 
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates, Sr.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

 
That's great, so he can do it, if he feels that way, but I seriously doubt that anything you've accomplished you said,, nah, I'll split the money with all the people that helped me out......sure ya did


----------



## Mr. Shaman

healthmyths said:


> *Is Obama's "didn't do it on their own" the dumbest GAFFE or does he*





> *12/15/09*​
> "What is so special about place of birth?
> 
> First off, economists agree that the presence of a stable market for goods and assets adds 30% to the value of everything we ownwe have that in America, and that increases wealth.
> 
> Second, economists tell us that 50% of the annual growth in our economy is a function of the introduction of new technologywe have that in America, and my family knows first-hand about how new technology can increase wealth.
> 
> But the benefits of being an American dont stop there.
> 
> In no other country in the world is the federal government spending more money on research.  The United States spends some $96 billion every year on fundamental research in universities and laboratories all over this country.
> 
> And what comes of this research?  Well for starters how about things like jet engines, integrated circuits, the human genome, or the Internet.  Clearly the largest and most generous venture capitalist in the universe is Uncle Sam.
> 
> *It is clear that the folks who have become wealthy from this significant social investment did not do it alone.  I believe their estates owe something back to the society that enabled the creation of that wealth.*"
> 
> 
> *Bill Gates, Sr.*​








*Stupid Fuckin' Teabagger*​


----------



## MuadDib

Zxereus said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure all the BUSINESS people in the country LOVE hearing this shit from Obama
> 
> UnFrikenbelievable
> 
> please vote this Progressive idiot out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why we are ecstatic when he opens his mouth and speaks the real Barack !
Click to expand...


It happens every time he goes off of the teleprompter.


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre missing the point completely. Its not abotu EVERYONE owning a business. Its about once you have that successful business, do you put back into the system the way other put in so you could be successful?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are missing the point completely. The entire thread/debate is about Obama's asinine comment that people who built their businesses "didn't build it - somebody else did". Then some idiot liberals here tried to support that by mentioning asinine things such as "clean water, police, and electricity".
> 
> I merely pointed out how asinine that is, since 100% of American's have all of those things, yet only a rare few are successful. It just proves that NOBODY else built that for them. That it was their talent and work ethic ONLY that was responsbile for their success.
> 
> Obama is a fucking idiot and embarassed himself in front of the world once again with that absolutely stupid Marxist comment.
Click to expand...


No YOUVE still missed the point.

Your partisan bullshit wont let you see the MEANING behind the words instead of the words themselves.

Think of it this way:

When Romney said "Corporations are people, my freind" what did he mean?

If you blast him for what he said without taking into account what he MEANT, then youre a libtard partisan hack. 

The same applies here. If you blast Obama for the words while ignoring the MEANING of those words, then youre a Rebtard partisan hack.

Both are equally stupid and equally dangerous.

Now if you choose to think outside partisan hackery, and look at the meanign behind the statements youd see that BOTH of those statements made by Romney and Obama are actually true AND in fact making the EXACT SAME POINT!!!!!!!!


----------



## P@triot

Bloodline said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the same sentence you went from BUILDING a business to OWNING a business numb nuts!
> 
> There's a difference.
> 
> Unless you have been the SOLE employee of this business you own and you did your own financing with no need for a bank (that would have simply loaned you OTHER people's money) and your business produces NO products or services that OTHER people purchased from your business then yes....
> 
> Others helped build your business!
> 
> Do you get it now???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you "build" a business if you don't "own" it? Fucking *moron*....
> 
> You're so desperate to attempt to defend that which cannot be defended that you're making ZERO sense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it do you?
> 
> You hire employees to do the work that builds your business for you.
Click to expand...


And those employees are compensated through PRIVATE funds and work at their own FREE WILL. So that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Obama and you idiot liberals here have tried to make the case that *government*, through *taxes*, have built businesses (remember what he cited - teachers, bridges, roads???  See... _all_ government).

You're argument doesn't hold up because you're on the wrong side of the facts


----------



## Zxereus

Vidi said:


> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it do you?
> 
> You hire employees to do the work that builds your business for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong ! You hire employess to HELP you build your business !
> Something you leftists will never understand !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dogboy, YOU dont get it. A business OWNER needs to be able to step away from the business and let the employees mainatain and build it FOR them. Otherwise, the owner has only bought themselves a JOB. Once the employees are building the business for you, you are free to go build ANOTHER business. Its in that way you can make some serious money and provide a MUCH better life for your family.
Click to expand...


No pussyboy, a typical small business owner spends far more time working, worrying, spending money, on the business than the employees the owner hires.
In time, the owner may be able to step away and finally reap some of the rewards of their risk taking, but most of the time they spend working, and much more than the employees.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Obama is a fucking idiot and embarassed himself in front of the world once again with that absolutely stupid Marxist comment.



See, this is the bit that really cracks me up. No, he did not embarass himself in front of the world. We think he is great. The only embarassment we feel is towards the neocon whackjobs who have taken what he said out of context.

We can read and hear just fine. We don't need partisan hacks like you, Cesspit or Eddie Munster to try and interpret what he said for us. Your skewed, unreliable opinion is not needed. If I wanted a biased, lack-of-crictical thinking, partisan hackjob 'insights' I'd go to Fox, American Thinker or anything Levin and Coutlergeist has/have written..


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that supposed to fix it? He's still presuming a public vested interest in private businesses, _"we do things together"_.
> 
> Who's "we"???
> 
> The infrastructure is built by the businesses themselves, sometimes directly but most often through taxes they pay.  People who don't pay taxes, or offset what little they do pay by taking welfare benefits didn't contribute squat.
> 
> 
> 
> And by the same token Businesses that don't pay taxes didn't contribute squat either.
> 
> Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and *about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.*
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and *about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure, since you printed some excerpts from the article yourself, that you must realize that the headline and text don't match, right? * The fact is, that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.*  It's also not surprising, given the overly complex nature of our tax law that some corporations don't pay on years when they can find a legal excuse not to.  Wasn't it GE under Jeffrey Immelt who, after every sort of sweet government deal one could imagine, not to mention having a warm, fuzzy relationship with Barack Obama, who didn't pay anything recently?
Click to expand...

And the real fact is corps don't pay that 35% tax. In reality, on the average they pay about half that rate. And at least 30 fortune 500 corps had neg tax balances, not just GE.


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have Romney ADMITTING hes set up offshore accoutns to keep money from being taxed, then he has chosen to keep his money out of the provided BY column and only in the provided FOR column...and THAT is what has people so pissed off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so uninformed, it's just tragic.
> 
> First of all, the CBO already independently confirmed that the wealthy are paying WAY more than their "fair share". So your argument is 100% bullshit. False. Made up. Fantasy.
> 
> Second, liberals are the biggest offenders for hiding their money and tax evasion! Do you know how many people on Obama's own staff are guilty of tax evasion? How about John Kerry who bought a $7 million yacht and then HID it in Rhode Island to avoid paying taxes on it in Massachusetts (taxes the state DESPERATELY needed and which Kerry kept calling for people to pay more to help the state). So spare me
> 
> Third, people are FORCED to take these steps because the greedy, lazy liberal like YOU want everything they earn, until they have nothing left. And then you'll want to take their blood. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the WORLD. That is bullshit and completely unacceptable. Maybe if you Communist liberals taxed FAIR for once, people wouldn't have to hide their money in off shore accounts. They EARNED it, they should be allowed to KEEP it. That is what America was founded on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit. Im an Eisenhower Republican, which according to you makes me a socialist.
> 
> And Im going to debunk your "earned it" bullshit right here and now.
> 
> When an employer employees people, they are hriing people to do work they CANNOT do. Either because they lack the expertise or the number of hours in a day prohibit the growth of the business without an increase in production. The employee EARNS their wage, but the money brought in by that employees labor is not EARNED by the employer because the sweat of their brow did not produce the product. That was someone else. Any business owner HAS to rely on others in order to be successful. And anyone with a business knows this...at least successful ones. So in this example, they didnt do it alone.
> 
> Now look at people like the Koch Borthers. Did they EARN their money? Or did they inherit something that was built by their father? They inherited it. It wasnt THEIR sweat or THEIR great idea that built the empire, it was the work of their father and the people their father employed. So in this case, they didnt do it themselves at all.
> 
> So in each case, either through the growing of a business or the inheriting of business, it is always the efforts of a group that brings about success. There are no multinational companies that can attribute their entire success to the contributions of a single individual.
Click to expand...


Talk about *bullshit*! You mention ONE example - the Koch brothers - and declare that as fact? I notice you don't want to talk about their father, who *didn't* "inherit" anything.

By the way - only a Socialist can claim they are not a Socialist, and then turn around in the same breath and claim that a business owner didn't EARN their profit because they hired workers.

Guess what, when you take the major risks involved with starting your own business - you EARN every damn penny that comes into that company. If it weren't for the owner/founder, those employees wouldn't even have a job. So spare me the bullshit about "sweat on the brow". You clearly no nothing about starting and/or running a business, because if you did - you would know that the owner puts in more hours and sweat than all of the emlployees *combined*.

As I keep saying, if it's so easy, then how come you lazy liberals aren't running your own companies? Exactly.


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is a fucking idiot and embarassed himself in front of the world once again with that absolutely stupid Marxist comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is the bit that really cracks me up. No, he did not embarass himself in front of the world. We think he is great. The only embarassment we feel is towards the neocon whackjobs who have taken what he said out of context.
> 
> We can read and hear just fine. We don't need partisan hacks like you, Cesspit or Eddie Munster to try and interpret what he said for us. Your skewed, unreliable opinion is not needed. If I wanted a biased, lack-of-crictical thinking, partisan hackjob 'insights' I'd go to Fox, American Thinker or anything Levin and Coutlergeist has/have written..
Click to expand...


No, you're in the minority that just want to fellate him day and night. The rest of the world is laughing their ass off that he went off teleprompter and exposed his radical Marxist ideology. There is nothing to "interpret" - he said exactly what he said and it's on video. No denying it.

Unless, of course, it's one of the assholes like you that fantasize about sucking his cock and therefore will NEVER acknowledge when he's wrong, or made a mistake, or embarassed himself, etc.

Fucking parasite loser....


----------



## Vidi

Zxereus said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong ! You hire employess to HELP you build your business !
> Something you leftists will never understand !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dogboy, YOU dont get it. A business OWNER needs to be able to step away from the business and let the employees mainatain and build it FOR them. Otherwise, the owner has only bought themselves a JOB. Once the employees are building the business for you, you are free to go build ANOTHER business. Its in that way you can make some serious money and provide a MUCH better life for your family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No pussyboy, a typical small business owner spends far more time working, worrying, spending money, on the business than the employees the owner hires.
> In time, the owner may be able to step away and finally reap some of the rewards of their risk taking, but most of the time they spend working, and much more than the employees.
Click to expand...


For the first couple years yes. But if youre still struggling and working more hours than your employees, then YOURE DOING IT WRONG.

Look I normally put in 18 hour days, but Im split between multiple businesses AND I sometimes sit here arguing with you folks for an hour or so a night, so it all pans out. But if I was still doing 18 hour days in a single business after year three, then that business has failed...time to move on.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is a fucking idiot and embarassed himself in front of the world once again with that absolutely stupid Marxist comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is the bit that really cracks me up. No, he did not embarass himself in front of the world. We think he is great. The only embarassment we feel is towards the neocon whackjobs who have taken what he said out of context.
> 
> We can read and hear just fine. We don't need partisan hacks like you, Cesspit or Eddie Munster to try and interpret what he said for us. Your skewed, unreliable opinion is not needed. If I wanted a biased, lack-of-crictical thinking, partisan hackjob 'insights' I'd go to Fox, American Thinker or anything Levin and Coutlergeist has/have written..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're in the minority that just want to fellate him day and night. The rest of the world is laughing their ass off that he went off teleprompter and exposed his radical Marxist ideology. There is nothing to "interpret" - he said exactly what he said and it's on video. No denying it.
> 
> Unless, of course, it's one of the assholes like you that fantasize about sucking his cock and therefore will NEVER acknowledge when he's wrong, or made a mistake, or embarassed himself, etc.
> 
> Fucking parasite loser....
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> And if you think Im classless for saying things in the way I say them tough shit. Grow a pair and quit being such a whiney little bitch.
> 
> If you cant hang with the BIG dogs, stay on the porch.



Once again, show grace and class. Sorry, but there is no way with your lack of tact and class that you have EVER owned a real business. Hiring your college buddies is a far cry from running a business. Getting your high school drop out pals to plumb toilets for minimum wage is not running a business.

You have all the professionalism and tact of a typical liberal parasite low life...


----------



## Vidi

And another thing that seems to be going completely unsaid.

MY success and the success of EVERY single American company today is dependant on the contribution of others. A very specific group.

My grandfather didnt just instill in me good values, a wrok ethic and a strong sense of family, but he, and a group of his closest friends, happened to make landfall on some French beaches on June 6, 1944. Without thier contribution, their sacrifice, my success would not even be possible. 

If you dont like the tax code, work to get it changed. It is a democracy after all right? But if you decide fuck it, Im going to hide my money and simply not pay it, then you are ignoring and belittling the contribution and sacrifice of every single American soldier ever. We all demand we support the troops. How about we actually fucking mean it?!?!?!


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you think Im classless for saying things in the way I say them tough shit. Grow a pair and quit being such a whiney little bitch.
> 
> If you cant hang with the BIG dogs, stay on the porch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, show grace and class. Sorry, but there is no way with your lack of tact and class that you have EVER owned a real business. Hiring your college buddies is a far cry from running a business. Getting your high school drop out pals to plumb toilets for minimum wage is not running a business.
> 
> You have all the professionalism and tact of a typical liberal parasite low life...
Click to expand...


I own three bakeries, two machine shops and am presently working on a "chemical" company. Its just getting off the ground so its the one that takes the most of my time.

And there is such a thing as "a time and a place" though I did tell one of my customers when he was overly demanding if he wanted to wave his dick around he could take his business down the street. He didnt.


----------



## saveliberty

Sounds like lottery winners should give all the money back then.


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> The same applies here. If you blast Obama for the words while ignoring the MEANING of those words, then youre a Rebtard partisan hack.



Wrong, your just not swayed by Obama fluffer spin.  Obama's meaning was quite clear:  business owners don't deserve credit for their success.  They owe it to the government.  Every productive American should rightly feel insulted by that remark.


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> And another thing that seems to be going completely unsaid.
> 
> MY success and the success of EVERY single American company today is dependant on the contribution of others. A very specific group.
> 
> My grandfather didnt just instill in me good values, a wrok ethic and a strong sense of family, but he, and a group of his closest friends, happened to make landfall on some French beaches on June 6, 1944. Without thier contribution, their sacrifice, my success would not even be possible.
> 
> If you dont like the tax code, work to get it changed. It is a democracy after all right? But if you decide fuck it, Im going to hide my money and simply not pay it, then you are ignoring and belittling the contribution and sacrifice of every single American soldier ever. We all demand we support the troops. How about we actually fucking mean it?!?!?!



Says the side that is once again gutting defense. Obama is set to pull $500 billion from the military next year while spending $2 trillion (which he lied about) on Socialized medicine.

By the way - you might want to learn history. When Normandy was stormed, it was to fight Hitler (which was the RIGHT thing to do). However, he posed no threat to us. It was Japan that attacked us. So unless your grandfather stormed Japan, then this is just a sappy story to garner support for your liberal cause.


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same applies here. If you blast Obama for the words while ignoring the MEANING of those words, then youre a Rebtard partisan hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, your just not swayed by Obama fluffer spin.  Obama's meaning was quite clear:  business owners don't deserve credit for their success.  They owe it to the government.  Every productive American should rightly feel insulted by that remark.
Click to expand...



No. Only the ones that cant think for themselves would feel insulted. Those of us that can, choose to either ignore it as a stupid thing to say or look for the meaning behind it and see if theres any truth to the statement.

Just like "Corporations are people, my friend"


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you think Im classless for saying things in the way I say them tough shit. Grow a pair and quit being such a whiney little bitch.
> 
> If you cant hang with the BIG dogs, stay on the porch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, show grace and class. Sorry, but there is no way with your lack of tact and class that you have EVER owned a real business. Hiring your college buddies is a far cry from running a business. Getting your high school drop out pals to plumb toilets for minimum wage is not running a business.
> 
> You have all the professionalism and tact of a typical liberal parasite low life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I own three bakeries, two machine shops and am presently working on a "chemical" company. Its just getting off the ground so its the one that takes the most of my time.
> 
> And there is such a thing as "a time and a place" though I did tell one of my customers when he was overly demanding if he wanted to wave his dick around he could take his business down the street. He didnt.
Click to expand...


In other words, "my mom bakes out of her house, my grandmother bakes out of her house, my sister bakes out of her house, and me and a buddy take turns working out of each others garage sifting through junk and selling it on eBay"...


----------



## saveliberty

I just don't see Obama supporters voting this time.  He promised them all sorts of entitlements and didn't make it happen.


----------



## Zxereus

Vidi said:


> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dogboy, YOU dont get it. A business OWNER needs to be able to step away from the business and let the employees mainatain and build it FOR them. Otherwise, the owner has only bought themselves a JOB. Once the employees are building the business for you, you are free to go build ANOTHER business. Its in that way you can make some serious money and provide a MUCH better life for your family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No pussyboy, a typical small business owner spends far more time working, worrying, spending money, on the business than the employees the owner hires.
> In time, the owner may be able to step away and finally reap some of the rewards of their risk taking, but most of the time they spend working, and much more than the employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the first couple years yes. But if youre still struggling and working more hours than your employees, then YOURE DOING IT WRONG.
> 
> Look I normally put in 18 hour days, but Im split between multiple businesses AND I sometimes sit here arguing with you folks for an hour or so a night, so it all pans out. But if I was still doing 18 hour days in a single business after year three, then that business has failed...time to move on.
Click to expand...


You cannot make such a broad brushed statement as that. Many business owners spend much more than three years before they either fail or begin to take hold. There is no one system fits all. And don't give me the "you're doing it wrong" crap, nothing in business is a certainty.


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And another thing that seems to be going completely unsaid.
> 
> MY success and the success of EVERY single American company today is dependant on the contribution of others. A very specific group.
> 
> My grandfather didnt just instill in me good values, a wrok ethic and a strong sense of family, but he, and a group of his closest friends, happened to make landfall on some French beaches on June 6, 1944. Without thier contribution, their sacrifice, my success would not even be possible.
> 
> If you dont like the tax code, work to get it changed. It is a democracy after all right? But if you decide fuck it, Im going to hide my money and simply not pay it, then you are ignoring and belittling the contribution and sacrifice of every single American soldier ever. We all demand we support the troops. How about we actually fucking mean it?!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the side that is once again gutting defense. Obama is set to pull $500 billion from the military next year while spending $2 trillion (which he lied about) on Socialized medicine.
> 
> By the way - you might want to learn history. When Normandy was stormed, it was to fight Hitler (which was the RIGHT thing to do). However, he posed no threat to us. It was Japan that attacked us. So unless your grandfather stormed Japan, then this is just a sappy story to garner support for your liberal cause.
Click to expand...


You want to debate history? Yeah lets do THAT! 

A Europe controlled by Germany would not have stopped there. It would have spread. If you want proof read this:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Second-Book-Unpublished-Sequel/dp/1929631162[/ame]



The sequel to Mein Kampf in which Hitler lays out his plans to invade America.

That aside, Germany and Japan were allies. We knew we would have to take out both eventually. So Hitler DID pose a threat to us. But Japan had just destroyed part of our fleet so a sea war wasnt something we could just jump into. We were going to need some time on that. And if England fell, well then we'd have to invade Europe either through Italy ( which we did ) but that left England at risk or through Russia ( which would have been devastating provided the Russians even allowed it ) Therefore the most logical choice was to choose to fight the land war first which meant invade through France FROM England while our manufacturing built a bigger and better fleet to take out Japan with the sea war we were unprepared for.

Its really quite logical and easy if you understand history at all.


----------



## Zxereus




----------



## saveliberty

Seems like if the government helped you get there, it would be more interested in keeping you there.


----------



## Wiseacre

saveliberty said:


> Seems like if the government helped you get there, it would be more interested in keeping you there.




I think it's more interested in waiting for you to bust your ass and make loads of dough so they can take it from you.


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, show grace and class. Sorry, but there is no way with your lack of tact and class that you have EVER owned a real business. Hiring your college buddies is a far cry from running a business. Getting your high school drop out pals to plumb toilets for minimum wage is not running a business.
> 
> You have all the professionalism and tact of a typical liberal parasite low life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own three bakeries, two machine shops and am presently working on a "chemical" company. Its just getting off the ground so its the one that takes the most of my time.
> 
> And there is such a thing as "a time and a place" though I did tell one of my customers when he was overly demanding if he wanted to wave his dick around he could take his business down the street. He didnt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, "my mom bakes out of her house, my grandmother bakes out of her house, my sister bakes out of her house, and me and a buddy take turns working out of each others garage sifting through junk and selling it on eBay"...
Click to expand...



I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.

The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into. 

Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).

I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.

I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.

So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.


----------



## Political Junky

*Gilchrist, star of Romney's ad, admits he had help from a teacher, highways, etc.
*
Star of new Romney ad fired up over president's comments | Watch the video - Yahoo! News


----------



## healthmyths

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that supposed to fix it? He's still presuming a public vested interest in private businesses, _"we do things together"_.
> 
> Who's "we"???
> 
> The infrastructure is built by the businesses themselves, sometimes directly but most often through taxes they pay.  People who don't pay taxes, or offset what little they do pay by taking welfare benefits didn't contribute squat.
> 
> 
> 
> And by the same token Businesses that don't pay taxes didn't contribute squat either.
> 
> Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and *about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.*
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and *about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure, since you printed some excerpts from the article yourself, that you must realize that the headline and text don't match, right?  The fact is, that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  It's also not surprising, given the overly complex nature of our tax law that some corporations don't pay on years when they can find a legal excuse not to.  Wasn't it GE under Jeffrey Immelt who, after every sort of sweet government deal one could imagine, not to mention having a warm, fuzzy relationship with Barack Obama, who didn't pay anything recently?
Click to expand...


100% of those companies paid employees' Medicare/social security/FUTA taxes!
NO companies could be in USA with out paying those taxes !
That was my point!  You never addressed that.


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own three bakeries, two machine shops and am presently working on a "chemical" company. Its just getting off the ground so its the one that takes the most of my time.
> 
> And there is such a thing as "a time and a place" though I did tell one of my customers when he was overly demanding if he wanted to wave his dick around he could take his business down the street. He didnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, "my mom bakes out of her house, my grandmother bakes out of her house, my sister bakes out of her house, and me and a buddy take turns working out of each others garage sifting through junk and selling it on eBay"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
Click to expand...


It was just a joke. Congrats on all of your ventures. However, none of that changes the fact that both you and Obama are horribly wrong on your Marxist assertions.

You can't cite employees because they do not apply to the debate. They are there of their own free will and compensated by the private industry. Barack Hussein's entire assertion was that the success of business owners was _only_ through (and because of) government (hence the reason he cited only public infrastructure such as schools, roads, and bridges)...

He's a public/government representative. He's only speaking through that perspective and has no incentive to accurately portray private industry since his power and money stems from the growth of government.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Moonglow said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to this:
> 
> "(1)If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. (2)Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. (3) If youve got a business. you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."
> President Obama
> 
> 1:That's actually true in many cases, but a person can have many great people in their life but it's still up to the* individual* to follow through and make* themselves* a success.
> 
> 2: Yes, WE THE PEOPLE MADE THAT HAPPEN!
> 
> 3: That's complete BULLSHIT, the success or failure of a business depends on the INDIVIDUAL owner, their employees, the customers, the economy, and the state of that particular market.  Ultimately, it's the principles of the business that primarily determine the course of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the economy is bad we expect our govt. to fix it.
Click to expand...


Who's "we", Sparkles?  You and the gerbil in your anus?

When the economy takes a dip, I hope the government will stay the hell out of it, personally.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> moron
> 
> 
> The Stock Market Loves President Obama - MarketBeat - WSJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some days I have more patience than others for you disgusting, filthy America hating terrorists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some ignorant fucksticks that don't know what the word value means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when we prove you wrong over and over over and overover and overover and overover and overover and overover and overover and overover and overover and over again, what do you tell yourself so you can sleep at night?
Click to expand...


And then there are ignorant fucksticks who think blogs are "proof".


----------



## Wiseacre

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own three bakeries, two machine shops and am presently working on a "chemical" company. Its just getting off the ground so its the one that takes the most of my time.
> 
> And there is such a thing as "a time and a place" though I did tell one of my customers when he was overly demanding if he wanted to wave his dick around he could take his business down the street. He didnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, "my mom bakes out of her house, my grandmother bakes out of her house, my sister bakes out of her house, and me and a buddy take turns working out of each others garage sifting through junk and selling it on eBay"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
Click to expand...



What about the gov't?   Do you think you owe more in taxes cuz the gov't built roads and bridges and stuff with our tax dollars?   How much credit do you think they deserve for your success?


----------



## Cecilie1200

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repubs like Hoover and the "29 crash!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as a liberal you will lack the IQ to know that Hoover acted liberally
Click to expand...


It's so much easier for the thinking-impaired to just reduce everything to the simplistic formula of "Republican/Democrat".  The idea of looking at actual policies and attitudes and ascertaining where they fall on the broad spectrum of "liberal vs conservative" not only requires way more brain wattage than they possess, it also spoils their worldview.  Literally the only chance they have in life of EVER thinking of themselves as intelligent, enlightened, and morally superior is if they ignore complex realities (and often, just reality in general).


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, "my mom bakes out of her house, my grandmother bakes out of her house, my sister bakes out of her house, and me and a buddy take turns working out of each others garage sifting through junk and selling it on eBay"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was just a joke. Congrats on all of your ventures. However, none of that changes the fact that both you and Obama are horribly wrong on your Marxist assertions.
> 
> You can't cite employees because they do not apply to the debate. They are there of their own free will and compensated by the private industry. Barack Hussein's entire assertion was that the success of business owners was _only_ through (and because of) government (hence the reason he cited only public infrastructure such as schools, roads, and bridges)...
> 
> He's a public/government representative. He's only speaking through that perspective and has no incentive to accurately portray private industry since his power and money stems from the growth of government.
Click to expand...


And there you go with your bat shit crazy talk again. 

According to you, I started not one, not two but SIX different businesses ( well seven if you count the one Im working on now ) but Im a MARXIST because I recognize that OTHER PEOPLE contributed to my success, that I did not accomplish all of this by myself.

In YOUR estimation, one has to be an arrogant self righteous prick or they are a marxist.


which begs the next question:

Which one are you?


----------



## Vidi

Wiseacre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, "my mom bakes out of her house, my grandmother bakes out of her house, my sister bakes out of her house, and me and a buddy take turns working out of each others garage sifting through junk and selling it on eBay"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about the gov't?   Do you think you owe more in taxes cuz the gov't built roads and bridges and stuff with our tax dollars?   How much credit do you think they deserve for your success?
Click to expand...



I owe what the government asks of me. If Reagan say 28% I owe 28%. If Clinton say 39%, I owe 39%. And if Obama wants to go back to 39%, and its passes, then THAT is what I owe.

If I dont like the tax rate, I am more than within my rights to petition my senator and congressperson and ask them to propose changes. 

What I do not do is whine about how I "earned" my money and how dare these "parasites" try to sponge the sweat of my brow, the fruit of my labor. I dont whine that my success puts me in a higher tax bracket. Its like movie stars who whine that they lost their privacy. Everytime I see one on TV complain about it I yell at the TV," Thats what 12 million dollars for 6 weeks of work gets you asshole!  Good trade! "

Same thing. Im in a higher tax bracket. I pay more in taxes. But I bring home more than most people as well. 

Good trade.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> Righty always lies, about everything, this issue proves my point completely
> 
> We are not debating you, we are calling you filthy, disgusting liars, end of story



You're absolutely right.  You're NOT debating, because you can't, and you ARE just reduced to calling names and shouting, "You're wrong . . . because I say you're wrong!  I can't prove it, but you're wrong anyway!"

Congratulations.  The first time in your miserable existence, you're correct about something.


----------



## Dr Grump

Vidi said:


> [q
> According to you, I started not one, not two but SIX different businesses ( well seven if you count the one Im working on now ) but Im a MARXIST because I recognize that OTHER PEOPLE contributed to my success, that I did not accomplish all of this by myself.
> 
> In YOUR estimation, one has to be an arrogant self righteous prick or they are a marxist.
> 
> 
> which begs the next question:
> 
> Which one are you?



I think you'll find even those with a severely limited intellect like the Cesspit and Chihuahua know exactly what Obama was saying when he made the comments but partisan hackery is far more important than facts.

Also, it just gives them something else to slam at him...


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repubs like Hoover and the "29 crash!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as a liberal you will lack the IQ to know that Hoover acted liberally
Click to expand...


Not at first. He truly believed the market would work itself out, but it didnt so he caved to pressure to intervene and finally did.

I know for a number of years I believed that he had simply sat aside waiting for the market to correct itself. But several years ago I started a mission to read one biography on every US president ( plus Ben Franklin ) and when I read one on Hoover was surprised to find he finally did intervene.

But...he only did so because the market did not self correct.


( there was one exception which some consider intervention but I do not. At the start of the Depression hoover made personal phone calls to many leading business figures asking them to NOT lay off or fire people or cut their wages. Obviously they didnt listen. As he did not pass legislation but simply asked and that asking was largely ignored, I do not see it as government intervention )


----------



## Wiseacre

Vidi said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the gov't?   Do you think you owe more in taxes cuz the gov't built roads and bridges and stuff with our tax dollars?   How much credit do you think they deserve for your success?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I owe what the government asks of me. If Reagan say 28% I owe 28%. If Clinton say 39%, I owe 39%. And if Obama wants to go back to 39%, and its passes, then THAT is what I owe.
> 
> If I dont like the tax rate, I am more than within my rights to petition my senator and congressperson and ask them to propose changes.
> 
> What I do not do is whine about how I "earned" my money and how dare these "parasites" try to sponge the sweat of my brow, the fruit of my labor. I dont whine that my success puts me in a higher tax bracket. Its like movie stars who whine that they lost their privacy. Everytime I see one on TV complain about it I yell at the TV," Thats what 12 million dollars for 6 weeks of work gets you asshole!  Good trade! "
> 
> Same thing. Im in a higher tax bracket. I pay more in taxes. But I bring home more than most people as well.
> 
> Good trade.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my question.   Do you think the govt deserves credit for your success and as a result you should have your taxes raised?


----------



## P@triot

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was just a joke. Congrats on all of your ventures. However, none of that changes the fact that both you and Obama are horribly wrong on your Marxist assertions.
> 
> You can't cite employees because they do not apply to the debate. They are there of their own free will and compensated by the private industry. Barack Hussein's entire assertion was that the success of business owners was _only_ through (and because of) government (hence the reason he cited only public infrastructure such as schools, roads, and bridges)...
> 
> He's a public/government representative. He's only speaking through that perspective and has no incentive to accurately portray private industry since his power and money stems from the growth of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go with your bat shit crazy talk again.
> 
> According to you, I started not one, not two but SIX different businesses ( well seven if you count the one Im working on now ) but Im a MARXIST because I recognize that OTHER PEOPLE contributed to my success, that I did not accomplish all of this by myself.
> 
> In YOUR estimation, one has to be an arrogant self righteous prick or they are a marxist.
> 
> 
> which begs the next question:
> 
> Which one are you?
Click to expand...


Talk about "bat shit crazy"!!! Because you (claim to) own a business, you can't possibly be a Marxist?!?! Uh....._ok_???


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own three bakeries, two machine shops and am presently working on a "chemical" company. Its just getting off the ground so its the one that takes the most of my time.
> 
> And there is such a thing as "a time and a place" though I did tell one of my customers when he was overly demanding if he wanted to wave his dick around he could take his business down the street. He didnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, "my mom bakes out of her house, my grandmother bakes out of her house, my sister bakes out of her house, and me and a buddy take turns working out of each others garage sifting through junk and selling it on eBay"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
Click to expand...


So you wouldn't have been a business success if somebody hadn't shown you a business to be in, bult it for you, funded it, and showed you precisely what to do to succeed?  None of that was your idea?  Your initiative?  Your willingness to risk part of your hard earned savings that you worked for?  You didn't build your businesses or build them up?

Your physical structure, equipment, supplies, tools, raw equipment of course was delivered by the tooth fairy and you didn't have to figure out any of that either.

Those employees who helped you did it out of the goodness of their hearts because you're such a swell guy?  They didn't expect to be compensated as agreed for the work they performed?  And of course they all just showed up one day when you needed them and that wasn't any of your doing either. And they just magically made you a profit.  You didn't have to figure out how many to hire, who to place dong what, or what the wages would be for anybody.

All this is what your President would have us believe.  If you in fact have been or are in business for yourself, you should understand that.  If you don't, well that's the way the cupcake crumbles.  You will be one of the easy ones taken over if we give away enough of our freedoms and resources to that way of thinking.


----------



## Vidi

Wiseacre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the gov't?   Do you think you owe more in taxes cuz the gov't built roads and bridges and stuff with our tax dollars?   How much credit do you think they deserve for your success?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I owe what the government asks of me. If Reagan say 28% I owe 28%. If Clinton say 39%, I owe 39%. And if Obama wants to go back to 39%, and its passes, then THAT is what I owe.
> 
> If I dont like the tax rate, I am more than within my rights to petition my senator and congressperson and ask them to propose changes.
> 
> What I do not do is whine about how I "earned" my money and how dare these "parasites" try to sponge the sweat of my brow, the fruit of my labor. I dont whine that my success puts me in a higher tax bracket. Its like movie stars who whine that they lost their privacy. Everytime I see one on TV complain about it I yell at the TV," Thats what 12 million dollars for 6 weeks of work gets you asshole!  Good trade! "
> 
> Same thing. Im in a higher tax bracket. I pay more in taxes. But I bring home more than most people as well.
> 
> Good trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.   Do you think the govt deserves credit for your success and as a result you should have your taxes raised?
Click to expand...


Sorry I misunderstood the question then.

The government is the personification of our society. Our society pays the bills via the government that allow me to be successful ( ie public education, roads, police, fire dept. , etc. ) . Society via military service makes sacrifices that allow me the freedom to be successful. 


So yes, the government as a personification of the society that protects my freedom and rights deserves some credit for my success. Raising or lowering of taxes is within their Constitutional right to do. The reasoning behind the raising or lowering of tax rates however is irrelevant.

Now let me ask you this:

If the concept that lower taxes and less regulation provide for greater economic opportunity is true, then wouldnt a government that stays out of the way also be entitled to some credit for success?


----------



## Cecilie1200

WillowTree said:


> Everytime I buy a gallon of gasoline I help build a road or a bridge. obama didn't do that, he had help. bussiness is the engine of American life.



An excellent point.  Rather than Obama arrogantly telling business that "You didn't get there on your own", business should be telling Obama and the rest of the government, "Look, if you've got a lot of money and power, you didn't get it on your own.  

We're always struck by politicians who say, 'Well, the country works because I'm just so smart, because I know better than everyone else.  

If you're spending a lot of money, someone along the line had to give it to you.  There were a whole lot of taxpayers funding your pork projects.  Taxpayers funded and worked for this unbelievable American system you're now taking credit for.  If you've got roads and bridges, you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  

The Internet didn't become the driving economic and cultural force that it is because of government.  Private business created the ideas, did the research, and spent the money to make it what it is today.

The point is, when we do things together, we the taxpayers foot the bill and actually do the work.  There are some things, like fighting fires, for which we tolerate government as a necessary evil.  We are proud to be one nation, but WE are the driving force of America's success, not government."


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> According to you, I started not one, not two but SIX different businesses ( well seven if you count the one Im working on now ) but Im a MARXIST because I recognize that OTHER PEOPLE contributed to my success, that I did not accomplish all of this by myself.
> 
> In YOUR estimation, one has to be an arrogant self righteous prick or they are a marxist.
> 
> 
> which begs the next question:
> 
> Which one are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll find even those with a severely limited intellect like the Cesspit and Chihuahua know exactly what Obama was saying when he made the comments but partisan hackery is far more important than facts.
> 
> Also, it just gives them something else to slam at him...
Click to expand...


Well, enlighten us 'ole Australian parasite. What *exactly* was "Obama saying"?

I love how words have no meaning to the idiot liberal. The man said exactly what he said, on video, in front of the world. And here these assholes sit trying to convince everyone he actually said something else.

It's why the US Constitution means nothing to them. Because no matter what is written, they try to convince everyone that what is written is not what was "intended". It's almost hysterical, if it weren't for the fact that it is so sad. Can you imagine doing business with a parasite liberal? You have a signed contract and they would try to convince a court that the contract does not mean what it says...


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, "my mom bakes out of her house, my grandmother bakes out of her house, my sister bakes out of her house, and me and a buddy take turns working out of each others garage sifting through junk and selling it on eBay"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't have been a business success if somebody hadn't shown you a business to be in, bult it for you, funded it, and showed you precisely what to do to succeed?  None of that was your idea?  Your initiative?  Your willingness to risk part of your hard earned savings that you worked for?  You didn't build your businesses or build them up?
> 
> Your physical structure, equipment, supplies, tools, raw equipment of course was delivered by the tooth fairy and you didn't have to figure out any of that either.
> 
> Those employees who helped you did it out of the goodness of their hearts because you're such a swell guy?  They didn't expect to be compensated as agreed for the work they performed?  And of course they all just showed up one day when you needed them and that wasn't any of your doing either. And they just magically made you a profit.  You didn't have to figure out how many to hire, who to place dong what, or what the wages would be for anybody.
> 
> All this is what your President would have us believe.  If you in fact have been or are in business for yourself, you should understand that.  If you don't, well that's the way the cupcake crumbles.  You will be one of the easy ones taken over if we give away enough of our freedoms and resources to that way of thinking.
Click to expand...


No. Youre making the mistake of seeing my argument as black and white, all or nothing. That is not the case. My argument is that I dod not do it ALONE. I did it...but not alone. I had help. It was NOT handed to me on a platter. I worked for it. But others worked beside me and helped me get there.

I certainly understand that "You didnt build that" can piss some people off...but only if they look at it without looking at the meaning of the overall message. Once the overall message is taken into account, then its not offensive at all, but actually quite true. 

And any successful business person who says they did it all by themselves without ANY help from anyone is either lying or a lunatic.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> According to you, I started not one, not two but SIX different businesses ( well seven if you count the one Im working on now ) but Im a MARXIST because I recognize that OTHER PEOPLE contributed to my success, that I did not accomplish all of this by myself.
> 
> In YOUR estimation, one has to be an arrogant self righteous prick or they are a marxist.
> 
> 
> which begs the next question:
> 
> Which one are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll find even those with a severely limited intellect like the Cesspit and Chihuahua know exactly what Obama was saying when he made the comments but partisan hackery is far more important than facts.
> 
> Also, it just gives them something else to slam at him...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, enlighten us 'ole Australian parasite. What *exactly* was "Obama saying"?
> 
> I love how words have no meaning to the idiot liberal. The man said exactly what he said, on video, in front of the world. And here these assholes sit trying to convince everyone he actually said something else.
> 
> It's why the US Constitution means nothing to them. Because no matter what is written, they try to convince everyone that what is written is not what was "intended". It's almost hysterical, if it weren't for the fact that it is so sad. Can you imagine doing business with a parasite liberal? You have a signed contract and they would try to convince a court that the contract does not mean what it says...
Click to expand...


From Vidi's following post:

I certainly understand that "You didnt build that" can piss some people off...*but only if they look at it without looking at the meaning of the overall message.*

Get it yet, Partisan Hack?


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> According to you, I started not one, not two but SIX different businesses ( well seven if you count the one Im working on now ) but Im a MARXIST because I recognize that OTHER PEOPLE contributed to my success, that I did not accomplish all of this by myself.
> 
> In YOUR estimation, one has to be an arrogant self righteous prick or they are a marxist.
> 
> 
> which begs the next question:
> 
> Which one are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll find even those with a severely limited intellect like the Cesspit and Chihuahua know exactly what Obama was saying when he made the comments but partisan hackery is far more important than facts.
> 
> Also, it just gives them something else to slam at him...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, enlighten us 'ole Australian parasite. What *exactly* was "Obama saying"?
> 
> I love how words have no meaning to the idiot liberal. The man said exactly what he said, on video, in front of the world. And here these assholes sit trying to convince everyone he actually said something else.
> 
> It's why the US Constitution means nothing to them. Because no matter what is written, they try to convince everyone that what is written is not what was "intended". It's almost hysterical, if it weren't for the fact that it is so sad. Can you imagine doing business with a parasite liberal? You have a signed contract and they would try to convince a court that the contract does not mean what it says...
Click to expand...


Are corporations people?

See, if you say NO. Then youre an idiot. If you say YES, youre a bigger idiot. 

Because the statement Romney made isnt a yes or no proposition, it has shades of grey that make it true. 

So unless youre willing to admit youre a NeoCon fluffer,  you must give the same latitude to Obama as I just gave to Romney.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Said what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a fine cutting out of a phrase..that was said along with other phrases.
> 
> Obama said that no one in this country builds a business with out the help of infrastructure and community.
> 
> He's right.
> 
> Even Romney admitted that.
Click to expand...


Like this one?



> 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.



I have the speech bookmarked on the White House web site, keep telling me I am misquoting him.


----------



## oreo

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



Obama just stepped into it BIG TIME.   What Frank Luntz calls the best ad of the campaign season to date--is now being shown in every battleground state and it is *POWERFUL.*  Luntz says it unites blue collar with white collar.  After this ad--I really don't see Obama surviving.  The ad is called "These hands."


BTW--not all business owners are RICH.  I know--I am one of them.


----------



## The Infidel

Vidi said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I owe what the government asks of me. If Reagan say 28% I owe 28%. If Clinton say 39%, I owe 39%. And if Obama wants to go back to 39%, and its passes, then THAT is what I owe.
> 
> If I dont like the tax rate, I am more than within my rights to petition my senator and congressperson and ask them to propose changes.
> 
> What I do not do is whine about how I "earned" my money and how dare these "parasites" try to sponge the sweat of my brow, the fruit of my labor. I dont whine that my success puts me in a higher tax bracket. Its like movie stars who whine that they lost their privacy. Everytime I see one on TV complain about it I yell at the TV," Thats what 12 million dollars for 6 weeks of work gets you asshole!  Good trade! "
> 
> Same thing. Im in a higher tax bracket. I pay more in taxes. But I bring home more than most people as well.
> 
> Good trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.   Do you think the govt deserves credit for your success and as a result you should have your taxes raised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I misunderstood the question then.
> 
> The government is the personification of our society. Our society pays the bills via the government that allow me to be successful ( ie public education, roads, police, fire dept. , etc. ) . Society via military service makes sacrifices that allow me the freedom to be successful.
> 
> 
> So yes, the government as a personification of the society that protects my freedom and rights deserves some credit for my success. Raising or lowering of taxes is within their Constitutional right to do. The reasoning behind the raising or lowering of tax rates however is irrelevant.
> 
> Now let me ask you this:
> 
> If the concept that lower taxes and less regulation provide for greater economic opportunity is true, then wouldnt a government that stays out of the way also be entitled to some credit for success?
Click to expand...


The Constitution I have says my rights were given to me by God... not the gov't.

The gov't would not exist were it not for the wonderful American people who made it.

I owe ALL of my success to me, myself and I.... the gov't has done nothing for me, and I dont want them to.

Plus, all those roads and bridges were STILL built by private companies contracted to do so by the gov't WITH OUR MONEY.

Move to a communist block country and see just how much the gov't does for you....


----------



## Vidi

Cecilie1200 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime I buy a gallon of gasoline I help build a road or a bridge. obama didn't do that, he had help. bussiness is the engine of American life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent point.  Rather than Obama arrogantly telling business that "You didn't get there on your own", business should be telling Obama and the rest of the government, "Look, if you've got a lot of money and power, you didn't get it on your own.
> 
> *We're always struck by politicians who say, 'Well, the country works because I'm just so smart, because I know better than everyone else.  *If you're spending a lot of money, someone along the line had to give it to you.  There were a whole lot of taxpayers funding your pork projects.  Taxpayers funded and worked for this unbelievable American system you're now taking credit for.  If you've got roads and bridges, you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> The Internet didn't become the driving economic and cultural force that it is because of government.  Private business created the ideas, did the research, and spent the money to make it what it is today.
> 
> The point is, when we do things together, we the taxpayers foot the bill and actually do the work.  There are some things, like fighting fires, for which we tolerate government as a necessary evil.  We are proud to be one nation, but WE are the driving force of America's success, not government."
Click to expand...


They can say that because they ran for office and had the majority of the voters agree with them. Now Mob rule doesnt make one smart by any means, but we all said their ideas were good ones when we elected them.

which is kind of the point. oure absolutely correct when you say WE are the driving force of Americans success, but you failed to connect that all the way to a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". 

WE are also the government.

At least we are supposed to be.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own three bakeries, two machine shops and am presently working on a "chemical" company. Its just getting off the ground so its the one that takes the most of my time.
> 
> And there is such a thing as "a time and a place" though I did tell one of my customers when he was overly demanding if he wanted to wave his dick around he could take his business down the street. He didnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, "my mom bakes out of her house, my grandmother bakes out of her house, my sister bakes out of her house, and me and a buddy take turns working out of each others garage sifting through junk and selling it on eBay"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
Click to expand...

Bakeries?!!!!! I am on the next flight to Minneapolis!!
Do you make linzertortes and Italian cookies. You know, the ones with the dollop of flavored preserves in the center?...Rye bread? Brownies...Blueberry muffins?....and of course....those gigantic chewy chocolate chip cookies....MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..
I could walk into a bakery and just say "give me one of everything"..
We don't have bakeries here in NC like that. They say the water here is not good for baked goods.
Used to go to a bakery once a week in NJ. Miss it!


----------



## Vidi

The Infidel said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.   Do you think the govt deserves credit for your success and as a result you should have your taxes raised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I misunderstood the question then.
> 
> The government is the personification of our society. Our society pays the bills via the government that allow me to be successful ( ie public education, roads, police, fire dept. , etc. ) . Society via military service makes sacrifices that allow me the freedom to be successful.
> 
> 
> So yes, the government as a personification of the society that protects my freedom and rights deserves some credit for my success. Raising or lowering of taxes is within their Constitutional right to do. The reasoning behind the raising or lowering of tax rates however is irrelevant.
> 
> Now let me ask you this:
> 
> If the concept that lower taxes and less regulation provide for greater economic opportunity is true, then wouldnt a government that stays out of the way also be entitled to some credit for success?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution I have says my rights were given to me by God... not the gov't.
> 
> The gov't would not exist were it not for the wonderful American people who made it.
> 
> I owe ALL of my success to me, myself and I.... the gov't has done nothing for me, and I dont want them to.
> 
> Plus, all those roads and bridges were STILL built by private companies contracted to do so by the gov't WITH OUR MONEY.
> 
> Move to a communist block country and see just how much the gov't does for you....
Click to expand...


Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?

*Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*

Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Peach said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States.  By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country.  The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals."  William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"
> 
> 
> No rich man ever made wealth on a deserted island. No so called entrepreneur made their wealth in a vacuum. Obama was right, but the thought does not appeal to the cowboy mentality of the modern right wingnut. Oh, and no cowboy roped a steer before there was a steer to rope.
> 
> 
> *'ItS Mitt Romney Who DoesnT Understand America'*
> 
> "If this country is to continue leading the world both economically and technologically, then someone has to be willing to spend money on silly risks. Someone has to fund a production line for the integrated circuit computers that T.I. cant see a use for. Someone has to send rockets into space for no other reason than because we can, and because we should see what happens after that. Its the American way." Romney and Obama on American Inventions : The New Yorker
> 
> The rich get rich because of their merit.
> 
> Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation - YouTube
> 
> *"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.* In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowboys have enough sense to know they did not create the ropes they used.
Click to expand...


Except for the ones that did.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b0rSq4n3aQ]How to Make Rope or Cordage - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The Infidel

Truthmatters said:


> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections



No gov't ever built roads and bridges by themselves .... 






Where did the revenues come from idiot?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Vidi said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I misunderstood the question then.
> 
> The government is the personification of our society. Our society pays the bills via the government that allow me to be successful ( ie public education, roads, police, fire dept. , etc. ) . Society via military service makes sacrifices that allow me the freedom to be successful.
> 
> 
> So yes, the government as a personification of the society that protects my freedom and rights deserves some credit for my success. Raising or lowering of taxes is within their Constitutional right to do. The reasoning behind the raising or lowering of tax rates however is irrelevant.
> 
> Now let me ask you this:
> 
> If the concept that lower taxes and less regulation provide for greater economic opportunity is true, then wouldnt a government that stays out of the way also be entitled to some credit for success?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution I have says my rights were given to me by God... not the gov't.
> 
> The gov't would not exist were it not for the wonderful American people who made it.
> 
> I owe ALL of my success to me, myself and I.... the gov't has done nothing for me, and I dont want them to.
> 
> Plus, all those roads and bridges were STILL built by private companies contracted to do so by the gov't WITH OUR MONEY.
> 
> Move to a communist block country and see just how much the gov't does for you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.
Click to expand...


Actually it's in the Declaration of Independence...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These rights ARE indeed given to us by the Creator. Not by government.
The US Constitution takes this premise to the extent that the Framers wrote a LIMITING document. In other words WE hold the power to LIMIT government. Not the other way around. 
This irritates leftists. Obama is especially disturbed by the limits placed upon him by the Constitution. Hence the reason he acts unilaterally with his arrogance and belligerence toward the Three Branch System with his executive orders.


----------



## Vidi

oh and by the way...heres the full text of what Obama said:



> There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn&#8217;t -- look, if you&#8217;ve been successful, you didn&#8217;t get there on your own. You didn&#8217;t get there on your own. I&#8217;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.
> 
> *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&#8217;ve got a business -- you didn&#8217;t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn&#8217;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&#8217;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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That&#8217;s how we funded the GI Bill. That&#8217;s how we created the middle class. That&#8217;s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That&#8217;s how we invented the Internet. That&#8217;s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that&#8217;s the reason I&#8217;m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You&#8217;re not on your own, we&#8217;re in this together.
> 
> 
> The Meaning of "That"



And I agree with it. 

And its fairly obvious that when taken as a whole, his meaning is quite clear and its not whats being painted by the partisan hacks.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Vidi said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I misunderstood the question then.
> 
> The government is the personification of our society. Our society pays the bills via the government that allow me to be successful ( ie public education, roads, police, fire dept. , etc. ) . Society via military service makes sacrifices that allow me the freedom to be successful.
> 
> 
> So yes, the government as a personification of the society that protects my freedom and rights deserves some credit for my success. Raising or lowering of taxes is within their Constitutional right to do. The reasoning behind the raising or lowering of tax rates however is irrelevant.
> 
> Now let me ask you this:
> 
> If the concept that lower taxes and less regulation provide for greater economic opportunity is true, then wouldnt a government that stays out of the way also be entitled to some credit for success?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution I have says my rights were given to me by God... not the gov't.
> 
> The gov't would not exist were it not for the wonderful American people who made it.
> 
> I owe ALL of my success to me, myself and I.... the gov't has done nothing for me, and I dont want them to.
> 
> Plus, all those roads and bridges were STILL built by private companies contracted to do so by the gov't WITH OUR MONEY.
> 
> Move to a communist block country and see just how much the gov't does for you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.
Click to expand...


You are on a hair splitting mission here. Stop fucking around.
You know God Damned well our rights come from God. 
That just really eats away at your insides. Good.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry but that,





thereisnospoon said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution I have says my rights were given to me by God... not the gov't.
> 
> The gov't would not exist were it not for the wonderful American people who made it.
> 
> I owe ALL of my success to me, myself and I.... the gov't has done nothing for me, and I dont want them to.
> 
> Plus, all those roads and bridges were STILL built by private companies contracted to do so by the gov't WITH OUR MONEY.
> 
> Move to a communist block country and see just how much the gov't does for you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's in the Declaration of Independence...
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> These rights ARE indeed given to us by the Creator. Not by government.
> The US Constitution takes this premise to the extent that the Framers wrote a LIMITING document. In other words WE hold the power to LIMIT government. Not the other way around.
> This irritates leftists. Obama is especially disturbed by the limits placed upon him by the Constitution. Hence the reason he acts unilaterally with his arrogance and belligerence toward the Three Branch System with his executive orders.
Click to expand...





1. See there it is, BOOM!




Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## BDBoop

thereisnospoon said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution I have says my rights were given to me by God... not the gov't.
> 
> The gov't would not exist were it not for the wonderful American people who made it.
> 
> I owe ALL of my success to me, myself and I.... the gov't has done nothing for me, and I dont want them to.
> 
> Plus, all those roads and bridges were STILL built by private companies contracted to do so by the gov't WITH OUR MONEY.
> 
> Move to a communist block country and see just how much the gov't does for you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are on a hair splitting mission here. Stop fucking around.
> You know God Damned well our rights come from God.
> That just really eats away at your insides. Good.
Click to expand...




/tears


----------



## Vidi

thereisnospoon said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution I have says my rights were given to me by God... not the gov't.
> 
> The gov't would not exist were it not for the wonderful American people who made it.
> 
> I owe ALL of my success to me, myself and I.... the gov't has done nothing for me, and I dont want them to.
> 
> Plus, all those roads and bridges were STILL built by private companies contracted to do so by the gov't WITH OUR MONEY.
> 
> Move to a communist block country and see just how much the gov't does for you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's in the Declaration of Independence...
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> These rights ARE indeed given to us by the Creator. Not by government.
> The US Constitution takes this premise to the extent that the Framers wrote a LIMITING document. In other words WE hold the power to LIMIT government. Not the other way around.
> This irritates leftists. Obama is especially disturbed by the limits placed upon him by the Constitution. Hence the reason he acts unilaterally with his arrogance and belligerence toward the Three Branch System with his executive orders.
Click to expand...



I am aware that it was the Declaration that said those three rights ( and others not named ) were given by our God. But I was also giving T the benefit of it being late and possibly three beers into his evening 

however, then you go off the deep end with the leftists hate the Constitution nonsense.



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
> United States of America.



hmmm...no where in there does it say we wrote this to limit the power of government. However, I will concede that the Bil of Rights does indeed have a limiting function in that it limits the ability of the government to infringe upon the rights of the people.

However, to make statements about Obamas feeling on the subject is just ridiculous. Has he told you personally that he doesnt like the limits placed upon him by the Constitution? or are you inferring this from what you personally percieve as Constitutional violations? 

As far as I know, the ONLY President in recent history to comment on the limits was W. Bush when he joked that it would be easier if it were a dictatorship...and he wasnt wrong. And it was funny ( though many people with very large sticks lodged firmly up their butts did not see the humor in it. Fuck those people ) 

But you really need to look at it objectively...and its very hard to claim objectivity when you accuse Obama of beligerance and arrogance.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. I've built several business, and trust me, no one was there to build it for me.
2. I had some paid advisor's early on, but thats all the help I got, and they were paid by me!
3 The Obama duffass said this...,"If you&#8217;ve got a business --you didn&#8217;t build that.  Somebody else made that happen." 
4 Fuck is he really that fucking stoopid!!!!! 

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Vidi

thereisnospoon said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution I have says my rights were given to me by God... not the gov't.
> 
> The gov't would not exist were it not for the wonderful American people who made it.
> 
> I owe ALL of my success to me, myself and I.... the gov't has done nothing for me, and I dont want them to.
> 
> Plus, all those roads and bridges were STILL built by private companies contracted to do so by the gov't WITH OUR MONEY.
> 
> Move to a communist block country and see just how much the gov't does for you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are on a hair splitting mission here. Stop fucking around.
> You know God Damned well our rights come from God.
> That just really eats away at your insides. Good.
Click to expand...


actually no I dont know that. I do know that you failed to see the HUMOR in my response to T and that infers a chip on the shoulder that you should consider removing.


----------



## mudwhistle

I hate it when those Canadians show off all of their money. 

We should go up there and kick their rich asses. 


Things are getting so bad the Mexicans are immigrating to Canada looking for jobs.


----------



## Vidi

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. I've built several business, and trust me, no one was there to build it for me.
> 2. I had some paid advisor's early on, but thats all the help I got, and they were paid by me!
> 3 The Obama duffass said this...,"If youve got a business --you didnt build that.  Somebody else made that happen."
> 4 Fuck is he really that fucking stoopid!!!!!
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas



Not sorry

1. You may have started them but writing in thsi format prevented you from being successful
2. Giving your brother some free beer and pizza to help you move does not constitute "paid advisor"
3. The full statement is "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." so taking him OUT OF CONTEXT to spin it into something he didnt say is the mark of true cowardice
4 Fuck you really are too stupid to spell stupid arent you?

Regards,

SirVidiofReality


----------



## BDBoop

Break time.


----------



## oreo

healthmyths said:


> really feel that way when he said:
> &#8220;If you&#8217;ve got a business -- you didn&#8217;t build that,&#8221; Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. &#8220;Somebody else made that happen.&#8221;
> 
> Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
> 76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?
> 
> If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?
> 
> Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
> hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
> So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
> SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?
> 
> NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
> His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
> Tearing the USA down???



*Yes OBAMA stepped into it big time.*  This very POWERFUL ad is now being shown in all battleground states.  Frank Luntz pollster says this is the most POWERFUL ad of the season as it unites blue collar workers with white collar workers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNHeTwoy5vI]These Hands - YouTube[/ame]

"If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people need to run from."--Barack Obama


----------



## Dr Grump

The Infidel said:


> The Constitution I have says my rights were given to me by God... not the gov't.
> 
> The gov't would not exist were it not for the wonderful American people who made it.
> 
> I owe ALL of my success to me, myself and I.... the gov't has done nothing for me, and I dont want them to.
> 
> Plus, all those roads and bridges were STILL built by private companies contracted to do so by the gov't WITH OUR MONEY.
> 
> Move to a communist block country and see just how much the gov't does for you....



And if you don't believe in God?

BTW, there's this pesky little thing in your constitution called an amendment process that can remove amendments. So they are not set in stone....

Hey, move to an island and live by yourself if you think you can go it alone...


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,






Vidi said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. I've built several business, and trust me, no one was there to build it for me.
> 2. I had some paid advisor's early on, but thats all the help I got, and they were paid by me!
> 3 The Obama duffass said this...,"If youve got a business --you didnt build that.  Somebody else made that happen."
> 4 Fuck is he really that fucking stoopid!!!!!
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sorry
> 
> 1. You may have started them but writing in thsi format prevented you from being successful
> 2. Giving your brother some free beer and pizza to help you move does not constitute "paid advisor"
> 3. The full statement is "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." so taking him OUT OF CONTEXT to spin it into something he didnt say is the mark of true cowardice
> 4 Fuck you really are too stupid to spell stupid arent you?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> SirVidiofReality
Click to expand...




1. Look here,.....shit for brains, Obama said what he said.
2. Stop being a fucking *LIAR*!!!!
3. People like me built the infrastructure duffass!!!!
4. People with small business did this.
5. Government doesn't build anything well.
6. I have used the context that he used,.......he said what he said.......
7. Stoopid is five times more stupid than just saying stupid....lol!
8. Which describes Obama perfectly.
9. I don't know if you are aware, but in reading your perfect rant, there were no less that five words miss spelled......lol!!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Dr Grump

thereisnospoon said:


> You know God Damned well our rights come from God.



Prove it....


----------



## Wiseacre

Vidi said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I owe what the government asks of me. If Reagan say 28% I owe 28%. If Clinton say 39%, I owe 39%. And if Obama wants to go back to 39%, and its passes, then THAT is what I owe.
> 
> If I dont like the tax rate, I am more than within my rights to petition my senator and congressperson and ask them to propose changes.
> 
> What I do not do is whine about how I "earned" my money and how dare these "parasites" try to sponge the sweat of my brow, the fruit of my labor. I dont whine that my success puts me in a higher tax bracket. Its like movie stars who whine that they lost their privacy. Everytime I see one on TV complain about it I yell at the TV," Thats what 12 million dollars for 6 weeks of work gets you asshole!  Good trade! "
> 
> Same thing. Im in a higher tax bracket. I pay more in taxes. But I bring home more than most people as well.
> 
> Good trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.   Do you think the govt deserves credit for your success and as a result you should have your taxes raised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I misunderstood the question then.
> 
> The government is the personification of our society. Our society pays the bills via the government that allow me to be successful ( ie public education, roads, police, fire dept. , etc. ) . Society via military service makes sacrifices that allow me the freedom to be successful.
> 
> 
> So yes, the government as a personification of the society that protects my freedom and rights deserves some credit for my success. Raising or lowering of taxes is within their Constitutional right to do. *The reasoning behind the raising or lowering of tax rates however is irrelevant.*
> 
> Not to me it isn't.   If they need it to perform a function that I think is warranted, that's fine.   If it's being done for sound economic reasons and is in the best interests of the country, that's fine.   But if it's being done because somebody thinks it's "fair", that's bullshit.   Especially if it means the overall economy suffers as a result, just to make political points.
> 
> 
> Now let me ask you this:
> 
> If the concept that lower taxes and less regulation provide for greater economic opportunity is true, then wouldnt a government that stays out of the way also be entitled to some credit for success?
Click to expand...



Yeah, I think the gov't deserves credit for good, effective, and efficient governance as well as blame when it doesn't.   But that's not a good reason to raise or lower our taxes.   I'm good with as little gov't as possible, but it's gotta be enough to protect our rights and foster a free and competitive market with as much opportunity as possible for as many people as possible.   Right now we seem to be limiting our rights and controlling the market;  I don't think that is the best way to go.


----------



## francoHFW

Communist bloc? LOL Cold War dinosaur brainwashed Pub dupes. Thanks for the greed and cronyism DEPRESSION fcs. How dumb can you get. Let's try intelligence and people who don't use gov't to rip off the citizens...


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.



No one said the Constitution says so, dipshit.  However the Declaration of Independence does.


----------



## Vidi

Wiseacre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.   Do you think the govt deserves credit for your success and as a result you should have your taxes raised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I misunderstood the question then.
> 
> The government is the personification of our society. Our society pays the bills via the government that allow me to be successful ( ie public education, roads, police, fire dept. , etc. ) . Society via military service makes sacrifices that allow me the freedom to be successful.
> 
> 
> So yes, the government as a personification of the society that protects my freedom and rights deserves some credit for my success. Raising or lowering of taxes is within their Constitutional right to do. *The reasoning behind the raising or lowering of tax rates however is irrelevant.*
> 
> Not to me it isn't.   If they need it to perform a function that I think is warranted, that's fine.   If it's being done for sound economic reasons and is in the best interests of the country, that's fine.   But if it's being done because somebody thinks it's "fair", that's bullshit.   Especially if it means the overall economy suffers as a result, just to make political points.
> 
> 
> Now let me ask you this:
> 
> If the concept that lower taxes and less regulation provide for greater economic opportunity is true, then wouldnt a government that stays out of the way also be entitled to some credit for success?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think the gov't deserves credit for good, effective, and efficient governance as well as blame when it doesn't.   But that's not a good reason to raise or lower our taxes.   I'm good with as little gov't as possible, but it's gotta be enough to protect our rights and foster a free and competitive market with as much opportunity as possible for as many people as possible.   Right now we seem to be limiting our rights and controlling the market;  I don't think that is the best way to go.
Click to expand...


I cannot argue against that. Your reasoning is sound.


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said the Constitution says so, dipshit.  However the Declaration of Independence does.
Click to expand...


T said it...dipshit. Next time you throw insults maybe you should actually READ the thread...dipshit.

Sorry about the insults but you asked for it by ignoring the post I was responding to. I even quoted it. So you have no excuse...dipshit.

And yes, I am aware of the unalienable rights...which is why I am for Single Payer Health care...dipshit


( see how stupid the insult is? )


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama: You didn't built that Liz!

Warren: OMG! How'd you know?


----------



## MuadDib

Vidi said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the gov't?   Do you think you owe more in taxes cuz the gov't built roads and bridges and stuff with our tax dollars?   How much credit do you think they deserve for your success?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I owe what the government asks of me. If Reagan say 28% I owe 28%. If Clinton say 39%, I owe 39%. And if Obama wants to go back to 39%, and its passes, then THAT is what I owe.
> 
> If I dont like the tax rate, I am more than within my rights to petition my senator and congressperson and ask them to propose changes.
> 
> What I do not do is whine about how I "earned" my money and how dare these "parasites" try to sponge the sweat of my brow, the fruit of my labor. I dont whine that my success puts me in a higher tax bracket. Its like movie stars who whine that they lost their privacy. Everytime I see one on TV complain about it I yell at the TV," Thats what 12 million dollars for 6 weeks of work gets you asshole!  Good trade! "
> 
> Same thing. Im in a higher tax bracket. I pay more in taxes. But I bring home more than most people as well.
> 
> Good trade.
Click to expand...


Clearly, you were better off under Reagan and I say that as someone who doesn't like Reagan.


----------



## bripat9643

Dr Grump said:


> And if you don't believe in God?
> 
> BTW, there's this pesky little thing in your constitution called an amendment process that can remove amendments. So they are not set in stone....
> 
> Hey, move to an island and live by yourself if you think you can go it alone...



Move to North Korea since that is your ideal form of government.


----------



## edthecynic

healthmyths said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the same token Businesses that don't pay taxes didn't contribute squat either.
> 
> Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and *about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.*
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and *about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure, since you printed some excerpts from the article yourself, that you must realize that the headline and text don't match, right?  The fact is, that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  It's also not surprising, given the overly complex nature of our tax law that some corporations don't pay on years when they can find a legal excuse not to.  Wasn't it GE under Jeffrey Immelt who, after every sort of sweet government deal one could imagine, not to mention having a warm, fuzzy relationship with Barack Obama, who didn't pay anything recently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% of those companies paid employees' Medicare/social security/FUTA taxes!
> NO companies could be in USA with out paying those taxes !
> That was my point!  You never addressed that.
Click to expand...

Actually I did!
I pointed out that none of those taxes builds roads or bridges.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama is not just unAmerican, he's anti-American.


----------



## Vidi

MuadDib said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the gov't?   Do you think you owe more in taxes cuz the gov't built roads and bridges and stuff with our tax dollars?   How much credit do you think they deserve for your success?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I owe what the government asks of me. If Reagan say 28% I owe 28%. If Clinton say 39%, I owe 39%. And if Obama wants to go back to 39%, and its passes, then THAT is what I owe.
> 
> If I dont like the tax rate, I am more than within my rights to petition my senator and congressperson and ask them to propose changes.
> 
> What I do not do is whine about how I "earned" my money and how dare these "parasites" try to sponge the sweat of my brow, the fruit of my labor. I dont whine that my success puts me in a higher tax bracket. Its like movie stars who whine that they lost their privacy. Everytime I see one on TV complain about it I yell at the TV," Thats what 12 million dollars for 6 weeks of work gets you asshole!  Good trade! "
> 
> Same thing. Im in a higher tax bracket. I pay more in taxes. But I bring home more than most people as well.
> 
> Good trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, you were better off under Reagan and I say that as someone who doesn't like Reagan.
Click to expand...



Depends on how you look at it. As the owner of a bakery, I've often been approached by vendors selling their new ingredients, telling me how it's cheaper than the other guys. I'll try their ingredients and find the quality is lacking, so I pay more for the better ingredient. So I believe in the old saying," You get what you pay for."

That being said, I don't believe that the size of government is the issue. I want _*effective*_ government. I want *non wasteful* government. And personally, I don't think either political party is capable of providing either as long as they hold true to a party line instead of dealing with each issue on an individual basis.


----------



## Vidi

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama is not just unAmerican, he's anti-American.



Do you ever have anything to say that isn't total bullshit?


----------



## BDBoop

Vidi said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is not just unAmerican, he's anti-American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever have anything to say that isn't total bullshit?
Click to expand...


Not so much, tho he has cracked me up a time or two.


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't believe in God?
> 
> BTW, there's this pesky little thing in your constitution called an amendment process that can remove amendments. So they are not set in stone....
> 
> Hey, move to an island and live by yourself if you think you can go it alone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Move to North Korea since that is your ideal form of government.
Click to expand...


With statements like that, I don't think you understand how different government types work.


----------



## Vidi

BDBoop said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is not just unAmerican, he's anti-American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever have anything to say that isn't total bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so much, tho he has cracked me up a time or two.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. Just seems it would get tiring always finding the stupidest thing possible to post and then actually posting it.


----------



## BDBoop

Vidi said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever have anything to say that isn't total bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much, tho he has cracked me up a time or two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Just seems it would get tiring always finding the stupidest thing possible to post and then actually posting it.
Click to expand...


True. But it's election season, so of course I have half the board on ignore (since they've all gone full wingnut.)


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, "my mom bakes out of her house, my grandmother bakes out of her house, my sister bakes out of her house, and me and a buddy take turns working out of each others garage sifting through junk and selling it on eBay"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't have been a business success if somebody hadn't shown you a business to be in, bult it for you, funded it, and showed you precisely what to do to succeed? * None of that was your idea?  Your initiative?  *Your willingness to risk part of your hard earned savings that you worked for?  You didn't build your businesses or build them up?
> 
> Your physical structure, equipment, supplies, tools, raw equipment of course was delivered by the tooth fairy and you didn't have to figure out any of that either.
> 
> Those employees who helped you did it out of the goodness of their hearts because you're such a swell guy?  They didn't expect to be compensated as agreed for the work they performed?  And of course they all just showed up one day when you needed them and that wasn't any of your doing either. And they just magically made you a profit.  You didn't have to figure out how many to hire, who to place dong what, or what the wages would be for anybody.
> 
> *All this is what your President would have us believe. * If you in fact have been or are in business for yourself, you should understand that.  If you don't, well that's the way the cupcake crumbles.  You will be one of the easy ones taken over if we give away enough of our freedoms and resources to that way of thinking.
Click to expand...

No, that is a lie your MessiahRushie filled your "skull of mush" with. Here is what Obama actually said and all the America-hating scum on the right edited out:



> The point is, is that when we succeed,* we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but* also because we do things together*.


----------



## buckeye45_73

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't have been a business success if somebody hadn't shown you a business to be in, bult it for you, funded it, and showed you precisely what to do to succeed? *None of that was your idea? Your initiative? *Your willingness to risk part of your hard earned savings that you worked for? You didn't build your businesses or build them up?
> 
> Your physical structure, equipment, supplies, tools, raw equipment of course was delivered by the tooth fairy and you didn't have to figure out any of that either.
> 
> Those employees who helped you did it out of the goodness of their hearts because you're such a swell guy? They didn't expect to be compensated as agreed for the work they performed? And of course they all just showed up one day when you needed them and that wasn't any of your doing either. And they just magically made you a profit. You didn't have to figure out how many to hire, who to place dong what, or what the wages would be for anybody.
> 
> *All this is what your President would have us believe. *If you in fact have been or are in business for yourself, you should understand that. If you don't, well that's the way the cupcake crumbles. You will be one of the easy ones taken over if we give away enough of our freedoms and resources to that way of thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is a lie your MessiahRushie filled your "skull of mush" with. Here is what Obama actually said and all the America-hating scum on the right edited out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed,* we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but* also because we do things together*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 

Ok so if that statement is true, why bring up all the other crap, people know in their lives who has helped them. This isnt some new discovery, but most people dont succeed and that's why you get the credit for you own success. If you're in the NFL HAll of Fame, it's because you worked at it and had the talent to do it, we dont put all the people that helped you along the way in there, because they may have helped, it's still up to YOU to get the job done and most simply fail at that.

But again, what is the point of the statement? What isnt being done now that people should do?


----------



## Dr Grump

bripat9643 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't believe in God?
> 
> BTW, there's this pesky little thing in your constitution called an amendment process that can remove amendments. So they are not set in stone....
> 
> Hey, move to an island and live by yourself if you think you can go it alone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Move to North Korea since that is your ideal form of government.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's right, it is. Just like Nazism is your ideal form, right?


----------



## buckeye45_73

francoHFW said:


> Communist bloc? LOL Cold War dinosaur brainwashed Pub dupes. Thanks for the greed and cronyism DEPRESSION fcs. How dumb can you get. *Let's try intelligence and people who don't use gov't to rip off the citizens...*




Well that sounds like a great reason to have a smaller and less powerful government.......Thanks for supporting our side Franco, I knew ya had it in ya.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> oh and by the way...heres the full text of what Obama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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. *
> 
> *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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> 
> The Meaning of "That"
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree with it.
> 
> And its fairly obvious that when taken as a whole, his meaning is quite clear and its not whats being painted by the partisan hacks.
Click to expand...


You agree with what Obama said? You agree that hard work and intelligence are not what make people successful? You agree that everyone who is intelligent and works hard only succeeds because somebody helped them? Tell me something, why didn't hose people help the intelligent hard working people who were not successful? What the frack gives them the right to choose who succeeds and who fails?

Putting the remarks into context, the way all the idiotic defenders of Obama insist, ends up with me seeing what he said as the most condescending piece of crap ever spoken by anyone. I obviously am not alone in that, which is why they started arguing he didn't say what he said.


----------



## Papageorgio

Since business didn't get there on their own, so we can blame the government for when they fail.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's in the Declaration of Independence...
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> These rights ARE indeed given to us by the Creator. Not by government.
> The US Constitution takes this premise to the extent that the Framers wrote a LIMITING document. In other words WE hold the power to LIMIT government. Not the other way around.
> This irritates leftists. Obama is especially disturbed by the limits placed upon him by the Constitution. Hence the reason he acts unilaterally with his arrogance and belligerence toward the Three Branch System with his executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware that it was the Declaration that said those three rights ( and others not named ) were given by our God. But I was also giving T the benefit of it being late and possibly three beers into his evening
> 
> however, then you go off the deep end with the leftists hate the Constitution nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
> United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmm...no where in there does it say we wrote this to limit the power of government. However, I will concede that the Bil of Rights does indeed have a limiting function in that it limits the ability of the government to infringe upon the rights of the people.
> 
> However, to make statements about Obamas feeling on the subject is just ridiculous. Has he told you personally that he doesnt like the limits placed upon him by the Constitution? or are you inferring this from what you personally percieve as Constitutional violations?
> 
> As far as I know, the ONLY President in recent history to comment on the limits was W. Bush when he joked that it would be easier if it were a dictatorship...and he wasnt wrong. And it was funny ( though many people with very large sticks lodged firmly up their butts did not see the humor in it. Fuck those people )
> 
> But you really need to look at it objectively...and its very hard to claim objectivity when you accuse Obama of beligerance and arrogance.
Click to expand...


Has he told me personally?

No, but he did tell everyone that he it is more difficult to change things than he would like.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcSMjltZnoA]Barack Obama on the Founding Fathers of the USA - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Papageorgio said:


> Since business didn't get there on their own, so we can blame the government for when they fail.



That explains why he supports the bailouts of banks, but not people.


----------



## barry1960

GuyPinestra said:


> Sorry Buckwheat, but O'Bummer said it, we ALL heard it and those of us with more than 2 operative brain cells clearly got the message. Of course, when you hear the cheers in the crowd he's addressing you realize that they got THEIR message, too.
> 
> MORE FREE SHIT!!!



Buckwheat????? Is this a Little Rascals episode? Perhaps conservatives have secret decoder rings that translate secret messages from Obama's otherwise plain language. Something like, "Hello fellow Americans" can be translated into "I want to turn America into a Communist State" with your secret conservative decoder rings which you receive by mailing in three Ann Coulter book covers and a Rush Limbaugh cereal box top.

What was it that we ALL so plainly heard.?Was it an actual quote from Obama four years ago, or the edited version for a Republican compaign add that you eagerly lapped up like some dog returning to its own vomit? Talk about a lack of brain cells. Here is an actual quote from Obama:

_"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.

"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 "_

Now I will attempt to teach you something:

Success = opportunity plus hard work.

A conservative will omit opportunity from the equation. This will allow them to justify the removal of opportunities for others and rationalize that others lack of success as a result of laziness. Therefore all who do not succeed in life are lazy and it is their own fault. Thus we are justified as a country to remove every social safety net.

A liberal will omit the hard work from the equation. This will allow them to sit on their butts and decry the lack of oppotunity and not take personal responsibility for their own lives.


----------



## edthecynic

buckeye45_73 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't have been a business success if somebody hadn't shown you a business to be in, bult it for you, funded it, and showed you precisely what to do to succeed? *None of that was your idea? Your initiative? *Your willingness to risk part of your hard earned savings that you worked for? You didn't build your businesses or build them up?
> 
> Your physical structure, equipment, supplies, tools, raw equipment of course was delivered by the tooth fairy and you didn't have to figure out any of that either.
> 
> Those employees who helped you did it out of the goodness of their hearts because you're such a swell guy? They didn't expect to be compensated as agreed for the work they performed? And of course they all just showed up one day when you needed them and that wasn't any of your doing either. And they just magically made you a profit. You didn't have to figure out how many to hire, who to place dong what, or what the wages would be for anybody.
> 
> *All this is what your President would have us believe. *If you in fact have been or are in business for yourself, you should understand that. If you don't, well that's the way the cupcake crumbles. You will be one of the easy ones taken over if we give away enough of our freedoms and resources to that way of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is a lie your MessiahRushie filled your "skull of mush" with. Here is what Obama actually said and all the America-hating scum on the right edited out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed,* we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but* also because we do things together*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so if that statement is true, why bring up all the other crap, people know in their lives who has helped them. This isnt some new discovery, but most people dont succeed and that's why you get the credit for you own success.* If you're in the NFL HAll of Fame, it's because you worked at it and had the talent to do it, we dont put all the people that helped you along the way in there,* because they may have helped, it's still up to YOU to get the job done and most simply fail at that.
> 
> But again, what is the point of the statement? What isnt being done now that people should do?
Click to expand...

There are many coaches in the Hall of Fame!


----------



## Vidi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh and by the way...heres the full text of what Obama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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. *
> 
> *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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> 
> The Meaning of "That"
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree with it.
> 
> And its fairly obvious that when taken as a whole, his meaning is quite clear and its not whats being painted by the partisan hacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You agree with what Obama said? You agree that hard work and intelligence are not what make people successful? You agree that everyone who is intelligent and works hard only succeeds because somebody helped them? Tell me something, why didn't hose people help the intelligent hard working people who were not successful? What the frack gives them the right to choose who succeeds and who fails?
> 
> Putting the remarks into context, the way all the idiotic defenders of Obama insist, ends up with me seeing what he said as the most condescending piece of crap ever spoken by anyone. I obviously am not alone in that, which is why they started arguing he didn't say what he said.
Click to expand...



Maybe it's my years as a baker, but I know that flour and water and yeast alone are nothing, but together they become bread.I know that if they aren't mixed properly, the dough does not become that perfect shiney ball. That without heat and moisture for the yeast, the dough cannot rise. And I know that if allowed to rise too long, the dough will collapse and ruin. And if baked at too high a heat, it burns the crust while leaving the inside unbaked. 

I understand that the ingredients don't mix themselves, the dough does not rise without supervision and will not bake without an oven.


----------



## clevergirl

Vidi said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is an ideological idiot. He has never actually had a private sector job. He couldn't run a business- except into the ground, if you paid him. His statement reveals how he sees the world. The "government" in his world belongs to the political class and not to the people...I mean WTF financially supports the government, but tax payers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have run a business. Several in fact. Successfully if I may be allowed to brag a bit.
> 
> And Obama is correct. I didnt go from start up to success on my own. I had help. I had good employees who were educated on someone elses tax money. I had roads on which supplies and customers came into my business and on which product was shipped out. I pay my employees a fair wage but I always need them to produce more value than I am investing in them or I do not profit.
> 
> For people to pretend that they dont understand how our economic well being is interconnected to one another AFTER the housing crisis took down our entire economy is just plain deception.
Click to expand...



You did too- It's your capital to risk- to lose. Of course your employees help you profit...like DUH, that's what you fucking pay them to do!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Communist...
> 
> By the way, everything you listed has NOTHING to do with a person building a business.
> 
> "Police Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Military Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Good Schools" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Reliable Power" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Clean Water" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Road" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> Thank you for defeating yourselves with your own arguments. Glaring example of how fucking stupid you Communist liberals are....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes its provided TO everyone but its not provided BY everyone and THAT is the whole damned point.
> 
> When you have Romney ADMITTING hes set up offshore accoutns to keep money from being taxed, then he has chosen to keep his money out of the provided BY column and only in the provided FOR column...and THAT is what has people so pissed off.
> 
> You cant have it provided FOR you and expect not to pay into the system so you can provide it FOR the next guy.
> 
> Now if you want to talk about the rights and wrongs of a progressive tax system, Im willing to have that conversation ( and I might even agree with you on most of it ) but to actually move money out of the country isnt about progressive taxes its about evasion
Click to expand...


You're absolutely right; it's NOT provided by everyone.  But it's not the Mitt Romneys of the world who are sucking off of other people, and now trying to feel important by identifying with Obama's hubristic claim.  You can piss and moan about Romney's "offshore accounts" until your face turns blue, but the truth is, the United States is one of the countries that taxes its citizens' investments even when they're overseas.  Romney is still paying for "roads and bridges" in this country no matter where he's investing.  You want to talk about people who are reaping the benefits of our society without contributing to it, let's talk about the half of society that's not paying a damned thing in federal taxes.

What has people so pissed off is the fact that they're uninformed numbfucks who get all their info from people with a political axe to grind.  Get over it, get informed, and think for yourself.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dr Grump said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution I have says my rights were given to me by God... not the gov't.
> 
> The gov't would not exist were it not for the wonderful American people who made it.
> 
> I owe ALL of my success to me, myself and I.... the gov't has done nothing for me, and I dont want them to.
> 
> Plus, all those roads and bridges were STILL built by private companies contracted to do so by the gov't WITH OUR MONEY.
> 
> Move to a communist block country and see just how much the gov't does for you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't believe in God?
> 
> BTW, there's this pesky little thing in your constitution called an amendment process that can remove amendments. So they are not set in stone....
> 
> Hey, move to an island and live by yourself if you think you can go it alone...
Click to expand...


Fuck it, the powers that be are removing them right now, as we type. WITHOUT Amendments. I sure feel bad for the unlucky fucker that gets ordered to come confiscate my guns, though.


----------



## GuyPinestra

edthecynic said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is a lie your MessiahRushie filled your "skull of mush" with. Here is what Obama actually said and all the America-hating scum on the right edited out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so if that statement is true, why bring up all the other crap, people know in their lives who has helped them. This isnt some new discovery, but most people dont succeed and that's why you get the credit for you own success.* If you're in the NFL HAll of Fame, it's because you worked at it and had the talent to do it, we dont put all the people that helped you along the way in there,* because they may have helped, it's still up to YOU to get the job done and most simply fail at that.
> 
> But again, what is the point of the statement? What isnt being done now that people should do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many coaches in the Hall of Fame!
Click to expand...


All recognized for THEIR individual achievement!


----------



## Billo_Really

Everyone of you right-wing idiots are total morons.  You deliberately took Obama's statements out of context and changed the entire meaning of what he was saying.  He did not say what you say he said.  You're bunch of fuckin' liars and I see no reason why anyone would vote for your kind of bullshit!

Obama was talking about the roads and bridges businesses use to transport their products to market.    Those businesses did not build the roads and bridges.  We did.  The American taxpayer built those roads and bridges and made it possible for businesses to flourish.

I swear to God, you people are  as dumb as it gets.


----------



## edthecynic

GuyPinestra said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so if that statement is true, why bring up all the other crap, people know in their lives who has helped them. This isnt some new discovery, but most people dont succeed and that's why you get the credit for you own success.* If you're in the NFL HAll of Fame, it's because you worked at it and had the talent to do it, we dont put all the people that helped you along the way in there,* because they may have helped, it's still up to YOU to get the job done and most simply fail at that.
> 
> But again, what is the point of the statement? What isnt being done now that people should do?
> 
> 
> 
> There are many coaches in the Hall of Fame!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All recognized for THEIR individual achievement!
Click to expand...

So the coaches pass the ball and score the touchdowns all by themselves. There is no teamwork on a football team.


----------



## Mac1958

Papageorgio said:


> Since business didn't get there on their own, so we can blame the government for when they fail.






Bingo.


.


----------



## OODA_Loop

loinboy said:


> Everyone of you right-wing idiots are total morons.  You deliberately took Obama's statements out of context and changed the entire meaning of what he was saying.  He did not say what you say he said.  You're bunch of fuckin' liars and I see no reason why anyone would vote for your kind of bullshit!
> 
> Obama was talking about the roads and bridges businesses use to transport their products to market.    Those businesses did not build the roads and bridges.  We did.  The American taxpayer built those roads and bridges and made it possible for businesses to flourish.
> 
> I swear to God, you people are  as dumb as it gets.



I own a business and pay taxes.

My roads and bridges.


----------



## Zxereus

occupied said:


> Why do conservatives value the myth of the self-made-man so much? All of you know what he was saying but choose instead to take it as some kind attack on capitalism.



We know what he said, and what he meant on the surface. But we also can read between the lines, and like clouds moving and briefly exposing the sun, we know the true liberal when it's exposed.


----------



## JoeB131

Claudette said:


> I think its gonna turn around and bite him in the ass.
> 
> Try telling a business owner that he didn't pour his heart, soul, capital, time and effort into his business.  Tell him he didn't make sacrifices to keep his dream alive. Tell him someone else did it for him. Tell him he owes it all to someone else.
> 
> Yeah. That oughta go over big with business owners especially coming from a guy who's never held a real job in his entire life.
> 
> Jesus. Obamas a schmuck.



The fact is, most businesses couldn't survive without government.  It's just most of them are too arrogant to admit it.  

Your store couldn't exist without government run utilities, government provided protection, and government provided roads so goods and customers could get to it.  Nor would you be able to educate employees to the level of competence if the government hadn't taught them how to do math and read first.  

Conservatives used to be for more efficient, more lean government.  Now government has become the enemy... and that's just kind of sad.


----------



## Zxereus

loinboy said:


> Everyone of you right-wing idiots are total morons.  You deliberately took Obama's statements out of context and changed the entire meaning of what he was saying.  He did not say what you say he said.  You're bunch of fuckin' liars and I see no reason why anyone would vote for your kind of bullshit!
> 
> Obama was talking about the roads and bridges businesses use to transport their products to market.    Those businesses did not build the roads and bridges.  We did.  The American taxpayer built those roads and bridges and made it possible for businesses to flourish.
> 
> I swear to God, you people are  as dumb as it gets.



Go on and keep thinking that.
We all know on the surface what Obama said, and actually it was a "duh" moment if I've ever heard one.
Everyone knows how our roads, bridges, infrastructure etc. comes about, we're not children needing a Sesame Street lesson.
But we conservatives know the underlying message Obama sent. It's one we're very familliar with.
We know how liberals work, and how they will always give credit only to the workers of a business, or government entity, and all the while vilifying the business owner, or corporate CEO. Never giving credit to the people who front the money, work the long hours, deal with the stress of meeting payrolls, or whether they're going to lose their shirt.
You guys will never understand what we heard between the lines.


----------



## GuyPinestra

loinboy said:


> Everyone of you right-wing idiots are total morons.  You deliberately took Obama's statements out of context and changed the entire meaning of what he was saying.  He did not say what you say he said.  You're bunch of fuckin' liars and I see no reason why anyone would vote for your kind of bullshit!
> 
> Obama was talking about the roads and bridges businesses use to transport their products to market.    Those businesses did not build the roads and bridges.  We did.  The American taxpayer built those roads and bridges and made it possible for businesses to flourish.
> 
> I swear to God, you people are  as dumb as it gets.



You want dumb look in the mirror, dipshit.

Who is the American taxpayer? A citizen 'gainfully employed'. 
Who employs the American taxpayer? Either business or government.
If a business, the employer pays.
If a government, the taxpayer pays.

Either way, those businesses provided the funds that paid the taxpayer that paid the government that paid other businesses to build the roads and bridges. Without the businesses, neither the taxpayer or the government would exist, they wouldn't have a DIME.


----------



## JoeB131

Zxereus said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of you right-wing idiots are total morons.  You deliberately took Obama's statements out of context and changed the entire meaning of what he was saying.  He did not say what you say he said.  You're bunch of fuckin' liars and I see no reason why anyone would vote for your kind of bullshit!
> 
> Obama was talking about the roads and bridges businesses use to transport their products to market.    Those businesses did not build the roads and bridges.  We did.  The American taxpayer built those roads and bridges and made it possible for businesses to flourish.
> 
> I swear to God, you people are  as dumb as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go on and keep thinking that.
> We all know on the surface what Obama said, and actually it was a "duh" moment if I've ever heard one.
> Everyone knows how our roads, bridges, infrastructure etc. comes about, we're not children needing a Sesame Street lesson.
> But we conservatives know the underlying message Obama sent. It's one we're very familliar with.
> We know how liberals work, and how they will always give credit only to the workers of a business, or government entity, and all the while vilifying the business owner, or corporate CEO. Never giving credit to the people who front the money, work the long hours, deal with the stress of meeting payrolls, or whether they're going to lose their shirt.
> You guys will never understand what we heard between the lines.
Click to expand...


I think some of you are in need of a Sesame Street lesson, after the Short Bus picks you up.  And what you hear between the lines is more about what you bring into the conversation, not is what actually said.  

I frankly get tired of treating the CEO's and Owners like heroes.  Most of these people are only kept afloat because their workers put in so many hours, and when I hear one of these assholes say how lazy their employees are on their way to the golf course, there's really no sympathy. And usually when things go south, these folks can't screw over their workers fast enough.


----------



## GuyPinestra

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think its gonna turn around and bite him in the ass.
> 
> Try telling a business owner that he didn't pour his heart, soul, capital, time and effort into his business.  Tell him he didn't make sacrifices to keep his dream alive. Tell him someone else did it for him. Tell him he owes it all to someone else.
> 
> Yeah. That oughta go over big with business owners especially coming from a guy who's never held a real job in his entire life.
> 
> Jesus. Obamas a schmuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most businesses couldn't survive without government.  It's just most of them are too arrogant to admit it.
> 
> Your store couldn't exist without government run utilities, government provided protection, and government provided roads so goods and customers could get to it.  *Nor would you be able to educate employees to the level of competence if the government hadn't taught them how to do math and read first.  *
> 
> Conservatives used to be for more efficient, more lean government.  Now government has become the enemy... and that's just kind of sad.
Click to expand...


Thank you Joe!! That's the funniest damned thing I've read in a WEEK!!


----------



## JoeB131

GuyPinestra said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of you right-wing idiots are total morons.  You deliberately took Obama's statements out of context and changed the entire meaning of what he was saying.  He did not say what you say he said.  You're bunch of fuckin' liars and I see no reason why anyone would vote for your kind of bullshit!
> 
> Obama was talking about the roads and bridges businesses use to transport their products to market.    Those businesses did not build the roads and bridges.  We did.  The American taxpayer built those roads and bridges and made it possible for businesses to flourish.
> 
> I swear to God, you people are  as dumb as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want dumb look in the mirror, dipshit.
> 
> Who is the American taxpayer? A citizen 'gainfully employed'.
> Who employs the American taxpayer? Either business or government.
> If a business, the employer pays.
> If a government, the taxpayer pays.
> 
> Either way, those businesses provided the funds that paid the taxpayer that paid the government that paid other businesses to build the roads and bridges. Without the businesses, neither the taxpayer or the government would exist, they wouldn't have a DIME.
Click to expand...


BUt where does the employer get the money to pay?  

From customers buying goods and services.   

Without workers bringing home salaries and spending money, the businesses would have no business.   

This is what has gotten lost in the "make a quick buck" mentality of modern business.  There is no long term partnership.  We stopped calling them "employees" and started calling them "Human Resources".


----------



## JoeB131

GuyPinestra said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think its gonna turn around and bite him in the ass.
> 
> Try telling a business owner that he didn't pour his heart, soul, capital, time and effort into his business.  Tell him he didn't make sacrifices to keep his dream alive. Tell him someone else did it for him. Tell him he owes it all to someone else.
> 
> Yeah. That oughta go over big with business owners especially coming from a guy who's never held a real job in his entire life.
> 
> Jesus. Obamas a schmuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most businesses couldn't survive without government.  It's just most of them are too arrogant to admit it.
> 
> Your store couldn't exist without government run utilities, government provided protection, and government provided roads so goods and customers could get to it.  *Nor would you be able to educate employees to the level of competence if the government hadn't taught them how to do math and read first.  *
> 
> Conservatives used to be for more efficient, more lean government.  Now government has become the enemy... and that's just kind of sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Joe!! That's the funniest damned thing I've read in a WEEK!!
Click to expand...


Why, just because you're an illiterate twit, doesn't mean everyone else is.  

Fact is, you hire people, they come in with the ability to read and do the basic math to do the job.  Most of them.  Maybe not the people you'd hire, because most qualified folks wouldn't want to work for you, anyway.  

Sorry, man, most of them were educated in Public Schools.  And while you can make a lot of criticisms of how they work, they do get the job done.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Obama has never said or inferred that which you are claiming he did. You say you are reading between the lines. What you are doing is making shit up.


----------



## healthmyths

midcan5 said:


> "in 1929 federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the united states.  By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in india, a socialist country.  The national science foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in scientific instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals."  william manchester "the glory and the dream"
> 
> 
> no rich man ever made a single dime outside of society. No so called entrepreneur made their wealth in a vacuum from nothing. Obama was right, but the thought does not appeal to the cowboy mentality of the modern right wingnut. Oh, and no cowboy roped a steer before there was a steer to rope, someone made the rope, and someone taught him how to ride the horses.
> 
> 
> *'its mitt romney who doesnt understand america'*
> 
> "if this country is to continue leading the world both economically and technologically, then someone has to be willing to spend money on silly risks. Someone has to fund a production line for the integrated circuit computers that t.i. Cant see a use for. Someone has to send rockets into space for no other reason than because we can, and because we should see what happens after that. Its the american way." romney and obama on american inventions : The new yorker
> 
> the rich get rich because of their merit.
> 
> elizabeth warren on debt crisis, fair taxation - youtube
> 
> *"on moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.* in the united states, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."ubi and the flat tax



the government doesn't pay for anything!  Taxpayers do!


----------



## JoeB131

Bigger fonts do not make your argument any smarter.  

Yes, the taxpayers do. that was the point Obama was making. If you have success in business, it's because the taxpayers created the kind of environment where your business could thrive by having good infrastructure, solid public services and decent education, all of which are at risk now because the "mine, mine, mine" mentality of guys who don't want to pay their fair share.


----------



## Zxereus

JoeB131 said:


> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of you right-wing idiots are total morons.  You deliberately took Obama's statements out of context and changed the entire meaning of what he was saying.  He did not say what you say he said.  You're bunch of fuckin' liars and I see no reason why anyone would vote for your kind of bullshit!
> 
> Obama was talking about the roads and bridges businesses use to transport their products to market.    Those businesses did not build the roads and bridges.  We did.  The American taxpayer built those roads and bridges and made it possible for businesses to flourish.
> 
> I swear to God, you people are  as dumb as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go on and keep thinking that.
> We all know on the surface what Obama said, and actually it was a "duh" moment if I've ever heard one.
> Everyone knows how our roads, bridges, infrastructure etc. comes about, we're not children needing a Sesame Street lesson.
> But we conservatives know the underlying message Obama sent. It's one we're very familliar with.
> We know how liberals work, and how they will always give credit only to the workers of a business, or government entity, and all the while vilifying the business owner, or corporate CEO. Never giving credit to the people who front the money, work the long hours, deal with the stress of meeting payrolls, or whether they're going to lose their shirt.
> You guys will never understand what we heard between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think some of you are in need of a Sesame Street lesson, after the Short Bus picks you up.  And what you hear between the lines is more about what you bring into the conversation, not is what actually said.
> 
> I frankly get tired of treating the CEO's and Owners like heroes.  Most of these people are only kept afloat because their workers put in so many hours, and when I hear one of these assholes say how lazy their employees are on their way to the golf course, there's really no sympathy. And usually when things go south, these folks can't screw over their workers fast enough.
Click to expand...


Thanks for helping me make my point.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Dumbass. Taxpayers ARE the government. The humans that make the decisions regarding how we are governed are duly elected to do so as per the USC.  

This is simple stuff. Why can't you grasp it?


----------



## Bfgrn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Communist...
> 
> By the way, everything you listed has NOTHING to do with a person building a business.
> 
> "Police Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Military Protection" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Good Schools" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Reliable Power" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Clean Water" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> "Road" - that's provided to *EVERYONE*, so why did only Bill Gates create Microsoft and Steve Jobs create Apple?
> 
> Thank you for defeating yourselves with your own arguments. Glaring example of how fucking stupid you Communist liberals are....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its provided TO everyone but its not provided BY everyone and THAT is the whole damned point.
> 
> When you have Romney ADMITTING hes set up offshore accoutns to keep money from being taxed, then he has chosen to keep his money out of the provided BY column and only in the provided FOR column...and THAT is what has people so pissed off.
> 
> You cant have it provided FOR you and expect not to pay into the system so you can provide it FOR the next guy.
> 
> Now if you want to talk about the rights and wrongs of a progressive tax system, Im willing to have that conversation ( and I might even agree with you on most of it ) but to actually move money out of the country isnt about progressive taxes its about evasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right; it's NOT provided by everyone.  But it's not the Mitt Romneys of the world who are sucking off of other people, and now trying to feel important by identifying with Obama's hubristic claim.  You can piss and moan about Romney's "offshore accounts" until your face turns blue, but the truth is, the United States is one of the countries that taxes its citizens' investments even when they're overseas.  Romney is still paying for "roads and bridges" in this country no matter where he's investing.  You want to talk about people who are reaping the benefits of our society without contributing to it, let's talk about the half of society that's not paying a damned thing in federal taxes.
> 
> What has people so pissed off is the fact that they're uninformed numbfucks who get all their info from people with a political axe to grind.  Get over it, get informed, and think for yourself.
Click to expand...


Actually it IS the Mitt Romney's who are sucking off of other people. It is self centered greed, lack of respect, lack of patriotism and appreciation for being born in this country that the opulent like Mitten have become in America. You don't see unions or common working folks out sourcing jobs or investing in foreign countries.

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."
Remarks at Amherst College
President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963


----------



## JoeB131

Zxereus said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go on and keep thinking that.
> We all know on the surface what Obama said, and actually it was a "duh" moment if I've ever heard one.
> Everyone knows how our roads, bridges, infrastructure etc. comes about, we're not children needing a Sesame Street lesson.
> But we conservatives know the underlying message Obama sent. It's one we're very familliar with.
> We know how liberals work, and how they will always give credit only to the workers of a business, or government entity, and all the while vilifying the business owner, or corporate CEO. Never giving credit to the people who front the money, work the long hours, deal with the stress of meeting payrolls, or whether they're going to lose their shirt.
> You guys will never understand what we heard between the lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of you are in need of a Sesame Street lesson, after the Short Bus picks you up.  And what you hear between the lines is more about what you bring into the conversation, not is what actually said.
> 
> I frankly get tired of treating the CEO's and Owners like heroes.  Most of these people are only kept afloat because their workers put in so many hours, and when I hear one of these assholes say how lazy their employees are on their way to the golf course, there's really no sympathy. And usually when things go south, these folks can't screw over their workers fast enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for helping me make my point.
Click to expand...


The only point is at the top of your head.  

No matter how much you suck up, you are still going to be a "human resource" to these people. 

They don't give a fuck about you and never will.  They are not your friends.


----------



## naturegirl

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think its gonna turn around and bite him in the ass.
> 
> Try telling a business owner that he didn't pour his heart, soul, capital, time and effort into his business.  Tell him he didn't make sacrifices to keep his dream alive. Tell him someone else did it for him. Tell him he owes it all to someone else.
> 
> Yeah. That oughta go over big with business owners especially coming from a guy who's never held a real job in his entire life.
> 
> Jesus. Obamas a schmuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most businesses couldn't survive without government.  It's just most of them are too arrogant to admit it.
> 
> Your store couldn't exist without government run utilities, government provided protection, and government provided roads so goods and customers could get to it.  Nor would you be able to educate employees to the level of competence if the government hadn't taught them how to do math and read first.
> 
> Conservatives used to be for more efficient, more lean government.  Now government has become the enemy... and that's just kind of sad.
Click to expand...


Well ummmmmm yea the Government is the enemy.  Our founding fathers knew this:



> *The two enemies of the people are criminals and government*, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.-Thomas Jefferson



I'm sorry you lefties let the guy in the White House call fellow American's enemies when in fact, he and his cronies are the true enemy of liberty.


----------



## skookerasbil

when I saw the vid of this goofball, my face hit the floor. I said to myself, "WTF.....is this guy purposfully trying to throw the election because he's just done with this?" Politically, its one of the dumbest things he could have ever said and while the guy is seriously misguided, hes not a dummy. Makes no sense........


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of you are in need of a Sesame Street lesson, after the Short Bus picks you up.  And what you hear between the lines is more about what you bring into the conversation, not is what actually said.
> 
> I frankly get tired of treating the CEO's and Owners like heroes.  Most of these people are only kept afloat because their workers put in so many hours, and when I hear one of these assholes say how lazy their employees are on their way to the golf course, there's really no sympathy. And usually when things go south, these folks can't screw over their workers fast enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for helping me make my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only point is at the top of your head.
> 
> No matter how much you suck up, you are still going to be a "human resource" to these people.
> 
> They don't give a fuck about you and never will.  They are not your friends.
Click to expand...


You sound like a total loser

So your only "Friends" are government bureaucrats, the people at DMV and IRS?


----------



## healthmyths

midcan5 said:


> "in 1929 federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the united states.  By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in india, a socialist country.  The national science foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in scientific instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals."  william manchester "the glory and the dream"
> 
> 
> no rich man ever made a single dime outside of society. No so called entrepreneur made their wealth in a vacuum from nothing. Obama was right, but the thought does not appeal to the cowboy mentality of the modern right wingnut. Oh, and no cowboy roped a steer before there was a steer to rope, someone made the rope, and someone taught him how to ride the horses.
> 
> 
> *'its mitt romney who doesnt understand america'*
> 
> "if this country is to continue leading the world both economically and technologically, then someone has to be willing to spend money on silly risks. Someone has to fund a production line for the integrated circuit computers that t.i. Cant see a use for. Someone has to send rockets into space for no other reason than because we can, and because we should see what happens after that. Its the american way." romney and obama on american inventions : The new yorker
> 
> the rich get rich because of their merit.
> 
> elizabeth warren on debt crisis, fair taxation - youtube
> 
> *"on moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.* in the united states, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."ubi and the flat tax



the government doesn't pay for anything!  Taxpayers do!


----------



## JoeB131

naturegirl said:


> Well ummmmmm yea the Government is the enemy.  Our founding fathers knew this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The two enemies of the people are criminals and government*, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you lefties let the guy in the White House call fellow American's enemies when in fact, he and his cronies are the true enemy of liberty.
Click to expand...


Sorry, that's another wonderful bogus internet quote attributed to Jefferson he didn't say. 

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson



> Earliest appearance in print: 2002[1]
> 
> Earliest appearance in print, attributed to Thomas Jefferson: see above.
> 
> Status: This quotation has not been found in any of Thomas Jefferson's writings.  He did, however, employ the phrase "chains of the Constitution" at least once, in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: "...in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution..." (from draft)[2]



Jefferson seems to have a lot of things attributed to him that he never said, mostly by Wingnuts.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for helping me make my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only point is at the top of your head.
> 
> No matter how much you suck up, you are still going to be a "human resource" to these people.
> 
> They don't give a fuck about you and never will.  They are not your friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a total loser
> 
> So your only "Friends" are government bureaucrats, the people at DMV and IRS?
Click to expand...


No, my friends are working stiff just like me, trying to do the best job they can and hoping the geniuses with their MBA's don't make brain dead stupid decisions that wreck the company. 

Which inevitably they do, anyway.


----------



## Zxereus




----------



## naturegirl

JoeB131 said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well ummmmmm yea the Government is the enemy.  Our founding fathers knew this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The two enemies of the people are criminals and government*, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.-Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you lefties let the guy in the White House call fellow American's enemies when in fact, he and his cronies are the true enemy of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's another wonderful bogus internet quote attributed to Jefferson he didn't say.
> 
> The two enemies of the people are criminals and government...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earliest appearance in print: 2002[1]
> 
> Earliest appearance in print, attributed to Thomas Jefferson: see above.
> 
> Status: This quotation has not been found in any of Thomas Jefferson's writings.  He did, however, employ the phrase "chains of the Constitution" at least once, in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: "...in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution..." (from draft)[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jefferson seems to have a lot of things attributed to him that he never said, mostly by Wingnuts.
Click to expand...


Yea, well government is the enemy............here are some more Jefferson quotes I have confirmed are true.  

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "


----------



## chanel

Krauthammer gets it.



> To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
> 
> Absurd. We dont credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einsteins manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
> 
> Obamas infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. *Whats variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes*.


Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines


----------



## saveliberty

Strange that Obama would draw attention to his concept of a state run economy.  In addition to confirming his socialist philosophy, it means he must take full blame for a failed economy.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> Actually it IS the Mitt Romney's who are sucking off of other people. It is self centered greed, lack of respect, lack of patriotism and appreciation for being born in this country that the opulent like Mitten have become in America. You don't see unions or common working folks out sourcing jobs or investing in foreign countries.



How do you know they are not investing in foriegn countries?  How do you know their 401K isn't loaded down with overseas stocks?  Just a typical bullshit claim from a typical lib who makes things up.



Bfgrn said:


> "Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."
> Remarks at Amherst College
> President John F. Kennedy
> Amherst, Massachusetts
> October 26, 1963



Kennedy wasn't a god.  He wasn't right about everything.  All his and your presuppositions about democracy are pure bullshit.


----------



## Zoom-boing

chanel said:


> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom. &#8230;
> 
> Absurd. We don&#8217;t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein&#8217;s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
> 
> Obama&#8217;s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. *What&#8217;s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes*.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
Click to expand...


Obama is minimizing the 'individual's' drive, determination and persistence in starting/running a business and is pushing the 'collective' end of it as being more important.

Hmmmm, wonder where he got that notion from ...


----------



## Zoom-boing

saveliberty said:


> Strange that Obama would draw attention to his concept of a state run economy.  In addition to confirming his socialist philosophy, it means he must take full blame for a failed economy.



He only takes credit, never blame.  

That's just the kind of hairpin he is.


----------



## bripat9643

Dr Grump said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move to North Korea since that is your ideal form of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's right, it is. Just like Nazism is your ideal form, right?
Click to expand...


No, I'm not a Democrat.  I believe in limited government.  Democrats are the one who believe government should make all the business decisions.


----------



## Buford

These idiots don't want to get it.  They are deliberately following Obama off a cliff.  That's what lemmings do.  Dogs bark, Horses run, pigs roll in mud, and lemmings go off the cliff.  It's their nature and they can't help themselves.  And when they lose, they will just blame someone or something else.  In their feeble minds the American people would never reject Obama.  They're indoctrinated.


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said the Constitution says so, dipshit.  However the Declaration of Independence does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> T said it...dipshit. Next time you throw insults maybe you should actually READ the thread...dipshit.
> 
> Sorry about the insults but you asked for it by ignoring the post I was responding to. I even quoted it. So you have no excuse...dipshit.)
Click to expand...


You are correct, he did say it.  I didn't read it carefully enough.



Vidi said:


> [And yes, I am aware of the unalienable rights...which is why I am for Single Payer Health care...dipshit
> 
> 
> ( see how stupid the insult is? )



Healthcare is an inalienable right?  What happens to your *INALIENABLE *right if you're stranded in the middle of some primitive African hell hole?


----------



## Bfgrn

chanel said:


> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
> 
> Absurd. We dont credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einsteins manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
> 
> Obamas infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. *Whats variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes*.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
Click to expand...


Krauthammer doesn't 'get' it...he doesn't 'get' it at ALL.

He doesn't even 'get' what our founders created.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*"

We the People *ARE* the government. Conservatives love to sever that seminal truth.

WHAT is America? Is it buildings, statues and concrete, or is it people? Liberals know the answer to that questions, do conservatives?

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America." 
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## saveliberty

Consent of the governed has become a passive acceptance by a majority of citizens who now need entitlements.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
> 
> Absurd. We dont credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einsteins manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
> 
> Obamas infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. *Whats variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes*.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Krauthammer doesn't 'get' it...he doesn't 'get' it at ALL.
> 
> He doesn't even 'get' what our founders created.
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*"
> 
> We the People *ARE* the government. Conservatives love to sever that seminal truth.
> 
> WHAT is America? Is it buildings, statues and concrete, or is it people? Liberals know the answer to that questions, do conservatives?
> 
> "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but Charles Krauthammer DOES get it.  He understands that the true strength of America has always been that an individual had more rights than "society" and that the individual's rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were protected from the government.  THAT is what has always made America unique.  That is what people like yourself and Barack Obama fail to "get".


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
> 
> Absurd. We dont credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einsteins manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
> 
> Obamas infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. *Whats variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes*.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Krauthammer doesn't 'get' it...he doesn't 'get' it at ALL.
> 
> He doesn't even 'get' what our founders created.
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*"
> 
> We the People *ARE* the government. Conservatives love to sever that seminal truth.
> 
> WHAT is America? Is it buildings, statues and concrete, or is it people? Liberals know the answer to that questions, do conservatives?
> 
> "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Click to expand...


The only question liberals know the answer to is where the welfare checks are handed out.  

Why don't you quit being so self righteous and say something meaningful ?

Since we (conservatives) are part of the people, we are going to darn well fight to make sure that our part of the "consent" piece is recognized and when you try to govern us to much against our consent, you get what you have now.....a mess.

Obamacare cuts my HSA limit in half.  Thanks for making my healthcare more expensive.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer doesn't 'get' it...he doesn't 'get' it at ALL.
> 
> He doesn't even 'get' what our founders created.
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*"
> 
> We the People *ARE* the government. Conservatives love to sever that seminal truth.
> 
> WHAT is America? Is it buildings, statues and concrete, or is it people? Liberals know the answer to that questions, do conservatives?
> 
> "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only question liberals know the answer to is where the welfare checks are handed out.
> 
> Why don't you quit being so self righteous and say something meaningful ?
> 
> Since we (conservatives) are part of the people, we are going to darn well fight to make sure that our part of the "consent" piece is recognized and when you try to govern us to much against our consent, you get what you have now.....a mess.
> 
> Obamacare cuts my HSA limit in half.  Thanks for making my healthcare more expensive.
Click to expand...


Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.

It is so typical of conservatives to use welfare as an example, while they try to dismantle wonderful social programs like Social Security and Medicare. NO liberal supports lazy people collecting government checks. But liberals realize that is the minority, not the majority. And liberals also realize the half the humans in this country living in poverty are children. Are children expected to support themselves Listening?

But it is just another self centered justifications for creating an aristocracy, which is ALWAYS the aim of conservatism since man began walking upright. Here's your problem; your fairy tale requires other people to play along and conform to a role YOU supply for them. 

EVERYTHING you post has the same earmarks; instead of learning and having facts create your view, you start with your far right wing view and ideology, then look for ammunition.

To try to CREATE social programs as the root cause is just another attempt to take your right wing social views and find any shed of evidence you can to blame liberals and protect the elite you worship.

The War on Poverty, what it is and isn't...

There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along. Maybe you should gain the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'War on Poverty' was about and what it wasn't about. But it's a lot easier for you to define it under YOUR self righteous terms so you don't have to care. It is also predictable that you chose 'welfare', because that fits so neatly into your 'dependency' and 'entitlement' dismissal of others. 

*There are reasons for and realities to poverty, you have focused on the least of them.*

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished. 

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. *The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment.* The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)Ref


----------



## blastoff

Stephanie said:


> I'm sure all the BUSINESS people in the country LOVE hearing this shit from Obama
> 
> UnFrikenbelievable
> 
> please vote this Progressive idiot out



Barack Hussein Forrest Obama...as in, stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Mac1958 said:


> .
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.
> .



I applaud you for not just quoting out of context. Your statement I believe accurate reflects what Obama meant.

And frankly, its true. I know that Republicans may feel in their hearts that business success - particularly their own - is 100% due to their efforts, but the facts and the evidence tell us otherwise. Everywhere you look, you'll see the influence of the greatest public-private partnership in all of history - the scientific and technological complex, a web of public and private entities, some motivated by quest for profit, others by quest for knowledge, still others by quest of national defense - all leading to best economy in the world. 

Public v. Private is simply not that simple, in other words. 

If all of science was funded by the public, there would be a lot more advances in general scientific theories but no concentration on the kind that would benefit the economy. Obviously business would suffer dearly.

If all of science is funded by the private, we'll do fine for a while but over several decades, we'll fall way behind in science, and the technology will eventually suffer. Most private enterprise simply has no interest in funding science whose benefits may not be realized for decades upon decades to come. Einstein's relativity would have never come about had there only been private funding of science - yet his theory is now crucial to the functioning of something most of us even take for granted now - GPS.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
> 
> Absurd. We dont credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einsteins manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
> 
> Obamas infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. *Whats variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes*.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Krauthammer doesn't 'get' it...he doesn't 'get' it at ALL.
> 
> He doesn't even 'get' what our founders created.
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*"
> 
> We the People *ARE* the government. Conservatives love to sever that seminal truth.
> 
> WHAT is America? Is it buildings, statues and concrete, or is it people? Liberals know the answer to that questions, do conservatives?
> 
> "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Click to expand...


Neo Marxists quoting our Founders.  How cute!

They didn't build the country on their own right?  The British did that!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you for not just quoting out of context. Your statement I believe accurate reflects what Obama meant.
> 
> And frankly, its true. I know that Republicans may feel in their hearts that business success - particularly their own - is 100% due to their efforts, but the facts and the evidence tell us otherwise. Everywhere you look, you'll see the influence of the greatest public-private partnership in all of history - the scientific and technological complex, a web of public and private entities, some motivated by quest for profit, others by quest for knowledge, still others by quest of national defense - all leading to best economy in the world.
> 
> Public v. Private is simply not that simple, in other words.
> 
> If all of science was funded by the public, there would be a lot more advances in general scientific theories but no concentration on the kind that would benefit the economy. Obviously business would suffer dearly.
> 
> If all of science is funded by the private, we'll do fine for a while but over several decades, we'll fall way being in science, and the technology will eventually suffer. Most private enterprise simply has no interest in funding science whose benefits may not be realized for decades upon decades to come. Einstein's relativity would have never come about had there only been private funding of science - yet his theory is now crucial to the functioning of something most of us even take for granted now - GPS.
Click to expand...


What Obama meant was that he's finally out of his Marxist closet and lovingly embraces his Inner Mao


----------



## Murf76

healthmyths said:


> the government doesn't pay for anything!  Taxpayers do!



Fox did a poll in the 2008 election cycle and found that 24% didn't know that the government doesn't have its own money.   That's one in four. 

Scary thought, huh?


----------



## Dick Tuck

As to the OP, his comments brought about a good discussion.  How do those who make it, leverage on public money to get to where they get?


----------



## Murf76

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think its gonna turn around and bite him in the ass.
> 
> Try telling a business owner that he didn't pour his heart, soul, capital, time and effort into his business.  Tell him he didn't make sacrifices to keep his dream alive. Tell him someone else did it for him. Tell him he owes it all to someone else.
> 
> Yeah. That oughta go over big with business owners especially coming from a guy who's never held a real job in his entire life.
> 
> Jesus. Obamas a schmuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most businesses couldn't survive without government.  It's just most of them are too arrogant to admit it.
> 
> Your store couldn't exist without government run utilities, government provided protection, and government provided roads so goods and customers could get to it.  Nor would you be able to educate employees to the level of competence if the government hadn't taught them how to do math and read first.
> 
> Conservatives used to be for more efficient, more lean government.  Now government has become the enemy... and that's just kind of sad.
Click to expand...


Not true.  There was commerce in this country waaaayyy before any sort of organized effort at government.  Government come in _response_ to commerce, not the other way around.  Settlers go in first, commence to trading with one another and maybe whatever indigenous people are to be found, and then they develop laws to manage their security and taxes to enforce those laws.


----------



## chanel

Die hard conservatives AND liberals who worship him have known all along that he was anti-capitalism. It's the people in the middle that are finally catching on.

"Successful people" regardless of wealth, understand that the govt had little or nothing to do with their success. Julia is a cartoon character.

Big mistake IMHO.


----------



## Vidi

chanel said:


> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom. &#8230;
> 
> Absurd. We don&#8217;t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein&#8217;s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
> 
> Obama&#8217;s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. *What&#8217;s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes*.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
Click to expand...



No Krauthammer doesn't get it. 

Our government is of, for and by the people. That makes it the personification of our society. You can seperate society from a monarch, or a communist committee, or a dictator, but in a democracy, they are one in the same. THAT'S what made America so different at its founding. WE are the government.

Einstein didn't PROVE relativity. That was Swarzchild and Eddington.In other words, he didn't do it alone.

And Steve Jobs IS the perfect example because he keeps being credited with building the Mac. Steve Jobs didn't build the Mac! That was Steve Wozniak. Jobs was a salesman. And he sold The Wozs invention. 

And every time that little fact is ignored to make the "individual" argument, it not further proves that it's a lie.


----------



## BlindBoo

Wow, the GOP echo chamber got alot of you to believe a ficticous narrative from a single sentance taken out of context.

Again.

Why am I not supprised.


----------



## Listening

Vidi said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
> 
> Absurd. We dont credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einsteins manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
> 
> Obamas infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. *Whats variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes*.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No Krauthammer doesn't get it.
> 
> Our government is of, for and by the people. That makes it the personification of our society. You can seperate society from a monarch, or a communist committee, or a dictator, but in a democracy, they are one in the same. THAT'S what made America so different at its founding. WE are the government.
> 
> And Steve Jobs IS the perfect example because he keeps being credited with building the Mac. Steve Jobs didn't build the Mac! That was Steve Wozniak. Jobs was a salesman. And he sold The Wozs invention.
> 
> And every time that little fact is ignored to make the "individual" argument, it not further proves that it's a lie.
Click to expand...


Can you reword this so it makes some sense ?

Krauthammer has a point of view that is shared by many of us.  There is no getting it or not getting it.

But I can tell you that government is not the personification of our society.  That is a really stupid statement.


----------



## Murf76

loinboy said:


> Everyone of you right-wing idiots are total morons.  You deliberately took Obama's statements out of context and changed the entire meaning of what he was saying.  He did not say what you say he said.  You're bunch of fuckin' liars and I see no reason why anyone would vote for your kind of bullshit!
> 
> Obama was talking about the roads and bridges businesses use to transport their products to market.    Those businesses did not build the roads and bridges.  We did.  The American taxpayer built those roads and bridges and made it possible for businesses to flourish.
> 
> I swear to God, you people are  as dumb as it gets.



There was literally NO WAY to take Obama's comments out of context.  Think about it for a minute... the reason he made the speech that he did was to justify his larger argument about raising taxes.  Why he thinks it's okay to ask more of the business community IS the context.

The guy said what he meant.  And he did it in such a way as to make it impossible to take it any other way.  Just because you see his speech reduced to one sentence, doesn't mean that the one sentence you see isn't actually representative of the whole.


----------



## Foxfyre

This has actually been a fascinating discussion to watch.  Once you back out the professional, probably paid trolls and are left with those who actually have mostly their own opinions, those on the right seem to understand without exception how Obama's point of view on this is counter to everything the Founders intended for this country and counter to everything we know and have experienced in building and running businesses that are the economic lifeblood of the country.

Perhaps there are one or two on the left who also understand that, but most are straining at unimaginable gnats to change what he said into something more palatable, or are refusing to believe he said it at all.

Those of us who wanted Obama to be more than just another clueless Marxist knew in our hearts what he was and hoped he wasn't.  From his "spread the wealth around" in the Joe the Plumber incident to so many other little clues, he has let us into his inner thoughts and motives.  But letting us know how he really views those who take the risks to build the economy and provide resources and income for all is the icing on that cake.  The man is a Marxist and that should be so crystal clear now beyond all question.


----------



## Vidi

Listening said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Krauthammer doesn't get it.
> 
> Our government is of, for and by the people. That makes it the personification of our society. You can seperate society from a monarch, or a communist committee, or a dictator, but in a democracy, they are one in the same. THAT'S what made America so different at its founding. WE are the government.
> 
> And Steve Jobs IS the perfect example because he keeps being credited with building the Mac. Steve Jobs didn't build the Mac! That was Steve Wozniak. Jobs was a salesman. And he sold The Wozs invention.
> 
> And every time that little fact is ignored to make the "individual" argument, it not further proves that it's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you reword this so it makes some sense ?
> 
> Krauthammer has a point of view that is shared by many of us.  There is no getting it or not getting it.
> 
> But I can tell you that government is not the personification of our society.  That is a really stupid statement.
Click to expand...



So you don't believe in We the people?


----------



## Meister

Truthmatters said:


> No business owner built the roads and bridges by themselves.
> 
> 
> Lying to the American people and altering quotes wont win you any elections



Why did they need roads and bridges?
It comes down to which came first, businesses or roads and highways?
Why would you need a highway or roads if not for businesses which employ people who live in towns that grow into cities?


----------



## Rinata

This time, the lie machine is telling people that President Obama said that business owners didn't build their businesses, government did. What President Obama actually said was that businesses did not build the roads and bridges that help them get their products to markets:


"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."

The billionaire corporate lie machine version? Heritage Foundation: "Obama Tells Entrepreneurs, "You Didn't Build" Your Business."

Elections Based On Lies Bring Policies That Hurt Us -- See Update With Astonishing Lie | OurFuture.org

Watch the beginning of this FOX News segment, note how the editing actually shows Obama's mouth moving, before they bring the sound up partway through what he is saying, then listen to the commentators as they pretend this is what Obama actually said. (Of course they know this is not what he actually said, which makes the performance so shocking.)


----------



## Billo_Really

Murf76 said:


> There was literally NO WAY to take Obama's comments out of context.  Think about it for a minute... the reason he made the speech that he did was to justify his larger argument about raising taxes.  Why he thinks it's okay to ask more of the business community IS the context.
> 
> The guy said what he meant.  And he did it in such a way as to make it impossible to take it any other way.  Just because you see his speech reduced to one sentence, doesn't mean that the one sentence you see isn't actually representative of the whole.


If there was no way to take it out of context, why did you edit out the part regarding roads and bridges?


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> This has actually been a fascinating discussion to watch.  Once you back out the professional, probably paid trolls and are left with those who actually have mostly their own opinions, those on the right seem to understand without exception how Obama's point of view on this is counter to everything the Founders intended for this country and counter to everything we know and have experienced in building and running businesses that are the economic lifeblood of the country.
> 
> Perhaps there are one or two on the left who also understand that, but most are straining at unimaginable gnats to change what he said into something more palatable, or are refusing to believe he said it at all.
> 
> Those of us who wanted Obama to be more than just another clueless Marxist knew in our hearts what he was and hoped he wasn't.  From his "spread the wealth around" in the Joe the Plumber incident to so many other little clues, he has let us into his inner thoughts and motives.  But letting us know how he really views those who take the risks to build the economy and provide resources and income for all is the icing on that cake.  The man is a Marxist and that should be so crystal clear now beyond all question.




You claim that the paid trolls are gone and then devolve into partisan nonsense and historical bullshit.

Have you even read the Declaration of Independence?



> And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.



You think that means "every man for himself"?

It's not the Individual States of America. It's the UNITED States of America.

Just what do you think all of this means?


----------



## Billo_Really

Meister said:


> Why did they need roads and bridges?
> It comes down to which came first, businesses or roads and highways?
> Why would you need a highway or roads if not for businesses which employ people who live in towns that grow into cities?


The town came first, the business came second.

Name me one city that started with a business and not local residents.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> It's addictive..that is my point Dumb arse



Then it's stupid point from a stupid person who has no grasp of basic English.  "Psychoactive," retard; look it up.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Krauthammer doesn't get it.
> 
> Our government is of, for and by the people. That makes it the personification of our society. You can seperate society from a monarch, or a communist committee, or a dictator, but in a democracy, they are one in the same. THAT'S what made America so different at its founding. WE are the government.
> 
> And Steve Jobs IS the perfect example because he keeps being credited with building the Mac. Steve Jobs didn't build the Mac! That was Steve Wozniak. Jobs was a salesman. And he sold The Wozs invention.
> 
> And every time that little fact is ignored to make the "individual" argument, it not further proves that it's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reword this so it makes some sense ?
> 
> Krauthammer has a point of view that is shared by many of us.  There is no getting it or not getting it.
> 
> But I can tell you that government is not the personification of our society.  That is a really stupid statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't believe in We the people?
Click to expand...


Yes, but you don't seem to think that 'we the people' is what the Founders intended which was that 'we the people' are what runs the country and assigns responsibilities to the government to do.  Some here seem to think that the government is 'we the people' and the source of everything.  In most countries that is the situation.  The USA was designed as the complete oppostie concept of government as everybody else--a concept of self governance and putting the power and faith in the individual capability of humankind and not in those who would rule over them.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has actually been a fascinating discussion to watch.  Once you back out the professional, probably paid trolls and are left with those who actually have mostly their own opinions, those on the right seem to understand without exception how Obama's point of view on this is counter to everything the Founders intended for this country and counter to everything we know and have experienced in building and running businesses that are the economic lifeblood of the country.
> 
> Perhaps there are one or two on the left who also understand that, but most are straining at unimaginable gnats to change what he said into something more palatable, or are refusing to believe he said it at all.
> 
> Those of us who wanted Obama to be more than just another clueless Marxist knew in our hearts what he was and hoped he wasn't.  From his "spread the wealth around" in the Joe the Plumber incident to so many other little clues, he has let us into his inner thoughts and motives.  But letting us know how he really views those who take the risks to build the economy and provide resources and income for all is the icing on that cake.  The man is a Marxist and that should be so crystal clear now beyond all question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the paid trolls are gone and then devolve into partisan nonsense and historical bullshit.
> 
> Have you even read the Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think that means "every man for himself"?
> 
> It's not the Individual States of America. It's the UNITED States of America.
> 
> Just what do you think all of this means?
Click to expand...


And do you think that 'for the support of this declaration' translates into for the support of each other?   Do you really think that is what it says?


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has actually been a fascinating discussion to watch.  Once you back out the professional, probably paid trolls and are left with those who actually have mostly their own opinions, those on the right seem to understand without exception how Obama's point of view on this is counter to everything the Founders intended for this country and counter to everything we know and have experienced in building and running businesses that are the economic lifeblood of the country.
> 
> Perhaps there are one or two on the left who also understand that, but most are straining at unimaginable gnats to change what he said into something more palatable, or are refusing to believe he said it at all.
> 
> Those of us who wanted Obama to be more than just another clueless Marxist knew in our hearts what he was and hoped he wasn't.  From his "spread the wealth around" in the Joe the Plumber incident to so many other little clues, he has let us into his inner thoughts and motives.  But letting us know how he really views those who take the risks to build the economy and provide resources and income for all is the icing on that cake.  The man is a Marxist and that should be so crystal clear now beyond all question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the paid trolls are gone and then devolve into partisan nonsense and historical bullshit.
> 
> Have you even read the Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think that means "every man for himself"?
> 
> It's not the Individual States of America. It's the UNITED States of America.
> 
> Just what do you think all of this means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And do you think that 'for the support of this declaration' translates into for the support of each other?   Do you really think that is what it says?
Click to expand...



I read the rest of the sentence. Pledge to each other our LIVES, FORTUNES AND SACRED HONOR.


It means exactly what it says.

And just like Obamas statement, it not means what you think it means if you take it out of context and put partisan spin on it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Yet still can't hold a handle to you and your peanut gallery in that dept.
> 
> Go figure...



Candle sheep boi, candle.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> If you read the whole thread that you quoted you will know my point.



Point? You?

BWAHAHAHAHA



> And no, that is not my point...



You're a fucking retard, Gump. You've never posted anything relevant or on-topic, much less with a point.


----------



## SniperFire




----------



## Murf76

loinboy said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was literally NO WAY to take Obama's comments out of context.  Think about it for a minute... the reason he made the speech that he did was to justify his larger argument about raising taxes.  Why he thinks it's okay to ask more of the business community IS the context.
> 
> The guy said what he meant.  And he did it in such a way as to make it impossible to take it any other way.  Just because you see his speech reduced to one sentence, doesn't mean that the one sentence you see isn't actually representative of the whole.
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no way to take it out of context, why did you edit out the part regarding roads and bridges?
Click to expand...


I didn't edit anything out.  What I said was that there's no way to take any part of Obama's statement out of context.  ALL of it was _within_ the larger context regarding why he thinks it's okay to raise taxes on business.   The one sentence which appears to be the bone of contention _"you didn't build that business"_ is representative of the whole.  IOW, complete context doesn't fix this.   

No one is taking it literally as Obama saying 'government built your entire business'.  That's not what's happening.  But he makes it sound like government is some sort of  partner, like the public has some sort of small vested ownership interest, and that's just not so.


----------



## GuyPinestra

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you for not just quoting out of context. Your statement I believe accurate reflects what Obama meant.
> 
> And frankly, its true. I know that Republicans may feel in their hearts that business success - particularly their own - is 100% due to their efforts, but the facts and the evidence tell us otherwise. Everywhere you look, you'll see the influence of the greatest public-private partnership in all of history - the scientific and technological complex, a web of public and private entities, some motivated by quest for profit, others by quest for knowledge, still others by quest of national defense - all leading to best economy in the world.
> 
> Public v. Private is simply not that simple, in other words.
> 
> If all of science was funded by the public, there would be a lot more advances in general scientific theories but no concentration on the kind that would benefit the economy. Obviously business would suffer dearly.
> 
> If all of science is funded by the private, we'll do fine for a while but over several decades, we'll fall way behind in science, and the technology will eventually suffer. Most private enterprise simply has no interest in funding science whose benefits may not be realized for decades upon decades to come. *Einstein's relativity would have never come about had there only been private funding of science - yet his theory is now crucial to the functioning of something most of us even take for granted now - GPS.*
Click to expand...


You did NOT just type this!! Really?? Really?? Are you idiots that desperate that you'll make up shit like this out of whole cloth?? Do you realize that it takes all of 30 seconds to prove how simple-minded you are, regardless of your flowery rhetoric?

Einstein didn't get a DIME from government, you lying sack of putrid dog shit! There was no funding from government, ANY government.

Hack!


----------



## saveliberty

Vidi said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
> 
> Absurd. We dont credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einsteins manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
> 
> Obamas infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. *Whats variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes*.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No Krauthammer doesn't get it.
> 
> Our government is of, for and by the people. That makes it the personification of our society. You can seperate society from a monarch, or a communist committee, or a dictator, but in a democracy, they are one in the same. THAT'S what made America so different at its founding. WE are the government.
> 
> Einstein didn't PROVE relativity. That was Swarzchild and Eddington.In other words, he didn't do it alone.
> 
> And Steve Jobs IS the perfect example because he keeps being credited with building the Mac. Steve Jobs didn't build the Mac! That was Steve Wozniak. Jobs was a salesman. And he sold The Wozs invention.
> 
> And every time that little fact is ignored to make the "individual" argument, it not further proves that it's a lie.
Click to expand...


You live in a republic.  You are not the government.  You can choose to vote in elections and have your representative make decisions.  I seriously doubt everything is going according to your plans.


----------



## Meister

loinboy said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did they need roads and bridges?
> It comes down to which came first, businesses or roads and highways?
> Why would you need a highway or roads if not for businesses which employ people who live in towns that grow into cities?
> 
> 
> 
> The town came first, the business came second.
> 
> Name me one city that started with a business and not local residents.
Click to expand...


Just what did the residences do in a town with no business?  Even panning for gold is a business. farming is a business. sheesh.....


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has actually been a fascinating discussion to watch. Once you back out the professional, probably paid trolls and are left with those who actually have mostly their own opinions, those on the right seem to understand without exception how Obama's point of view on this is counter to everything the Founders intended for this country and counter to everything we know and have experienced in building and running businesses that are the economic lifeblood of the country.
> 
> Perhaps there are one or two on the left who also understand that, but most are straining at unimaginable gnats to change what he said into something more palatable, or are refusing to believe he said it at all.
> 
> Those of us who wanted Obama to be more than just another clueless Marxist knew in our hearts what he was and hoped he wasn't. From his "spread the wealth around" in the Joe the Plumber incident to so many other little clues, he has let us into his inner thoughts and motives. But letting us know how he really views those who take the risks to build the economy and provide resources and income for all is the icing on that cake. The man is a Marxist and that should be so crystal clear now beyond all question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the paid trolls are gone and then devolve into partisan nonsense and historical bullshit.
> 
> Have you even read the Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think that means "every man for himself"?
> 
> It's not the Individual States of America. It's the UNITED States of America.
> 
> Just what do you think all of this means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And do you think that 'for the support of this declaration' translates into for the support of each other? Do you really think that is what it says?
Click to expand...

 
It was all about Colonial Unity against the Indians, and oddly the French at the time Franklin made that cartoon. I was later adopted by colonists to make a statement against Great Britain, and the Crown.


----------



## Wiseacre

saveliberty said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Krauthammer doesn't get it.
> 
> Our government is of, for and by the people. That makes it the personification of our society. You can seperate society from a monarch, or a communist committee, or a dictator, but in a democracy, they are one in the same. THAT'S what made America so different at its founding. WE are the government.
> 
> Einstein didn't PROVE relativity. That was Swarzchild and Eddington.In other words, he didn't do it alone.
> 
> And Steve Jobs IS the perfect example because he keeps being credited with building the Mac. Steve Jobs didn't build the Mac! That was Steve Wozniak. Jobs was a salesman. And he sold The Wozs invention.
> 
> And every time that little fact is ignored to make the "individual" argument, it not further proves that it's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live in a republic.  You are not the government.  You can choose to vote in elections and have your representative make decisions.  I seriously doubt everything is going according to your plans.
Click to expand...



Good point.   Look, the question isn't whether we all don't get help along the way, successful or not.   The question is whether that is a good reason for raising taxes on successful people.  Which it isn't.


----------



## Uncensored2008

GuyPinestra said:


> You did NOT just type this!! Really?? Really?? Are you idiots that desperate that you'll make up shit like this out of whole cloth??



No, you don't get it. Oohpah really, honestly, is so stupid that he believes that shit. I kid you not, he actually thinks that is the way it works, that if only all science were done by gubmint, we would have unlimited breakthroughs.

This really is the level of stupidity in the average Obama voter. Oohpah is just a dramatic example of the point I keep making here, leftism is simply a manifestation of stupidity.



> Do you realize that it takes all of 30 seconds to prove how simple-minded you are, regardless of your flowery rhetoric?
> 
> Einstein didn't get a DIME from government, you lying sack of putrid dog shit! There was no funding from government, ANY government.
> 
> Hack!



What drives researchers to work 20 hours a day, 7 days a week searching for the next wonder drug is the hope that a patent will make the researcher filthy rich. 99% of the wonders in our world were discovered and created by greedy people wanting to get rich.

But people like OohPah are too stupid to grasp this, they believe the bullshit of Obama and the other autocrats that seeking personal gain is wrong and harms others.

Again, leftism is a manifestation of stupidity.


----------



## Katzndogz

Jackson said:


> The stock market thrives on a stable enviroment when it is growing a modest but predictable rate.  Wild bubbles and crashes are not good because it takes people out of the market.



It also gets people into the market.


----------



## freedombecki

loinboy said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did they need roads and bridges?
> It comes down to which came first, businesses or roads and highways?
> Why would you need a highway or roads if not for businesses which employ people who live in towns that grow into cities?
> 
> 
> 
> The town came first, the business came second.
> 
> Name me one city that started with a business and not local residents.
Click to expand...

Little America, Wyoming

Hershey, Pennsylvania


----------



## edthecynic

Zoom-boing said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
> 
> Absurd. We dont credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einsteins manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
> 
> Obamas infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. *Whats variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes*.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Obama is minimizing the 'individual's' drive, determination and persistence in starting/running a business* and is pushing the 'collective' end of it as being more important.
> 
> Hmmmm, wonder where he got that notion from ...
Click to expand...

From your MessiahRushie!!!

What Obama actually said and dishonest CON$ervoFascist scum like the Hreitage Foundation edited out was that business is successful not only from individual initative, but also from working together.

Here is what the dishonest scum always edit out of Obama's speech:



> The point is, is that when we succeed,* we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together*.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was literally NO WAY to take Obama's comments out of context.  Think about it for a minute... the reason he made the speech that he did was to justify his larger argument about raising taxes.  Why he thinks it's okay to ask more of the business community IS the context.
> 
> The guy said what he meant.  And he did it in such a way as to make it impossible to take it any other way.  Just because you see his speech reduced to one sentence, doesn't mean that the one sentence you see isn't actually representative of the whole.
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no way to take it out of context, why did you edit out the part regarding roads and bridges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I didn't edit anything out*.  What I said was that there's no way to take any part of Obama's statement out of context.  ALL of it was _within_ the larger context regarding why he thinks it's okay to raise taxes on business.   The one sentence which appears to be the bone of contention _*"you didn't build that business"*_* is representative of the whole.*  IOW, complete context doesn't fix this.
> 
> No one is taking it literally as Obama saying 'government built your entire business'.  That's not what's happening.  But he makes it sound like government is some sort of  partner, like the public has some sort of small vested ownership interest, and that's just not so.
Click to expand...

Yes you did edit something out and it was Obama's own sumation that HE gave to represent the whole. And you know it!

Here is what dishonest CON$ deliberately edit out of Obama's speech:



> The point is, is that when we succeed,* we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together*.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama is minimizing the 'individual's' drive, determination and persistence in starting/running a business* and is pushing the 'collective' end of it as being more important.
> 
> Hmmmm, wonder where he got that notion from ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your MessiahRushie!!!
> 
> What Obama actually said and dishonest CON$ervoFascist scum like the Hreitage Foundation edited out was that business is successful not only from individual initative, but also from working together.
> 
> Here is what the dishonest scum always edit out of Obama's speech:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed,* we succeed because of our individual initiative,  but also because we do things together*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


FIFY.  The problem is in the last half of the sentence, where Obama infers a vested public interest in the PRIVATE enterprise of citizens.  He takes credit where none is due, as these businesses are already paying more than their "fair share", and he does all that in the context of trying to squeeze more dough out of them.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no way to take it out of context, why did you edit out the part regarding roads and bridges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't edit anything out*.  What I said was that there's no way to take any part of Obama's statement out of context.  ALL of it was _within_ the larger context regarding why he thinks it's okay to raise taxes on business.   The one sentence which appears to be the bone of contention _*"you didn't build that business"*_* is representative of the whole.*  IOW, complete context doesn't fix this.
> 
> No one is taking it literally as Obama saying 'government built your entire business'.  That's not what's happening.  But he makes it sound like government is some sort of  partner, like the public has some sort of small vested ownership interest, and that's just not so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you did edit something out and it was Obama's own sumation that HE gave to represent the whole. And you know it!
> 
> Here is what dishonest CON$ deliberately edit out of Obama's speech:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed,* we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What a coincidence... I was just fixing that on another thread for you. 

#2079



> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIFY. The problem is in the last half of the sentence, where Obama infers a vested public interest in the PRIVATE enterprise of citizens. He takes credit where none is due, as these businesses are already paying more than their "fair share", and he does all that in the context of trying to squeeze more dough out of them.
Click to expand...


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama is minimizing the 'individual's' drive, determination and persistence in starting/running a business* and is pushing the 'collective' end of it as being more important.
> 
> Hmmmm, wonder where he got that notion from ...
> 
> 
> 
> From your MessiahRushie!!!
> 
> What Obama actually said and dishonest CON$ervoFascist scum like the Hreitage Foundation edited out was that business is successful not only from individual initative, but also from working together.
> 
> Here is what the dishonest scum always edit out of Obama's speech:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed,* we succeed because of our individual initiative,  but also because we do things together*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FIFY.  The problem is in the last half of the sentence, where Obama infers a vested public interest in the PRIVATE enterprise of citizens.  He takes credit where none is due, as *these businesses are already paying more than their "fair share",* and he does all that in the context of trying to squeeze more dough out of them.
Click to expand...

And you are trying to deny credit where credit is due. Businesses do not pay their fair share, most Fortune 500 companies pay nothing. See the below report for the BOOM years 1998 to 2005!!!!



> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't edit anything out*.  What I said was that there's no way to take any part of Obama's statement out of context.  ALL of it was _within_ the larger context regarding why he thinks it's okay to raise taxes on business.   The one sentence which appears to be the bone of contention _*"you didn't build that business"*_* is representative of the whole.*  IOW, complete context doesn't fix this.
> 
> No one is taking it literally as Obama saying 'government built your entire business'.  That's not what's happening.  But he makes it sound like government is some sort of  partner, like the public has some sort of small vested ownership interest, and that's just not so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did edit something out and it was Obama's own sumation that HE gave to represent the whole. And you know it!
> 
> Here is what dishonest CON$ deliberately edit out of Obama's speech:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a coincidence... I was just fixing that on another thread for you.
> 
> #2079
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FIFY. The problem is in the last half of the sentence, where Obama infers a vested public interest in the PRIVATE enterprise of citizens. He takes credit where none is due, as these *businesses are already paying more than their "fair share"*, and he does all that in the context of trying to squeeze more dough out of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And what a coincidence, I gave you some missing info there. 

And you are trying to deny credit where credit is due. Businesses do not pay their fair share, most Fortune 500 companies pay nothing. See the below report for the BOOM years 1998 to 2005!!!!



> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

> 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&#8217;ve got a business. you didn&#8217;t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  *The Internet didn&#8217;t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.



It's chilling how Obama really reveals himself when speaking off-teleprompter.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your MessiahRushie!!!
> 
> What Obama actually said and dishonest CON$ervoFascist scum like the Hreitage Foundation edited out was that business is successful not only from individual initative, but also from working together.
> 
> Here is what the dishonest scum always edit out of Obama's speech:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIFY.  The problem is in the last half of the sentence, where Obama infers a vested public interest in the PRIVATE enterprise of citizens.  He takes credit where none is due, as *these businesses are already paying more than their "fair share",* and he does all that in the context of trying to squeeze more dough out of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are trying to deny credit where credit is due. Businesses do not pay their fair share, most Fortune 500 companies pay nothing. See the below report for the BOOM years 1998 to 2005!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That was shot down in the other thread too, Ed.   #155

What's more, small businesses owners don't typically organize their businesses in the same way giant corporations do.  We're talking LLC's and S corps.  But the biggest fallacy in this entire argument is that it's not political gamesmanship.  Obama and his Democrat cronies already KNOW that "taxing the rich" isn't really a drop in the bucket.
Would Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit? | LearnLiberty

This is all political rhetoric on his part, designed to _divide_ Americans and create the "class warfare" scenario he thinks will benefit him.  Envy is a natural human emotion, easy enough to stimulate.  What he's doing is attempting to capitalize on that.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did edit something out and it was Obama's own sumation that HE gave to represent the whole. And you know it!
> 
> Here is what dishonest CON$ deliberately edit out of Obama's speech:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a coincidence... I was just fixing that on another thread for you.
> 
> #2079
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what a coincidence, I gave you some missing info there.
> 
> And you are trying to deny credit where credit is due. Businesses do not pay their fair share, most Fortune 500 companies pay nothing. See the below report for the BOOM years 1998 to 2005!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Pick a thread, Ed.  Answered #2081


----------



## Chris

I agree.

Wall Street destroyed the world economy on their own.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

It is interesting to watch righty continue to use an edited, out of context comment as if it where true, and then to deny the truth of the obviously true comment.

My friends get angry at me when I call them terrorists, but when you insist on believing lies and repeating the lie, I can think of no greater harm to a society...

So, they are terrorists, period.


----------



## Billo_Really

Meister said:


> Just what did the residences do in a town with no business?  Even panning for gold is a business. farming is a business. sheesh.....


Only if you sell what you grow.


----------



## Chris

BP polluted the Gulf of Mexico on their own.


----------



## Chris

Banks manipulated the LIBOR rates on their own.


----------



## Chris

Insurance companies denied coverage to sick people on their own.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Chris said:


> I agree.
> 
> Wall Street destroyed the world economy on their own.



STFU and get me my latte Chrissy-poo.


----------



## Chris

Wall Street destroyed the world economy on their own.


----------



## Chris

Murdoch's henchmen hached a murdered teenager's phone on their own.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Chris said:


> Insurance companies denied coverage to sick people on their own.





My Gawd this one's fucking stupid... are you sure you aren't TdM's alternate userID?


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FIFY.  The problem is in the last half of the sentence, where Obama infers a vested public interest in the PRIVATE enterprise of citizens.  He takes credit where none is due, as *these businesses are already paying more than their "fair share",* and he does all that in the context of trying to squeeze more dough out of them.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are trying to deny credit where credit is due. Businesses do not pay their fair share, most Fortune 500 companies pay nothing. See the below report for the BOOM years 1998 to 2005!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was shot down in the other thread too, Ed.   #155
> 
> What's more, small businesses owners don't typically organize their businesses in the same way giant corporations do.  We're talking LLC's and S corps.  But the biggest fallacy in this entire argument is that it's not political gamesmanship.  Obama and his Democrat cronies already KNOW that* "taxing the rich" isn't really a drop in the bucket.*
> Would Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit? | LearnLiberty
> 
> This is all political rhetoric on his part, designed to _divide_ Americans and create the "class warfare" scenario he thinks will benefit him.  Envy is a natural human emotion, easy enough to stimulate.  What he's doing is attempting to capitalize on that.
Click to expand...

And Your answer was shot down in that thread too.

Your Freudian Slip contradicts your stupid video. 
Now of course, it all depends on who you are defining as "rich." If taxing thr rish doesn't work because they are too poor, taxing the poor because they are too rich must be the answer. (sarcasm) In reality the people the Right call "rich" are merely upper middle class WAGE EARNERS, not the truly rich. It's wage earners who pay the taxes, not the wealthy. It is the wealthy who are waging "class warfare" against the wage earner. Even your MessiahRushie admits it.

August 7, 2007
CALLER:  And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and* the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income*, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH:  It does,* exactly, and here's the dirty little secret* if you ever to pull it off.  It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. * You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income.*  I'm out of time.  I'll explain that. *There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income.  Earned income is what the income tax rate is on.  That's how "the rich" do it.  They don't have "earned" income. *
END TRANSCRIPT


----------



## francoHFW

We're talking about the greedy giant corporations whose lawyers and accountants bring the corporate rate down to effective 12%, whose CEOS average 350x the workers' pay, whose lobbyists run the country.. Get it right fcs...


----------



## Oldstyle

edthecynic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Krauthammer gets it.
> 
> 
> Did the state make you great? « Hot Air Headlines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama is minimizing the 'individual's' drive, determination and persistence in starting/running a business* and is pushing the 'collective' end of it as being more important.
> 
> Hmmmm, wonder where he got that notion from ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your MessiahRushie!!!
> 
> What Obama actually said and dishonest CON$ervoFascist scum like the Hreitage Foundation edited out was that business is successful not only from individual initative, but also from working together.
> 
> Here is what the dishonest scum always edit out of Obama's speech:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed,* we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So if I highlight the "but" part of Obama's speech does that counter your argument?  Let's face it, Ed...you've got a President sitting in the Oval Office that really doesn't understand how hard it is to run a business because quite frankly...he's never done it.  Barack Obama no more understands business than you and I understand brain surgery.  Through his words and his policies he repeatedly sends the message to the business community that any profits that they make through their labor REALLY belongs to the government until HE decides that they should get some back.  He sends THAT message and then scratches his head and wonders why he can't get them to invest their capital...it's an amusing bit of farce that's been going on now for three and a half years.


----------



## healthmyths

edthecynic said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure, since you printed some excerpts from the article yourself, that you must realize that the headline and text don't match, right?  The fact is, that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  It's also not surprising, given the overly complex nature of our tax law that some corporations don't pay on years when they can find a legal excuse not to.  Wasn't it GE under Jeffrey Immelt who, after every sort of sweet government deal one could imagine, not to mention having a warm, fuzzy relationship with Barack Obama, who didn't pay anything recently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of those companies paid employees' Medicare/social security/FUTA taxes!
> NO companies could be in USA with out paying those taxes !
> That was my point!  You never addressed that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I did!
> I pointed out that none of those taxes builds roads or bridges.
Click to expand...


So what kind of "taxes" builds roads or bridges?
It is MY understanding any person or company that buys GAS pays the Federal govt 18 cents per gallon and  average state is 20.9 cents... and that tax money DEFINITELY is used to build roads and bridges.. guess you've Never heard of the Interstate system???


----------



## Foxfyre

I will concede one component of this discussion that I agree with those on the left, including the President, that 'we are all in this together."  But I don't think any of you making the argument that this makes the President correct have a clue of how or why we are all in this together. 

We are all in this together because we each profit from our own activity that is made possible by others profiting from their own labor.   And despite all the millions of components that go into the process of each one of us doing our jobs, it works pretty well IF government stays out of it and doesn't try to manipulate or micromanage it.  Government can't enlist enough people with enough expertise to run an economy.  At least to anybody's benefit other than a very few chosen to be blessed by the same government.

Walter Williams explained it beautifully in this essay excerpted here:



> Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling.
> 
> Let's think about it.
> 
> The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items &#8212; canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.
> 
> But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk &#8212; people are greedy.



In other words, yes we are all in it together but not in a way that obligates us to  each other.  He who is obligated to another, other than voluntarily, is not a free person.  And certainly a government who obligates us for the benefit of others, most especially itself, takes away freedoms from the people.

Williams went on:


> Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." . . . And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."



Walter Williams


----------



## Mac1958

.  

I think the final score here is that business owners need to shut the fuck up because they drive on roads.

Next?

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

loinboy said:


> Everyone of you right-wing idiots are total morons.  You deliberately took Obama's statements out of context and changed the entire meaning of what he was saying.  He did not say what you say he said.  You're bunch of fuckin' liars and I see no reason why anyone would vote for your kind of bullshit!
> 
> Obama was talking about the roads and bridges businesses use to transport their products to market.    Those businesses did not build the roads and bridges.  We did.  The American taxpayer built those roads and bridges and made it possible for businesses to flourish.
> 
> I swear to God, you people are  as dumb as it gets.



So far no one has been able to take those words, put them into context, and prove to me that he did not mean what he said. That probably explains why he is running an ad saying that Romney is lying when he quotes Obama.


----------



## tjvh

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I think the final score here is that business owners need to shut the fuck up because they drive on roads.
> 
> Next?
> 
> .



Roads *paid* for with Gas taxes, and Tolls *by the people*... NOT by the Government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think its gonna turn around and bite him in the ass.
> 
> Try telling a business owner that he didn't pour his heart, soul, capital, time and effort into his business.  Tell him he didn't make sacrifices to keep his dream alive. Tell him someone else did it for him. Tell him he owes it all to someone else.
> 
> Yeah. That oughta go over big with business owners especially coming from a guy who's never held a real job in his entire life.
> 
> Jesus. Obamas a schmuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, most businesses couldn't survive without government.  It's just most of them are too arrogant to admit it.
> 
> Your store couldn't exist without government run utilities, government provided protection, and government provided roads so goods and customers could get to it.  Nor would you be able to educate employees to the level of competence if the government hadn't taught them how to do math and read first.
> 
> Conservatives used to be for more efficient, more lean government.  Now government has become the enemy... and that's just kind of sad.
Click to expand...


Strange.

There are lots of stores on the East Coast that stayed open despite the fact that the government run utilities crapped out in a thunderstorm. Best part of that story, it isn't the businesses that want to force people to pay for the lost revenue because of the storm, it is the government run utilities that think they should get paid despite the fact that they didn't provide a service.

You cannot win this one. Go tell your momma I was mean to you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the paid trolls are gone and then devolve into partisan nonsense and historical bullshit.
> 
> Have you even read the Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> You think that means "every man for himself"?
> 
> It's not the Individual States of America. It's the UNITED States of America.
> 
> Just what do you think all of this means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And do you think that 'for the support of this declaration' translates into for the support of each other?   Do you really think that is what it says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I read the rest of the sentence. Pledge to each other our LIVES, FORTUNES AND SACRED HONOR.
> 
> 
> It means exactly what it says.
> 
> And just like Obamas statement, it not means what you think it means if you take it out of context and put partisan spin on it.
Click to expand...


To accomplish the REVOLUTION Vidi, to accomplish the REVOLUTION, not for all purposes for all reasons for the rest of their lives.  To a man they were almost 100% opposed to ANY form of welfare state or ANY action of government that would obligate anybody beyond the most narrow of definitions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

LoneLaugher said:


> Obama has never said or inferred that which you are claiming he did. You say you are reading between the lines. What you are doing is making shit up.



That explains why he is running an ad calling Romney a liar for quoting exactly what he said.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

LoneLaugher said:


> Dumbass. Taxpayers ARE the government. The humans that make the decisions regarding how we are governed are duly elected to do so as per the USC.
> 
> This is simple stuff. Why can't you grasp it?



No, the government works for taxpayers. Most of the people in the government making decisions are not elected by anyone.


----------



## GuyPinestra

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did edit something out and it was Obama's own sumation that HE gave to represent the whole. And you know it!
> 
> Here is what dishonest CON$ deliberately edit out of Obama's speech:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a coincidence... I was just fixing that on another thread for you.
> 
> #2079
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what a coincidence, I gave you some missing info there.
> 
> And you are trying to deny credit where credit is due. Businesses do not pay their fair share, most Fortune 500 companies pay nothing. See the below report for the BOOM years 1998 to 2005!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There are almost 6 million individual businesses in the US, and all you can talk about is the Fortune 500. 

If 57% paid no tax in at least one year of 7, one of 2 things happened. Either that business A.)made oodles of money and paid a sharp accounting firm, or B.)they barely made ends meet. Since the average business usually takes 3 years to actually make a profit, chances are better than 50/50 that the answer is B.

Also, 57% over 7 years breaks down to 8% per year, meaning 92% of businesses PAID taxes EACH AND EVERY YEAR.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are trying to deny credit where credit is due. Businesses do not pay their fair share, most Fortune 500 companies pay nothing. See the below report for the BOOM years 1998 to 2005!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was shot down in the other thread too, Ed.   #155
> 
> What's more, small businesses owners don't typically organize their businesses in the same way giant corporations do.  We're talking LLC's and S corps.  But the biggest fallacy in this entire argument is that it's not political gamesmanship.  Obama and his Democrat cronies already KNOW that* "taxing the rich" isn't really a drop in the bucket.*
> Would Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit? | LearnLiberty
> 
> This is all political rhetoric on his part, designed to _divide_ Americans and create the "class warfare" scenario he thinks will benefit him.  Envy is a natural human emotion, easy enough to stimulate.  What he's doing is attempting to capitalize on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Your answer was shot down in that thread too.
> 
> Your Freudian Slip contradicts your stupid video.
> Now of course, it all depends on who you are defining as "rich." If taxing thr rish doesn't work because they are too poor, taxing the poor because they are too rich must be the answer. (sarcasm) In reality the people the Right call "rich" are merely upper middle class WAGE EARNERS, not the truly rich. It's wage earners who pay the taxes, not the wealthy. It is the wealthy who are waging "class warfare" against the wage earner. Even your MessiahRushie admits it.
> 
> August 7, 2007
> CALLER:  And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and* the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income*, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.
> 
> RUSH:  It does,* exactly, and here's the dirty little secret* if you ever to pull it off.  It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. * You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income.*  I'm out of time.  I'll explain that. *There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income.  Earned income is what the income tax rate is on.  That's how "the rich" do it.  They don't have "earned" income. *
> END TRANSCRIPT
Click to expand...


You seem to be missing the point again.  We could confiscate every dime from "the rich" and maybe pay one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.
Bill Whittle On Eating "The Rich" | RealClearPolitics

Obama is playing games with you. And you... are letting him.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> It's not the Individual States of America. It's the UNITED States of America.
> 
> Just what do you think all of this means?



Dear, we are united merely as a federation, but we have no national government.

The Founders intent was very very clear. They gave the Federal government  a few enumerated powers in the Constutution. When the Founders governed under their Constutition they maintained a very very limited government.

Welcome to your first lesson in American History


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I think the final score here is that business owners need to shut the fuck up because they drive on roads.
> 
> Next?
> 
> .



but the poor drive on roads too????


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you for not just quoting out of context. Your statement I believe accurate reflects what Obama meant.
> 
> And frankly, its true. I know that Republicans may feel in their hearts that business success - particularly their own - is 100% due to their efforts, but the facts and the evidence tell us otherwise. Everywhere you look, you'll see the influence of the greatest public-private partnership in all of history - the scientific and technological complex, a web of public and private entities, some motivated by quest for profit, others by quest for knowledge, still others by quest of national defense - all leading to best economy in the world.
> 
> Public v. Private is simply not that simple, in other words.
> 
> If all of science was funded by the public, there would be a lot more advances in general scientific theories but no concentration on the kind that would benefit the economy. Obviously business would suffer dearly.
> 
> If all of science is funded by the private, we'll do fine for a while but over several decades, we'll fall way being in science, and the technology will eventually suffer. Most private enterprise simply has no interest in funding science whose benefits may not be realized for decades upon decades to come. Einstein's relativity would have never come about had there only been private funding of science - yet his theory is now crucial to the functioning of something most of us even take for granted now - GPS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Obama meant was that he's finally out of his Marxist closet and lovingly embraces his Inner Mao
Click to expand...


I could see how a rightie might conclude that in a feewings based approach, but not ina facts and evidence based approach.


----------



## saveliberty

Foxfyre said:


> I will concede one component of this discussion that I agree with those on the left, including the President, that 'we are all in this together."  But I don't think any of you making the argument that this makes the President correct have a clue of how or why we are all in this together.
> 
> We are all in this together because we each profit from our own activity that is made possible by others profiting from their own labor.   And despite all the millions of components that go into the process of each one of us doing our jobs, it works pretty well IF government stays out of it and doesn't try to manipulate or micromanage it.  Government can't enlist enough people with enough expertise to run an economy.  At least to anybody's benefit other than a very few chosen to be blessed by the same government.
> 
> Walter Williams explained it beautifully in this essay excerpted here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling.
> 
> Let's think about it.
> 
> The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items  canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.
> 
> But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk  people are greedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, yes we are all in it together but not in a way that obligates us to  each other.  He who is obligated to another, other than voluntarily, is not a free person.  And certainly a government who obligates us for the benefit of others, most especially itself, takes away freedoms from the people.
> 
> Williams went on:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." . . . And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walter Williams
Click to expand...


As a side note Foxfyre, I think when you add government there are winners and losers choosen.  Rarely does government help everyone equally.


----------



## The T

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you for not just quoting out of context. Your statement I believe accurate reflects what Obama meant.
> 
> And frankly, its true. I know that Republicans may feel in their hearts that business success - particularly their own - is 100% due to their efforts, but the facts and the evidence tell us otherwise. Everywhere you look, you'll see the influence of the greatest public-private partnership in all of history - the scientific and technological complex, a web of public and private entities, some motivated by quest for profit, others by quest for knowledge, still others by quest of national defense - all leading to best economy in the world.
> 
> Public v. Private is simply not that simple, in other words.
> 
> If all of science was funded by the public, there would be a lot more advances in general scientific theories but no concentration on the kind that would benefit the economy. Obviously business would suffer dearly.
> 
> If all of science is funded by the private, we'll do fine for a while but over several decades, we'll fall way being in science, and the technology will eventually suffer. Most private enterprise simply has no interest in funding science whose benefits may not be realized for decades upon decades to come. Einstein's relativity would have never come about had there only been private funding of science - yet his theory is now crucial to the functioning of something most of us even take for granted now - GPS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Obama meant was that he's finally out of his Marxist closet and lovingly embraces his Inner Mao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could see how a rightie might conclude that in a* feewings based approach, but not ina facts and evidence based approach*.
Click to expand...

 
Feewings Gracie? WTF are you bantering about?  

Why don't you just spell out that YOU are projecting?


----------



## regent

At times we are so used to seeing something that we are blind to the implications of what we are seeing. Sort of reminds me of the law of gravity; how many people were aware of gravity as being unusual until Newton.  
How many of us believed that we we're  independent creatures not needing anyone or any thing but ourselves. Then we think about it and realize how dependent we really are. People certainly seem to flock together and seem dependent on others despite the Republcian handbook on rugged individualism. And so another Republican truth falls to the floor with so many others. But not to worry, a new manual of snappy Republican truths and phrases will soon be out. How about, "Please Uncle Sam, I'd rather do it myself," it was a grabber in the Sixties?"


----------



## Mr. Shaman

> "There's nowhere else in the world, *nowhere else in the world*, that people can accrue the kind of fortunes that happen here. And that's because of the kind of country we have.
> 
> And the kind of country we have is a function of the taxes that we pay to provide security, we have a stable market, you can predict next week will be pretty much like the week before.
> 
> We have the most immense investment being made by our government in advancing businesses by supporting the enormous research industry that's going on in this country. And it's that piece of government expenditure that which has everything to do with the health and robustness of our economy."
> 
> *Bill Gates, Sr.*
> 
> (More *business-wise* than the average *Teabagger*)​



​


----------



## healthmyths

JoeB131 said:


> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of you right-wing idiots are total morons.  You deliberately took Obama's statements out of context and changed the entire meaning of what he was saying.  He did not say what you say he said.  You're bunch of fuckin' liars and I see no reason why anyone would vote for your kind of bullshit!
> 
> Obama was talking about the roads and bridges businesses use to transport their products to market.    Those businesses did not build the roads and bridges.  We did.  The American taxpayer built those roads and bridges and made it possible for businesses to flourish.
> 
> I swear to God, you people are  as dumb as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go on and keep thinking that.
> We all know on the surface what Obama said, and actually it was a "duh" moment if I've ever heard one.
> Everyone knows how our roads, bridges, infrastructure etc. comes about, we're not children needing a Sesame Street lesson.
> But we conservatives know the underlying message Obama sent. It's one we're very familliar with.
> We know how liberals work, and how they will always give credit only to the workers of a business, or government entity, and all the while vilifying the business owner, or corporate CEO. Never giving credit to the people who front the money, work the long hours, deal with the stress of meeting payrolls, or whether they're going to lose their shirt.
> You guys will never understand what we heard between the lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think some of you are in need of a Sesame Street lesson, after the Short Bus picks you up.  And what you hear between the lines is more about what you bring into the conversation, not is what actually said.
> 
> I frankly get tired of treating the CEO's and Owners like heroes.  Most of these people are only kept afloat because their workers put in so many hours, and when I hear one of these assholes say how lazy their employees are on their way to the golf course, there's really no sympathy. And usually when things go south, these folks can't screw over their workers fast enough.
Click to expand...


I agree with you 1%!  Yes there are those rare,exceptional and not long for their job CEOs owners that are what you hyperbolized.
Yes 1 of every 100 do complain bout lazy while playing golf,etc. whatever you said!
1.
But if the other 99 were as you described there would be NO businesses. You know why?
Because there would be NO customers for their businesses!
Without customers no business.

Because if the 99 of 100 were as you said there would be no businesses!


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Aww shucks, that about sums it up, dont it

LOL


----------



## saveliberty

If we all got these great benefits from the government, why do we have to give even more to those who failed to achieve?


----------



## Mac1958

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I think the final score here is that business owners need to shut the fuck up because they drive on roads.
> 
> Next?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but the poor drive on roads too????
Click to expand...



It doesn't matter.

The poor work harder than business owners.

Because they drive on roads.

Something like that.

.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mac1958 said:


> The poor work harder than business owners.



but dear BO didn't say the poor work harder than the rich and so the rich need to pay even more.

Do you have the IQ to know the subject??


----------



## saveliberty

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor work harder than business owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but dear BO didn't say the poor work harder than the rich and so the rich need to pay even more.
> 
> Do you have the IQ to know the subject??
Click to expand...


At least he has the honesty to use an entire quote.


----------



## Mac1958

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor work harder than business owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but dear BO didn't say the poor work harder than the rich and so the rich need to pay even more.
> 
> Do you have the IQ to know the subject??
Click to expand...




No, probably not, as a business owner I'm also not as smart as my employees.  Obama mocked that too, he's President, he must be right.

What's your point?

.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Mac1958 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor work harder than business owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but dear BO didn't say the poor work harder than the rich and so the rich need to pay even more.
> 
> Do you have the IQ to know the subject??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, probably not, as a business owner I'm also not as smart as my employees.  Obama mocked that too, he's President, he must be right.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

born racist and or bigot or did someone beat you up?

i am doing a survey


----------



## francoHFW

Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
Myopic twits...


----------



## Mac1958

ConzHateUSA said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> but dear BO didn't say the poor work harder than the rich and so the rich need to pay even more.
> 
> Do you have the IQ to know the subject??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, probably not, as a business owner I'm also not as smart as my employees.  Obama mocked that too, he's President, he must be right.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> born racist and or bigot or did someone beat you up?
> 
> i am doing a survey
Click to expand...



Wait, speak up, my white hood was over my ears.

Beg yer pardon?

.


----------



## francoHFW

And thanks for the depression, dupes.


----------



## Listening

francoHFW said:


> Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
> Myopic twits...



Why don't you move to a country where you pay more taxes if it makes you so happy ?

I keep pointing out that Cuba would love to have you and we would love to be rid of your sorry liberal ass.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Mac1958 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, probably not, as a business owner I'm also not as smart as my employees.  Obama mocked that too, he's President, he must be right.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> born racist and or bigot or did someone beat you up?
> 
> i am doing a survey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, speak up, my white hood was over my ears.
> 
> Beg yer pardon?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


a. bigot or racist?
b. born that way or beaten up?


----------



## Mac1958

ConzHateUSA said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> born racist and or bigot or did someone beat you up?
> 
> i am doing a survey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, speak up, my white hood was over my ears.
> 
> Beg yer pardon?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a. bigot or racist?
> b. born that way or beaten up?
Click to expand...




Yes!


.


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> born racist and or bigot or did someone beat you up?
> 
> i am doing a survey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, speak up, my white hood was over my ears.
> 
> Beg yer pardon?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a. bigot or racist?
> b. born that way or beaten up?
Click to expand...

 
Parroting your life story s0n? Projecting?

IDIOT.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Mac1958 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, speak up, my white hood was over my ears.
> 
> Beg yer pardon?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a. bigot or racist?
> b. born that way or beaten up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


white =  racist
minority  =  bigot

you let us know which when you get the nerve


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> a. bigot or racist?
> b. born that way or beaten up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> white = racist
> minority = bigot
> 
> you let us know which when you get the nerve
Click to expand...

 
I have it NOW.

Ready to rock hack?


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
> Myopic twits...



Says the liberals who HATE this nation, accuse our founders being hateful racists, cry for oppresive Communist control, and disrespect the flag AND the men & women who serve it....


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only question liberals know the answer to is where the welfare checks are handed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
Click to expand...


Learn to read dickweed....I didn't say only liberals were on welfare.  After you little rant it is clear that you can't even take the time to understand what is being said before you engage your fingers on the keyboard and make a fool out of yourself.

I didn't say liberals were the only ones on welfare and I didn't say "welfare" is bad.  I also don't include Social Security and Medicare in the general classification of "welfare".

Moron.

Obamacare cuts my HSA limit in half.  Thanks for making my healthcare more expensive.


----------



## P@triot

Listening said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
> Myopic twits...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you move to a country where you pay more taxes if it makes you so happy ?
> 
> I keep pointing out that Cuba would love to have you and we would love to be rid of your sorry liberal ass.
Click to expand...


Because they know that in Cuba - everyone is just like them - a worthless parasites. So they have no one to mooch off of like they do here. Despite falsely demonizing conservatives to further their Communist agenda, they know they need us conservatives to provide for them.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Rottweiler said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
> Myopic twits...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you move to a country where you pay more taxes if it makes you so happy ?
> 
> I keep pointing out that Cuba would love to have you and we would love to be rid of your sorry liberal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they know that in Cuba - everyone is just like them - a worthless parasites. So they have no one to mooch off of like they do here. Despite falsely demonizing conservatives to further their Communist agenda, they know they need us conservatives to provide for them.
Click to expand...


I tell my friends about you disgusting pieces of human filth, but they dont believe me, the type who dont think they care about politics, they dont know you disgusting scum exist, sitting there hating everything and everyone the way you do...


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.



No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - only liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
Click to expand...


you are a liar
you are a moron
you are the closest thing we have to a nazi, but i wont call you a nazi, you havent earned that _yet_


----------



## Mac1958

.

My only regret is that I haven't kept track of all the names I've been called because I didn't like what Obama said about business owners.  Just a few, off the top of my pointy little head:

_Bigot
Racist
Clueless
Twit
Liar
Idiot
Fucking idiot_

Crap.  There has to be at least a half dozen more.  I always think about compiling lists like this when it's too late.  Good thing I've been married nearly 30 years, the name-calling doesn't bug me.

.


----------



## saveliberty

ConzHateUSA said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - only liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a liar
> you are a moron
> you are the closest thing we have to a nazi, but i wont call you a nazi, you havent earned that _yet_
Click to expand...


Most two-year olds throw smaller tantrums.


----------



## saveliberty

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> My only regret is that I haven't kept track of all the names I've been called because I didn't like what Obama said about business owners.  Just a few, off the top of my pointy little head:
> 
> _Bigot
> Racist
> Clueless
> Twit
> Liar
> Idiot
> Fucking idiot_
> 
> Crap.  There has to be at least a half dozen more.  I always think about compiling lists like this when it's too late.  Good thing I've been married nearly 30 years, the name-calling doesn't bug me.
> 
> .



Add heartless.  Clearly you should have been reduced to a pile of tears by these words.


----------



## The T

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
Click to expand...

 
And why they're defending it. Thier way of life of being leeches is threatened.


----------



## naturegirl

This truly is not much different than what he said in 2009, he told businesses they couldn't make profits so they held on to their $$$$, now he's telling them they didn't get there on their own.  :wacko:  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-N_DPNve44]Obama says now is not the time for companies to make profits! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mac1958

saveliberty said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> My only regret is that I haven't kept track of all the names I've been called because I didn't like what Obama said about business owners.  Just a few, off the top of my pointy little head:
> 
> _Bigot
> Racist
> Clueless
> Twit
> Liar
> Idiot
> Fucking idiot_
> 
> Crap.  There has to be at least a half dozen more.  I always think about compiling lists like this when it's too late.  Good thing I've been married nearly 30 years, the name-calling doesn't bug me.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add heartless.  Clearly you should have been reduced to a pile of tears by these words.
Click to expand...



Yeah, good one!  Put it in there!



.


----------



## francoHFW

TY, ugly "Merican haters- I'm a retired teacher, no loudmouth moron. LOL


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will concede one component of this discussion that I agree with those on the left, including the President, that 'we are all in this together."  But I don't think any of you making the argument that this makes the President correct have a clue of how or why we are all in this together.
> 
> We are all in this together because we each profit from our own activity that is made possible by others profiting from their own labor.   And despite all the millions of components that go into the process of each one of us doing our jobs, it works pretty well IF government stays out of it and doesn't try to manipulate or micromanage it.  Government can't enlist enough people with enough expertise to run an economy.  At least to anybody's benefit other than a very few chosen to be blessed by the same government.
> 
> Walter Williams explained it beautifully in this essay excerpted here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling.
> 
> Let's think about it.
> 
> The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items &#8212; canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.
> 
> But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk &#8212; people are greedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, yes we are all in it together but not in a way that obligates us to  each other.  He who is obligated to another, other than voluntarily, is not a free person.  And certainly a government who obligates us for the benefit of others, most especially itself, takes away freedoms from the people.
> 
> Williams went on:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." . . . And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walter Williams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a side note Foxfyre, I think when you add government there are winners and losers choosen.  Rarely does government help everyone equally.
Click to expand...


You are correct.   There are some who will NEVER use those roads and therefore don't benefit from them in the same way others do, yet we ALL benefit from them because we ALL have to consume something simply in order to live.  And most of that which we consume is transported, delivered, and made available to us via the same roads.  The guy using them proactively to transport consumable products is of course going to receive more benefit than is the guy who benefits only in the most passive way.

But the point Williams was making is that the way a free people is interconnected is not necessarily in mutual cooperation though the people may find that to be beneficial too.  Most of us benefit from each other only incidentally.  The guy in Venezuela doesn't know I exist when he operates the oil well that pumps a barrel of crude that eventually, through the participation of millions of people in multiple countries, makes its way into the tank of my car in the form of unleaded gasoline.   He doesn't care about me in the least.  He might or might not throw me a rope if I was drowining.

But he nevertheless played a role in me having gasoline to fuel my car.

THAT is how we all work together to accomplish what we accomplish.  Yes, I couldn't prosper by doing my own thing unless millions of others of you are also doing your own thing to put bread on your respective tables.  And not one of us is fully aware of how we are benefitting anybody else, but we do simply by looking to our own interests.

And still, despite all that, nobody built my business and made it profitable but me.


----------



## Mac1958

ConzHateUSA said:


> I tell my friends about you disgusting pieces of human filth, but they dont believe me, the type who dont think they care about politics, they dont know you disgusting scum exist, sitting there hating everything and everyone the way you do...




One must appreciate the irony of our friend here saying that OTHERS hate.

Ya just gotta love this board.

.


----------



## naturegirl

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will concede one component of this discussion that I agree with those on the left, including the President, that 'we are all in this together."  But I don't think any of you making the argument that this makes the President correct have a clue of how or why we are all in this together.
> 
> We are all in this together because we each profit from our own activity that is made possible by others profiting from their own labor.   And despite all the millions of components that go into the process of each one of us doing our jobs, it works pretty well IF government stays out of it and doesn't try to manipulate or micromanage it.  Government can't enlist enough people with enough expertise to run an economy.  At least to anybody's benefit other than a very few chosen to be blessed by the same government.
> 
> Walter Williams explained it beautifully in this essay excerpted here:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, yes we are all in it together but not in a way that obligates us to  each other.  He who is obligated to another, other than voluntarily, is not a free person.  And certainly a government who obligates us for the benefit of others, most especially itself, takes away freedoms from the people.
> 
> Williams went on:
> 
> 
> Walter Williams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a side note Foxfyre, I think when you add government there are winners and losers choosen.  Rarely does government help everyone equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct.   There are some who will NEVER use those roads and therefore don't benefit from them in the same way others do, yet we ALL benefit from them because we ALL have to consume something simply in order to live.  And most of that which we consume is transported, delivered, and made available to us via the same roads.  The guy using them proactively to transport consumable products is of course going to receive more benefit than is the guy who benefits only in the most passive way.
> 
> But the point Williams was making is that the way a free people is interconnected is not necessarily in mutual cooperation though the people may find that to be beneficial too.  Most of us benefit from each other only incidentally.  The guy in Venezuela doesn't know I exist when he operates the oil well that pumps a barrel of crude that eventually, through the participation of millions of people in multiple countries, makes its way into the tank of my car in the form of unleaded gasoline.   He doesn't care about me in the least.  He might or might not throw me a rope if I was drowining.
> 
> But he nevertheless played a role in me having gasoline to fuel my car.
> 
> THAT is how we all work together to accomplish what we accomplish.  Yes, I couldn't prosper by doing my own thing unless millions of others of you are also doing your own thing to put bread on your respective tables.  And not one of us is fully aware of how we are benefitting anybody else, but we do simply by looking to our own interests.
> 
> And still, despite all that, nobody built my business and made it profitable but me.
Click to expand...


People seem to forget there was an America before the industrial revolution.  There was an America before electricity and running water.  I guess those early pioneers didn't make it on their own.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

continued stupid, post after post after post after post

sheesh


----------



## Oddball

ConzHateUSA said:


> continued stupid, post after post after post after post
> 
> sheesh


The first step to recovery is to recognize you have a problem.

Good job.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Oddball said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> continued stupid, post after post after post after post
> 
> sheesh
> 
> 
> 
> The first step to recovery is to recognize you have a problem.
> 
> Good job.
Click to expand...


young man, how do you expect to ever get out of that basement if you insist on continuing to talk back to your superiors?


----------



## Katzndogz

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
Click to expand...


Only liberals are OWED welfare.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Katzndogz said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only liberals are OWED welfare.
Click to expand...


You dont know who is on welfare and who isnt...

You dont know anything about history, you really are an incredibly stupid person, seriously

You might want to get a real education first.


----------



## edthecynic

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama is minimizing the 'individual's' drive, determination and persistence in starting/running a business* and is pushing the 'collective' end of it as being more important.
> 
> Hmmmm, wonder where he got that notion from ...
> 
> 
> 
> From your MessiahRushie!!!
> 
> What Obama actually said and dishonest CON$ervoFascist scum like the Hreitage Foundation edited out was that business is successful not only from individual initative, but also from working together.
> 
> Here is what the dishonest scum always edit out of Obama's speech:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed,* we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So if I highlight the "but" part of Obama's speech does that counter your argument?*  Let's face it, Ed...you've got a President sitting in the Oval Office that really doesn't understand how hard it is to run a business because quite frankly...he's never done it.  Barack Obama no more understands business than you and I understand brain surgery.  Through his words and his policies he repeatedly sends the message to the business community that any profits that they make through their labor REALLY belongs to the government until HE decides that they should get some back.  He sends THAT message and then scratches his head and wonders why he can't get them to invest their capital...it's an amusing bit of farce that's been going on now for three and a half years.
Click to expand...

No, because it says "but ALSO" as you well know. Clearly he is saying that individual initiative goes together with cooperation to produce the GREATEST success. The rest of what you say is what GOP hate radio has brainwashed you with.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

I know, lets erase 200 yrs of racism and having whites in charge of everything at the end of a gun, and start over, game?

Here is how we do it, take all the land and money and natural resources away from everyone in the USofA...

Make everyone equal, for instance members of the Walton family wont have billions that they worked not one hour for, and poor people wouldnt be living in shacks, etc.

Then give each adult person a check for One Million dollars, and say go!



You white old fat baggers will then have the same chance as everyone else, fair?


----------



## Mr.Nick

ConzHateUSA said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are OWED welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont know who is on welfare and who isnt...
> 
> You dont know anything about history, you really are an incredibly stupid person, seriously
> 
> You might want to get a real education first.
Click to expand...


Oh I know who is on welfare and who isn't...... 

You might want to get a street education first... 

Obviously you have never seen a fucking housing project - EVER, or even taken a trip through the ghetto. They're all on welfare, and many are selling drugs or selling their "link cards" (food stamps) for 50 cents on the dollar.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

edthecynic said:


> The rest of what you say is what GOP hate radio has brainwashed you with.



does the brain dead liberal think our founders listened to GOP hate radio too since they also wanted  limited government and limited taxes??

why not go to Cuba instead of subverting our country. BO has an excuse, he had 2 communist parents. What is your excuse?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Mr.Nick said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are OWED welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know who is on welfare and who isnt...
> 
> You dont know anything about history, you really are an incredibly stupid person, seriously
> 
> You might want to get a real education first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I know who is on welfare and who isn't......
> 
> You might want to get a street education first...
> 
> Obviously you have never seen a fucking housing project - EVER, or even taken a trip through the ghetto. They're all on welfare, and many are selling drugs or selling their "link cards" (food stamps) for 50 cents on the dollar.
Click to expand...


wanna take my challenge
??




I know, lets erase 200 yrs of racism and having whites in charge of everything at the end of a gun, and start over, game?

Here is how we do it, take all the land and money and natural resources away from everyone in the USofA...

Make everyone equal, for instance members of the Walton family wont have billions that they worked not one hour for, and poor people wouldnt be living in shacks, etc.

Then give each adult person a check for One Million dollars, and say go!



You white old fat baggers will then have the same chance as everyone else, fair?


----------



## Foxfyre

naturegirl said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a side note Foxfyre, I think when you add government there are winners and losers choosen.  Rarely does government help everyone equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.   There are some who will NEVER use those roads and therefore don't benefit from them in the same way others do, yet we ALL benefit from them because we ALL have to consume something simply in order to live.  And most of that which we consume is transported, delivered, and made available to us via the same roads.  The guy using them proactively to transport consumable products is of course going to receive more benefit than is the guy who benefits only in the most passive way.
> 
> But the point Williams was making is that the way a free people is interconnected is not necessarily in mutual cooperation though the people may find that to be beneficial too.  Most of us benefit from each other only incidentally.  The guy in Venezuela doesn't know I exist when he operates the oil well that pumps a barrel of crude that eventually, through the participation of millions of people in multiple countries, makes its way into the tank of my car in the form of unleaded gasoline.   He doesn't care about me in the least.  He might or might not throw me a rope if I was drowining.
> 
> But he nevertheless played a role in me having gasoline to fuel my car.
> 
> THAT is how we all work together to accomplish what we accomplish.  Yes, I couldn't prosper by doing my own thing unless millions of others of you are also doing your own thing to put bread on your respective tables.  And not one of us is fully aware of how we are benefitting anybody else, but we do simply by looking to our own interests.
> 
> And still, despite all that, nobody built my business and made it profitable but me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People seem to forget there was an America before the industrial revolution.  There was an America before electricity and running water.  I guess those early pioneers didn't make it on their own.
Click to expand...


Even those early pioneers benefitted from other people who had never met the pioneers and didn't give a damn about them except maybe for some as customers.  Only the guy who winds up naked and alone on a desert island is truly whole self contained.  He has to find native raw materials to make every tool, every piece of his shelter, etc. etc. if he survives.

The Pioneers benefitted from somebody originally bringing horses or mules or oxen to this country and most likely from people they would never meet who manufactured harnesses, wagon wheels, and wove the flour sacks that doubled to carry flour, other provisions, and also were made into clothing.  Even the Amish, despite their chosen relatively primitive lifestyle, still sell stuff to others and use the money they earn to buy stuff at the store.

The concept here though is whether us 'all being in this together' is everybody earning their own bread for their own benefit but inadvertently helping everybody else in the process, or whether this is supposed to be a proactive process with everybody intentionally helping everybody else as the President and his defenders seem to suggest.  Not only would the latter likely be really detrimental to an efficient and effective economy if WE tried to do that, it is a disastrous process when the government presumes it has the expertise and ability to do that.


----------



## Katzndogz

ConzHateUSA said:


> I know, lets erase 200 yrs of racism and having whites in charge of everything at the end of a gun, and start over, game?
> 
> Here is how we do it, take all the land and money and natural resources away from everyone in the USofA...
> 
> Make everyone equal, for instance members of the Walton family wont have billions that they worked not one hour for, and poor people wouldnt be living in shacks, etc.
> 
> Then give each adult person a check for One Million dollars, and say go!
> 
> 
> 
> You white old fat baggers will then have the same chance as everyone else, fair?



In one year, maybe less, all the formerly rich people would be rich, and and the formerly poor people would be poor.

How does that work?  Lets give poor people millions of dollars, for lack of a better word, let's call it the Lotto.  Megabucks maybe.  See how long it takes them to be back on welfare.

Take a rich person and give then a bad year in the stock market.  They lose all they have.  How long does it take them to be rich?

Easy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mr.Nick said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are OWED welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know who is on welfare and who isnt...
> 
> You dont know anything about history, you really are an incredibly stupid person, seriously
> 
> You might want to get a real education first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I know who is on welfare and who isn't......
> 
> You might want to get a street education first...
> 
> Obviously you have never seen a fucking housing project - EVER, or even taken a trip through the ghetto. They're all on welfare, and many are selling drugs or selling their "link cards" (food stamps) for 50 cents on the dollar.
Click to expand...


Once I overheard a poor woman meeting someone she had not seen since high school. She bragged about her Section 8 subsidy just the way a real American would brag about the great job or business they had.

Liberals have all but destroyed the soul of America. THey should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know who is on welfare and who isnt...
> 
> You dont know anything about history, you really are an incredibly stupid person, seriously
> 
> You might want to get a real education first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I know who is on welfare and who isn't......
> 
> You might want to get a street education first...
> 
> Obviously you have never seen a fucking housing project - EVER, or even taken a trip through the ghetto. They're all on welfare, and many are selling drugs or selling their "link cards" (food stamps) for 50 cents on the dollar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once I overheard a poor woman meeting someone she had not seen since high school. She bragged about her Section 8 subsidy just the way a real American would brag about the great job or business they had.
> 
> Liberals have all but destroyed the soul of America. THey should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.
Click to expand...

nobody believes your lies, trust me

look, this isnt a debate, there is not a single topic where you are right and i am wrong

not one

sorry


----------



## Mr.Nick

ConzHateUSA said:


> I know, lets erase 200 yrs of racism and having whites in charge of everything at the end of a gun, and start over, game?
> 
> Here is how we do it, take all the land and money and natural resources away from everyone in the USofA...
> 
> Make everyone equal, for instance members of the Walton family wont have billions that they worked not one hour for, and poor people wouldnt be living in shacks, etc.
> 
> Then give each adult person a check for One Million dollars, and say go!
> 
> 
> 
> You white old fat baggers will then have the same chance as everyone else, fair?



So you condone stealing from self-made people????

Then you Marxists have the fucking audacity to claim those with money are greedy when you want the MONEY THEY FUCKING EARNED???

Besides how did that Marxism nonsense workout for China or the USSR??? oh yeah - both are capitalist nations now after they realized Marx ideas were fucking "flawed" to say the least.... 

Hey genius what will we do when there are not enough resources to sustain the populace? what will we do when a bad crop season occurs? murder or purge the excess population like Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot??

Got any answers for any of that ignorant one?

Funny how communist dictators/leaders learned their lesson yet idiots like you haven't even investigated the idea beyond squatting or living in a commune...

What you think is useless because you're ignorant....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> it is a disastrous process when the government presumes it has the expertise and ability to do that.



that?? those in government throughout history all presumed they had the expertise to do that and everything else. That is why Jefferson gave us freedom from liberal government when he created America.
Freedom from government expertise is why America reversed all of human history and became the greatest country in all of human human history


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is a disastrous process when the government presumes it has the expertise and ability to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that?? those in government throughout history all presumed they had the expertise to do that and everything else. That is why Jefferson gave us freedom from liberal government when he created America.
> Freedom from government expertise is why America reversed all of human history and became the greatest country in all of human human history
Click to expand...


I blame the schools, clearly you guys didnt learn a god damn thing...
wait, not the schools fault, you are just stupid


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was shot down in the other thread too, Ed.   #155
> 
> What's more, small businesses owners don't typically organize their businesses in the same way giant corporations do.  We're talking LLC's and S corps.  But the biggest fallacy in this entire argument is that it's not political gamesmanship.  Obama and his Democrat cronies already KNOW that* "taxing the rich" isn't really a drop in the bucket.*
> Would Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit? | LearnLiberty
> 
> This is all political rhetoric on his part, designed to _divide_ Americans and create the "class warfare" scenario he thinks will benefit him.  Envy is a natural human emotion, easy enough to stimulate.  What he's doing is attempting to capitalize on that.
> 
> 
> 
> And Your answer was shot down in that thread too.
> 
> Your Freudian Slip contradicts your stupid video.
> Now of course, it all depends on who you are defining as "rich." If taxing thr rish doesn't work because they are too poor, taxing the poor because they are too rich must be the answer. (sarcasm) In reality the people the Right call "rich" are merely upper middle class WAGE EARNERS, not the truly rich. It's wage earners who pay the taxes, not the wealthy. It is the wealthy who are waging "class warfare" against the wage earner. Even your MessiahRushie admits it.
> 
> August 7, 2007
> CALLER:  And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and* the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income*, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.
> 
> RUSH:  It does,* exactly, and here's the dirty little secret* if you ever to pull it off.  It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. * You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income.*  I'm out of time.  I'll explain that. *There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income.  Earned income is what the income tax rate is on.  That's how "the rich" do it.  They don't have "earned" income. *
> END TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point again.  We could confiscate every dime from "the rich" and maybe pay one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.
> Bill Whittle On Eating "The Rich" | RealClearPolitics
> 
> Obama is playing games with you. And you... are letting him.
Click to expand...

Again you and Willie Wittless are deliberately trying to redefine the "rich" as well to do WAGE EARNERS. The truly rich do not work for the common wage!!!! They are Capital Gains Tycoons, not upper middle class wage earners who actually pay nearly all the taxes. 

A Capital Gains Tycoon can make a billion dollars on the stock market and not pay a single dime on it. That gain can grow year after year tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the tycoon decides to realize some of it, but unlike an IRA where he would pay a tax penalty for cashing it before retirement age, the tycoon not only pays no penalty but also pays a lower tax rate than a wage earner. And still the tycoon is not satisfied. Their puppets, the GOP, are trying to eliminate all capital gains taxes!!!

As to Willie Wittless, the top 1% of WEALTH, not wages, have about 20 trillion in total net worth, so if you confiscated all of it as Wittless postulates with wage earners, you could pay off the entire GOP debt and have enough left over for one hell of a big party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mr.Nick said:


> Funny how communist dictators/leaders learned their lesson yet idiots like you haven't even investigated the idea beyond squatting or living in a commune...
> 
> .



yes Red China just switched to Republican capitalism from liberalism to save 60 million from slow starvation but our liberals still love liberalism.

Now we can understand why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao and why our liberals spied for Stalin. Humans mostly don't think.

Our Founders thought they had made liberalism illegal, but they were not specific enough; so now the cancer is spreading.


----------



## Mr.Nick

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know who is on welfare and who isnt...
> 
> You dont know anything about history, you really are an incredibly stupid person, seriously
> 
> You might want to get a real education first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I know who is on welfare and who isn't......
> 
> You might want to get a street education first...
> 
> Obviously you have never seen a fucking housing project - EVER, or even taken a trip through the ghetto. They're all on welfare, and many are selling drugs or selling their "link cards" (food stamps) for 50 cents on the dollar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once I overheard a poor woman meeting someone she had not seen since high school. She bragged about her Section 8 subsidy just the way a real American would brag about the great job or business they had.
> 
> Liberals have all but destroyed the soul of America. THey should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.
Click to expand...


Last year they closed the last of the Cabrini Green housing projects and on the front of the Chicago Tribune they showed this old woman in a nice "northern" jacket drinking a 6 dollar large Starbucks cup of coffee while bitching about how America is so racist, and it's not fair how she is being relocated to a brand new free apartment....

It was pretty disgusting....

She lives her life off the taxpayers and is bitching about it in a 150 dollar coat while drinking a 6 dollar cup of coffee...... And she wants sympathy???


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how communist dictators/leaders learned their lesson yet idiots like you haven't even investigated the idea beyond squatting or living in a commune...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes Red China just switched to Republican capitalism from liberalism to save 60 million from slow starvation but our liberals still love liberalism.
> 
> Now we can understand why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao and why our liberals spied for Stalin. Humans mostly don't think.
Click to expand...


dear god, this is a joke, right?  you are kidding right?

nobody in the world is this dumb, right?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how communist dictators/leaders learned their lesson yet idiots like you haven't even investigated the idea beyond squatting or living in a commune...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes Red China just switched to Republican capitalism from liberalism to save 60 million from slow starvation but our liberals still love liberalism.
> 
> Now we can understand why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao and why our liberals spied for Stalin. Humans mostly don't think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear god, this is a joke, right?  you are kidding right?
> 
> nobody in the world is this dumb, right?
Click to expand...


of course if dumb you would not be so afraid to explain exactly why. What does your fear tell you about your liberal IQ and character


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes Red China just switched to Republican capitalism from liberalism to save 60 million from slow starvation but our liberals still love liberalism.
> 
> Now we can understand why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao and why our liberals spied for Stalin. Humans mostly don't think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear god, this is a joke, right?  you are kidding right?
> 
> nobody in the world is this dumb, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course if dumb you would not be so afraid to explain exactly why. What does your fear tell you about your liberal IQ and character
Click to expand...


  kudos to me, i drove it right out of it's mind!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear god, this is a joke, right?  you are kidding right?
> 
> nobody in the world is this dumb, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course if dumb you would not be so afraid to explain exactly why. What does your fear tell you about your liberal IQ and character
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> kudos to me, i drove it right out of it's mind!
Click to expand...


of course if dumb you would not be so afraid to explain exactly why. What does your fear tell you about your liberal IQ and character


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course if dumb you would not be so afraid to explain exactly why. What does your fear tell you about your liberal IQ and character
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kudos to me, i drove it right out of it's mind!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course if dumb you would not be so afraid to explain exactly why. What does your fear tell you about your liberal IQ and character
Click to expand...


You were broken to begin with but looks like I have managed to completely break you


----------



## Katzndogz

Mr.Nick said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, lets erase 200 yrs of racism and having whites in charge of everything at the end of a gun, and start over, game?
> 
> Here is how we do it, take all the land and money and natural resources away from everyone in the USofA...
> 
> Make everyone equal, for instance members of the Walton family wont have billions that they worked not one hour for, and poor people wouldnt be living in shacks, etc.
> 
> Then give each adult person a check for One Million dollars, and say go!
> 
> 
> 
> You white old fat baggers will then have the same chance as everyone else, fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you condone stealing from self-made people????
> 
> Then you Marxists have the fucking audacity to claim those with money are greedy when you want the MONEY THEY FUCKING EARNED???
> 
> Besides how did that Marxism nonsense workout for China or the USSR??? oh yeah - both are capitalist nations now after they realized Marx ideas were fucking "flawed" to say the least....
> 
> Hey genius what will we do when there are not enough resources to sustain the populace? what will we do when a bad crop season occurs? murder or purge the excess population like Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot??
> 
> Got any answers for any of that ignorant one?
> 
> Funny how communist dictators/leaders learned their lesson yet idiots like you haven't even investigated the idea beyond squatting or living in a commune...
> 
> What you think is useless because you're ignorant....
Click to expand...


It is amusing though.  I mean every day immigrants come here with even less that blacks on welfare have and in a few years are the "rich" that liberals love to hate!

The minds of the poor do not work like those of the rich.  They just don't think the same way.   Give a poor person five bucks and they will immediately buy whatever beer they can afford with five bucks.   A rich person might save it to buy new equipement with, or pay off a debt.  I knew the young man who got $50.00 in an income tax refund and used it to buy as many cases of paper as it would buy from a downtown warehouse.   He turned that into a major company, California Copy Systems and sold it for 10 million dollars in five years.   The brains of the poor just don't think along the same paths.   Give one person a needle and a spool of thread and it will lay in a drawer.  Give it to someone else and that person sees a design house.


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
Click to expand...



Unless you count the Waltons, the Kochs and Michelle Bachman just to name a few.


----------



## ABikerSailor

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said the Constitution says so, dipshit.  However the Declaration of Independence does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T said it...dipshit. Next time you throw insults maybe you should actually READ the thread...dipshit.
> 
> Sorry about the insults but you asked for it by ignoring the post I was responding to. I even quoted it. So you have no excuse...dipshit.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct, he did say it.  I didn't read it carefully enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> [And yes, I am aware of the unalienable rights...which is why I am for Single Payer Health care...dipshit
> 
> 
> ( see how stupid the insult is? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Healthcare is an inalienable right?  What happens to your *INALIENABLE *right if you're stranded in the middle of some primitive African hell hole?
Click to expand...


Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are considered to be inalienable rights here, but if you're stuck in the place you just described, your rights to those things are pretty limited as well, especially if you're in an area controlled by a war lord.

Try again.


----------



## edthecynic

GuyPinestra said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a coincidence... I was just fixing that on another thread for you.
> 
> #2079
> 
> 
> 
> And what a coincidence, I gave you some missing info there.
> 
> And you are trying to deny credit where credit is due. Businesses do not pay their fair share, most Fortune 500 companies pay nothing. See the below report for the BOOM years 1998 to 2005!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
> 
> More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are almost 6 million individual businesses in the US, and all you can talk about is the Fortune 500.
> 
> If 57% paid no tax in at least one year of 7, one of 2 things happened. Either that business A.)made oodles of money and paid a sharp accounting firm, or B.)they barely made ends meet. Since the average business usually takes 3 years to actually make a profit, chances are better than 50/50 that the answer is B.
> 
> Also, 57% over 7 years breaks down to 8% per year, meaning 92% of businesses PAID taxes EACH AND EVERY YEAR.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out in an earlier post, those are BOOM years and these are Fortune 500 companies. And in your hasty 92% calculation you missed that 42% paid no taxes for 2 or more years.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And do you think that 'for the support of this declaration' translates into for the support of each other?   Do you really think that is what it says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the rest of the sentence. Pledge to each other our LIVES, FORTUNES AND SACRED HONOR.
> 
> 
> It means exactly what it says.
> 
> And just like Obamas statement, it not means what you think it means if you take it out of context and put partisan spin on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To accomplish the REVOLUTION Vidi, to accomplish the REVOLUTION, not for all purposes for all reasons for the rest of their lives.  To a man they were almost 100% opposed to ANY form of welfare state or ANY action of government that would obligate anybody beyond the most narrow of definitions.
Click to expand...



Except once the Revolution was over, they wrote the Constitution and formed a nation instead of staying as individual states. 

Again, they united for the common good.

Im sorry but the facts of history simply do not support your narrative.


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the Individual States of America. It's the UNITED States of America.
> 
> Just what do you think all of this means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, we are united merely as a federation, but we have no national government.
> 
> The Founders intent was very very clear. They gave the Federal government  a few enumerated powers in the Constutution. When the Founders governed under their Constutition they maintained a very very limited government.
> 
> Welcome to your first lesson in American History
Click to expand...


You have got to be the dumbest of the dumb. The Constitution specifcally enumerates the powers of a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

We have no national government? LOL You should tell Mitt Romney that. Hes trying to become the head of a fictious government.


----------



## emptystep

Mr.Nick said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I know who is on welfare and who isn't......
> 
> You might want to get a street education first...
> 
> Obviously you have never seen a fucking housing project - EVER, or even taken a trip through the ghetto. They're all on welfare, and many are selling drugs or selling their "link cards" (food stamps) for 50 cents on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once I overheard a poor woman meeting someone she had not seen since high school. She bragged about her Section 8 subsidy just the way a real American would brag about the great job or business they had.
> 
> Liberals have all but destroyed the soul of America. THey should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last year they closed the last of the Cabrini Green housing projects and on the front of the Chicago Tribune they showed this old woman in a nice "northern" jacket drinking a 6 dollar large Starbucks cup of coffee while bitching about how America is so racist, and it's not fair how she is being relocated to a brand new free apartment....
> 
> It was pretty disgusting....
> 
> She lives her life off the taxpayers and is bitching about it in a 150 dollar coat while drinking a 6 dollar cup of coffee...... And she wants sympathy???
Click to expand...


You should worry more about what they are putting in your kool-aid. Hey, did you hear that there are no homeless vets living under bridges also?

(Different day, same brainless shit.)


----------



## Mr.Nick

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how communist dictators/leaders learned their lesson yet idiots like you haven't even investigated the idea beyond squatting or living in a commune...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes Red China just switched to Republican capitalism from liberalism to save 60 million from slow starvation but our liberals still love liberalism.
> 
> Now we can understand why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao and why our liberals spied for Stalin. Humans mostly don't think.
> 
> Our Founders thought they had made liberalism illegal, but they were not specific enough; so now the cancer is spreading.
Click to expand...


Funny you should say that..... I watched a documentary today called "My Perestroika" where those who live in Russia were pretty much mocking how brainwashed they were and how conformed they were in the USSR during the late 70's to the collapse....

It's obviously not Stalin or Lenin era (although it does have film footage from that era). The movie really updates the lives of kids involved in a propaganda "education" video from 1980 and then it shows their lives in the present day after the collapse and what they think politically....

If you have Netflix you can check it out (highly recommended) - it's called: "My Perestroika" It's entirely in subtitles , so it may be too difficult for progressives to understand - that and they don't know shit about the revolution or life under true communism...

Funny part is that the academics in Russia are totally anti-communists, while here in the states the academics are communists.... Two of the kids in the film got married and are now teachers who are clearly anti-communist...


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
> Myopic twits...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the liberals who HATE this nation, accuse our founders being hateful racists, cry for oppresive Communist control, and disrespect the flag AND the men & women who serve it....
Click to expand...


You just partisan puked.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Rottweiler said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
> Myopic twits...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the liberals who HATE this nation, accuse our founders being hateful racists, cry for oppresive Communist control, and disrespect the flag AND the men & women who serve it....
Click to expand...


I told you that if you stood in line patiently we would get you some medication.

It will be worth the wait, you will no longer be stunningly ignorant or entirely full of shit if you take it as prescribed.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Chris said:


> Insurance companies denied coverage to sick people on their own.


You take your pea brain out and play with it on your own. Idiot.


----------



## Katzndogz

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you count the Waltons, the Kochs and Michelle Bachman just to name a few.
Click to expand...


Walmart started in 1962.  It is now the third largest retailer in the world.   That's why they aren't liberals.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Liberals, how will this time be any different then all the other attempts at it? If you mess up. We all end up poorer for it. 

Giving the economy into the hands of people that don't understand how to work it. May not be a good idea.

I'm all for new idea's, but damn.


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
> Myopic twits...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you move to a country where you pay more taxes if it makes you so happy ?
> 
> I keep pointing out that Cuba would love to have you and we would love to be rid of your sorry liberal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they know that in Cuba - everyone is just like them - a worthless parasites. So they have no one to mooch off of like they do here. Despite falsely demonizing conservatives to further their Communist agenda, they know they need us conservatives to provide for them.
Click to expand...


Actually, remember Michael Moores Sicko? He took people to Cuba to get perscription drugs? And the bottle of pills was like 12 bucks whereas the woman was paying over 100 here in the States?

They get their drugs so cheap because BigPharma is making its money off of US.

Maybe we ought to find a way to stop paying for Cubas perscription drugs huh?


PS and dont say you didnt see it. There was a big hubbub about it in the news and Im sure everyone on this forum was screaming about that pinko Michael Moore for at least a week.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Matthew said:


> Liberals, how will this time be any different then all the other attempts at it? If you mess up, we all end up poorer for it.



born racist or did someone beat the shit out of you when you were a kid?


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the rest of the sentence. Pledge to each other our LIVES, FORTUNES AND SACRED HONOR.
> 
> 
> It means exactly what it says.
> 
> And just like Obamas statement, it not means what you think it means if you take it out of context and put partisan spin on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To accomplish the REVOLUTION Vidi, to accomplish the REVOLUTION, not for all purposes for all reasons for the rest of their lives.  To a man they were almost 100% opposed to ANY form of welfare state or ANY action of government that would obligate anybody beyond the most narrow of definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except once the Revolution was over, they wrote the Constitution and formed a nation instead of staying as individual states.
> 
> Again, they united for the common good.
> 
> Im sorry but the facts of history simply do not support your narrative.
Click to expand...


They united for the common good, not to provide the common welfare.  They united for mutual protection, mutual recognition and defense of unalienable rights, and mutual expectation that everybody would prosper as he or she was able.  Ben Franklin's remark pretty well summed up their view of giving other a hand up vs a hand out:

I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.​
Again, the Founders to a man were opposed to any form of welfare state or on any restriction on freedom imposed by the federal government.  The Constitution was designed to impose the necessary regulation to prevent the states from ganging up on each other, and then would recognize and respect and defend our unalienable rights and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of society we wished to have.

The Founders had absolutely no intention of EVER allowing the federal government to become what governments are in other countries.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Chris said:


> Insurance companies denied coverage to sick people on their own.



It is why we have Rolex AD's, travel agents, private jets, etc.

Health insurance is the biggest scam in history, these idiots make me rich


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
Click to expand...



Youve accused ME of being a liberal. Ive never been on welfare...and never will.

So its not ALL liberals then right? Just the ones that are actually on welfare.

But not Michelle Bachman who gets farm subsidies, or Walmart who gets LAND donated to them for their stores, or any of the other multibillion dollar corporations reciving government hand outs. Theyre all ok right?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

fox, you have no idea at all what you are talking about

how sad for you and anyone in your sphere of influence

You are particularly full of shit, i mean I have read some ignorance on this board but you take the prize, you really do


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi, can you even see a concept of us all working together and helping each other simply by each doing his/her own thing to prosper rather than the government picking and choosing who does what and who is entitled to what and who must give up what?


----------



## ScienceRocks

ConzHateUSA said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, how will this time be any different then all the other attempts at it? If you mess up, we all end up poorer for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> born racist or did someone beat the shit out of you when you were a kid?
Click to expand...


I can think through things and if the fbi(including every other police department) says this is so...Well, it is worth considering. Why are you so closed minded to reality? 

I was just pointing out how your past attempts at charging the economic system have failed. Maybe northern Europe is the best idea of going by it within my opinion. Well, at least that has remained somewhat successful.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

healthmyths said:


> really feel that way when he said:
> &#8220;If you&#8217;ve got a business -- you didn&#8217;t build that,&#8221; Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. &#8220;Somebody else made that happen.&#8221;


Can we see the rest of the quote so we can see what "that" refers to - or would that just blow your mind into tiny little bits?




> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!


Just because the revelation that tax dollars fund government is something new and exciting that you learned the other day - it doesn't mean the president of the united states isn't aware of it. Why do you assume he's as stupid as you evidently are? You're basically saying that when tax dollars are spent by government and it turns out bad - that's bad big government - but when it turns out good, its yet another example of private enterprise succeeding. Do you know how retarded that is?


----------



## Mac1958

ConzHateUSA said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> a. bigot or racist?
> b. born that way or beaten up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> white =  racist
> minority  =  bigot
> 
> you let us know which when you get the nerve
Click to expand...




Why in the world do you need my input on this so badly?  Just come up with something that makes you feel a little better about yourself and I'll sign off on it.  No problem!

Use some good adjectives though.  I like adjectives.

.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Mac1958 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> white =  racist
> minority  =  bigot
> 
> you let us know which when you get the nerve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the world do you need my input on this so badly?  Just come up with something that makes you feel a little better about yourself and I'll sign off on it.  No problem!
> 
> Use some good adjectives though.  I like adjectives.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


sorry if i am hitting too close to home, i know you must feel a little guilty knowing what a vile piece of human trash bigots and racists are...


----------



## Mr.Nick

ConzHateUSA said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
> Myopic twits...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the liberals who HATE this nation, accuse our founders being hateful racists, cry for oppresive Communist control, and disrespect the flag AND the men & women who serve it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you that if you stood in line patiently we would get you some medication.
> 
> It will be worth the wait, you will no longer be stunningly ignorant or entirely full of shit if you take it as prescribed.
Click to expand...


Yeah losers like you would be happy having the government decide what profession you will work in and you would be more than satisfied waiting in a mile long line for your monthly shitty rations rather than work hard and make money....

Of course you lazy fucking progressives think communism is just sitting on your ass all day playing video games - like you have some sort of a choice...

You fucks would find communism extremely unpleasant when you're working 65 hours a week for remedial rations of shitty bread, cheese and booze. McDonalds would look like Heaven then....


----------



## Katzndogz

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Youve accused ME of being a liberal. Ive never been on welfare...and never will.
> 
> So its not ALL liberals then right? Just the ones that are actually on welfare.
> 
> But not Michelle Bachman who gets farm subsidies, or Walmart who gets LAND donated to them for their stores, or any of the other multibillion dollar corporations reciving government hand outs. Theyre all ok right?
Click to expand...


Of course companies get land donated to them!  After all they are going to hire workers, pay taxes.  A gift of land is a cheap price to pay.   Actually the land isn't ever given, there is a grace period of usually five years before they have to pay for the land.

Sometimes liberals are so stupid they follow their heads right up their own asses.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Nick Nick Nick

I employ more people than you know...

I make my money off of you by working in a profession, I am 100 times smarter, more mature and more successful than you will ever be.

sorry


----------



## Mac1958

ConzHateUSA said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> white =  racist
> minority  =  bigot
> 
> you let us know which when you get the nerve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the world do you need my input on this so badly?  Just come up with something that makes you feel a little better about yourself and I'll sign off on it.  No problem!
> 
> Use some good adjectives though.  I like adjectives.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry if i am hitting too close to home, i know you must feel a little guilty knowing what a vile piece of human trash bigots and racists are...
Click to expand...



Indeed, I am deeply wounded.  I'm begging for your mercy.   Please, stop hurting me.

Aw, come on, come up with something!  I was looking forward to this!  

OOH, and "vile piece of human trash" - another name I've been called for daring to disagree with what Obama said!  Cool, thanks, it's on the list!

.


----------



## Katzndogz

Mr.Nick said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the liberals who HATE this nation, accuse our founders being hateful racists, cry for oppresive Communist control, and disrespect the flag AND the men & women who serve it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that if you stood in line patiently we would get you some medication.
> 
> It will be worth the wait, you will no longer be stunningly ignorant or entirely full of shit if you take it as prescribed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah losers like you would be happy having the government decide what profession you will work in and you would be more than satisfied waiting in a mile long line for your monthly shitty rations rather than work hard and make money....
Click to expand...


That's the way the UN runs things in Africa.  Much of Africa is in the third generation of people who have no idea how to feed themselves other than standing in line at a UN feeding station.  But, they don't have to work.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Katzndogz said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youve accused ME of being a liberal. Ive never been on welfare...and never will.
> 
> So its not ALL liberals then right? Just the ones that are actually on welfare.
> 
> But not Michelle Bachman who gets farm subsidies, or Walmart who gets LAND donated to them for their stores, or any of the other multibillion dollar corporations reciving government hand outs. Theyre all ok right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course companies get land donated to them!  After all they are going to hire workers, pay taxes.  A gift of land is a cheap price to pay.   Actually the land isn't ever given, there is a grace period of usually five years before they have to pay for the land.
> 
> Sometimes liberals are so stupid they follow their heads right up their own asses.
Click to expand...


Chubby Checker would be proud of the way you can twist and turn when your complete and total hypocrisy is shoved in your butt ugly, white, fat, old face...


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Nick Nick Nick
> 
> I employ more people than you know...
> 
> I make my money off of you by working in a profession, I am 100 times smarter, more mature and more successful than you will ever be.
> 
> sorry



Given your previous posts.....I don't believe you....at all.

More mature ????? ROTFLMAO


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Chubby Checker would be proud of the way you can twist and turn when your complete and total hypocrisy is shoved in your butt ugly, white, fat, old face...



Real mature.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Listening said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nick Nick Nick
> 
> I employ more people than you know...
> 
> I make my money off of you by working in a profession, I am 100 times smarter, more mature and more successful than you will ever be.
> 
> sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given your previous posts.....I don't believe you....at all.
> 
> More mature ????? ROTFLMAO
Click to expand...


Oh, 1000 times more mature, yes.

You see, the way a mature older responsible man acts in the face of such severe racism, hate, intolerance and bigotry, such as every single one of your guys posts, is to put it right back in your face.

That way we make sure you understand you will never, not ever, win...we will fight you every step of the way, bigot


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Listening said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chubby Checker would be proud of the way you can twist and turn when your complete and total hypocrisy is shoved in your butt ugly, white, fat, old face...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real mature.
Click to expand...


c'mon, when I push it back in your face over and over and over, at least try and look intelligent


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To accomplish the REVOLUTION Vidi, to accomplish the REVOLUTION, not for all purposes for all reasons for the rest of their lives.  To a man they were almost 100% opposed to ANY form of welfare state or ANY action of government that would obligate anybody beyond the most narrow of definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except once the Revolution was over, they wrote the Constitution and formed a nation instead of staying as individual states.
> 
> Again, they united for the common good.
> 
> Im sorry but the facts of history simply do not support your narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They united for the common good, not to provide the common welfare.  They united for mutual protection, mutual recognition and defense of unalienable rights, and mutual expectation that everybody would prosper as he or she was able.  Ben Franklin's remark pretty well summed up their view of giving other a hand up vs a hand out:
> 
> I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.​
> Again, the Founders to a man were opposed to any form of welfare state or on any restriction on freedom imposed by the federal government.  The Constitution was designed to impose the necessary regulation to prevent the states from ganging up on each other, and then would recognize and respect and defend our unalienable rights and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of society we wished to have.
> 
> The Founders had absolutely no intention of EVER allowing the federal government to become what governments are in other countries.
Click to expand...


When the Founders used the word welfare, they didnt mean what we mean when we say welfare. When we talk about welfare we mean government assistance for the poor.

But they were concerned about the welfare of the nation. Perhaps thats what you mean when you say common good.



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
> defence,* promote the general Welfare, *and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
> United States of America.



general Welfare I believe means as you put it, the common good.

Now what is in the common good? Isnt THAT what we are really arguing? Obviously we have the bat shit crazy posts all around us, but in the end, arent the two sides simply arguing about what is the common good?

IN MY OPINION, the way the current system is being run is pushing too much of the wealth towards the top 1%. In 2010, 93% of ALL new wealth created went to that top 1%. The bottom 99% shared the remaining 7% of all new wealth. 

New wealth MUST be created as the population grows. If new wealth is NOT created, then it becomes a zero sum game and that leads to civil unrest. But new welath is also the indicator of opportunity. You know the whole land of opportunity thing? Without that opportunity, we fall into a class based society, which is diametrically opposed to the principles we pretend the Founders based our country on. ( I say pretend because obviously slavery and requiring land ownership to vote were about class...but hey they were only human. Great humans but still only human ) So we need to stop the imbalance on the scales and provide the opportunity...not a handout, not a guarantee...but the oppotunity that once existed in this country for even the average working joe.


Its not about being opposed to rich people. Its about ensuring that there are no obstacles to OTHER people working their asses off and becoming rich themselves. And I dont mean uberrich...just wealthy.

As far as the founder not intending the government to be like other governments that is certainly true. But I would argue that OTHER governments throughout the world have become more like us then we have become like them.


----------



## Mac1958

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> My only regret is that I haven't kept track of all the names I've been called because I didn't like what Obama said about business owners.  Just a few, off the top of my pointy little head:
> 
> _Bigot
> Racist
> Clueless
> Twit
> Liar
> Idiot
> Fucking idiot
> Vile piece of human trash  <-- favorite so far!_
> .




*Update *in *red!*

Woot!

.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

This whole general welfare argument could end if we made everything equal and fair, my challenge

take everything away from everyone, give everyone the same thing, baggers would be BEGGING for govt intervention within hours


----------



## francoHFW

Thanks for the depression, morons. Blame the victims of your greedy rich masters... 

There are as many white Pubs as White Dems on assistance, they're just the loudmouth racist cheats...your stereotypes of blacks, victims of your bigotry, are disgusting. Let's try opportunities in education and training and taxing the bloated rich fairly...Voodoo and deregulation is a catastrophe...see sig pp1.


----------



## Vidi

Katzndogz said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that if you stood in line patiently we would get you some medication.
> 
> It will be worth the wait, you will no longer be stunningly ignorant or entirely full of shit if you take it as prescribed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah losers like you would be happy having the government decide what profession you will work in and you would be more than satisfied waiting in a mile long line for your monthly shitty rations rather than work hard and make money....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the way the UN runs things in Africa.  Much of Africa is in the third generation of people who have no idea how to feed themselves other than standing in line at a UN feeding station.  But, they don't have to work.
Click to expand...


In one of my bakery I have three very intelligent and very hard working immigrants from Nigeria. The stories they have relayed to me tell me that you dont have a clue as to what youre talking about. And I say that NOT to attack you but to make a point.

The real problem in Africa is they dont have what we have here. A society protected by a government that allows for real opportunity.

You should look at Africa as a lesson of what happens when money controls governments instead of the people.


----------



## Oddball

ConzHateUSA said:


> This whole general welfare argument could end if we made everything equal and fair, my challenge
> 
> take everything away from everyone, give everyone the same thing, baggers would be BEGGING for govt intervention within hours


It would end if you STFU and crawled back into the sewer from whence you slithered.

Or maybe not...But we'd be willing to risk it.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you move to a country where you pay more taxes if it makes you so happy ?
> 
> I keep pointing out that Cuba would love to have you and we would love to be rid of your sorry liberal ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they know that in Cuba - everyone is just like them - a worthless parasites. So they have no one to mooch off of like they do here. Despite falsely demonizing conservatives to further their Communist agenda, they know they need us conservatives to provide for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, remember Michael Moores Sicko? He took people to Cuba to get perscription drugs? And the bottle of pills was like 12 bucks whereas the woman was paying over 100 here in the States?
> 
> They get their drugs so cheap because BigPharma is making its money off of US.
> 
> Maybe we ought to find a way to stop paying for Cubas perscription drugs huh?
> 
> 
> PS and dont say you didnt see it. There was a big hubbub about it in the news and Im sure everyone on this forum was screaming about that pinko Michael Moore for at least a week.
Click to expand...


You don't know shit about exchange rates do you??

Of course in your ignorant mind $12.00 US is the same as $12.00 in Cuba, China, Japan, UAE etc.. Funny how I can go to Mexico and get a beer for .50 cents at the bar but here in the US I pay $3.00. Of course you probably just see that is greed and not economics because you're a fucking idiot.

You progressives turn economic ignorance into an art form.....


----------



## thereisnospoon

Vidi said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? God gave you your rights? The Constitution says so?
> 
> *Please provide us with the exact quote in the Constitution that says God gave you your rights.*
> 
> Please be sure its the CONSTITUTION youre thinking of...its late and you may have had a few drinks by now...so I wont be too hard on you for screwing this one up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's in the Declaration of Independence...
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> These rights ARE indeed given to us by the Creator. Not by government.
> The US Constitution takes this premise to the extent that the Framers wrote a LIMITING document. In other words WE hold the power to LIMIT government. Not the other way around.
> This irritates leftists. Obama is especially disturbed by the limits placed upon him by the Constitution. Hence the reason he acts unilaterally with his arrogance and belligerence toward the Three Branch System with his executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware that it was the Declaration that said those three rights ( and others not named ) were given by our God. But I was also giving T the benefit of it being late and possibly three beers into his evening
> 
> however, then you go off the deep end with the leftists hate the Constitution nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
> United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm...no where in there does it say we wrote this to limit the power of government. However, I will concede that the Bil of Rights does indeed have a limiting function in that it limits the ability of the government to infringe upon the rights of the people.
> 
> However, to make statements about Obamas feeling on the subject is just ridiculous. Has he told you personally that he doesnt like the limits placed upon him by the Constitution? or are you inferring this from what you personally percieve as Constitutional violations?
> 
> As far as I know, the ONLY President in recent history to comment on the limits was W. Bush when he joked that it would be easier if it were a dictatorship...and he wasnt wrong. And it was funny ( though many people with very large sticks lodged firmly up their butts did not see the humor in it. Fuck those people )
> 
> But you really need to look at it objectively...and its very hard to claim objectivity when you accuse Obama of beligerance and arrogance.
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT......The US Constitution IS a limiting document.
You fucking libs are infamous for your moral relativisim. 
You people believe that anything goes based on the uncivilized notion of "well, no one said I couldn't."
Right here buckaroo is all that matters...Amendment X..
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
In other words, and I will make this simple for you....If the Constitution does not specifically grant a power or authority to the federal government, the government DOES NOT have such power or authority. Period.

BTW, you post the Preamble to the US Constitution and expect to get away with that drive by nonsense? Forget it.


----------



## Vidi

Mr.Nick said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they know that in Cuba - everyone is just like them - a worthless parasites. So they have no one to mooch off of like they do here. Despite falsely demonizing conservatives to further their Communist agenda, they know they need us conservatives to provide for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, remember Michael Moores Sicko? He took people to Cuba to get perscription drugs? And the bottle of pills was like 12 bucks whereas the woman was paying over 100 here in the States?
> 
> They get their drugs so cheap because BigPharma is making its money off of US.
> 
> Maybe we ought to find a way to stop paying for Cubas perscription drugs huh?
> 
> 
> PS and dont say you didnt see it. There was a big hubbub about it in the news and Im sure everyone on this forum was screaming about that pinko Michael Moore for at least a week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know shit about exchange rates do you??
> 
> Of course in your ignorant mind $12.00 US is the same as $12.00 in Cuba, China, Japan, UAE etc.. Funny how I can go to Mexico and get a beer for .50 cents at the bar but here in the US I pay $3.00. Of course you probably just see that is greed and not economics because you're a fucking idiot.
> 
> You progressives turn economic ignorance into an art form.....
Click to expand...


Yeah ignorant is the operative word.

The EQUIVILENT of 12 US dollars

Which by the way at CURRENT exchange rates is 12 CU.
Calculator for Cuban Convertible Pesos (CUC) Currency Exchange Rate Conversion.

So you want to try again about who doesnt know shit about exchange rates?

NEEEEXXXT!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> The Radical Right - You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.



Our Founders are scum??

Who wanted more limited government and taxaction than them???


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Radical Right - You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders are scum??
> 
> Who wanted more limited government and taxaction than them???
Click to expand...


you know nothing about the slave owning founders


----------



## Vidi

thereisnospoon said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's in the Declaration of Independence...
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> These rights ARE indeed given to us by the Creator. Not by government.
> The US Constitution takes this premise to the extent that the Framers wrote a LIMITING document. In other words WE hold the power to LIMIT government. Not the other way around.
> This irritates leftists. Obama is especially disturbed by the limits placed upon him by the Constitution. Hence the reason he acts unilaterally with his arrogance and belligerence toward the Three Branch System with his executive orders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware that it was the Declaration that said those three rights ( and others not named ) were given by our God. But I was also giving T the benefit of it being late and possibly three beers into his evening
> 
> however, then you go off the deep end with the leftists hate the Constitution nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
> United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm...no where in there does it say we wrote this to limit the power of government. However, I will concede that the Bil of Rights does indeed have a limiting function in that it limits the ability of the government to infringe upon the rights of the people.
> 
> However, to make statements about Obamas feeling on the subject is just ridiculous. Has he told you personally that he doesnt like the limits placed upon him by the Constitution? or are you inferring this from what you personally percieve as Constitutional violations?
> 
> As far as I know, the ONLY President in recent history to comment on the limits was W. Bush when he joked that it would be easier if it were a dictatorship...and he wasnt wrong. And it was funny ( though many people with very large sticks lodged firmly up their butts did not see the humor in it. Fuck those people )
> 
> But you really need to look at it objectively...and its very hard to claim objectivity when you accuse Obama of beligerance and arrogance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULLSHIT......The US Constitution IS a limiting document.
> You fucking libs are infamous for your moral relativisim.
> You people believe that anything goes based on the uncivilized notion of "well, no one said I couldn't."
> Right here buckaroo is all that matters...Amendment X..
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> In other words, and I will make this simple for you....If the Constitution does not specifically grant a power or authority to the federal government, the government DOES NOT have such power or authority. Period.
> 
> BTW, you post the Preamble to the US Constitution and expect to get away with that drive by nonsense? Forget it.
Click to expand...


You really should read the WHOLE post before you explode and start throwing your feces around, little monkey. I agreed that it was a limiting document through the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Radical Right - You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders are scum??
> 
> Who wanted more limited government and taxaction than them???
Click to expand...



If you think overthrowing a monarchy and forming their own nation is the work of right wingers youre sadly mistaken.

Go look up the Boston tea Party. Find out what it was REALLY about. Find out in which direction their taxes actually went. And if you come back with the standard Taxation without represenation slogan...youre wrong. Keep looking.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

thereisnospoon said:


> Obama is especially disturbed by the limits placed upon him by the Constitution.



yes he is very famous in legal circles for saying the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, i.e., it is all about what the government can't do. He wanted it to be about what the government can or must do, namely, provide unlimited welfare to be used by liberals to buy votes, infantilize the electorate, and retain perpetual power.


----------



## ScienceRocks

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Radical Right - You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders are scum??
> 
> Who wanted more limited government and taxaction than them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you know nothing about the slave owning founders
Click to expand...


Well, slavery was part of all races(cultures). Do you realize who ended it? O'shit that would go against your agenda.  Our founders did more to advance freedom than anyone done in the past 800 years. Learn some history. Judging them with our standards that brought good to this world for what was the norm at the time...Isn't showing that you have a solid understanding of the subject.

Pop open a book.


----------



## Vidi

ConzHateUSA said:


> This whole general welfare argument could end if we made everything equal and fair, my challenge
> 
> take everything away from everyone, give everyone the same thing, baggers would be BEGGING for govt intervention within hours




True equality is a myth. Cant happen. And shouldnt. It would require far too much intrusivness on our personal lives. 

We can however demand equal protection under the law.


PS and what youre describing is communism. That simply doesnt work. Never has. Never will.


----------



## Mr.Nick

francoHFW said:


> Thanks for the depression, morons. Blame the victims of your greedy rich masters...
> 
> There are as many white Pubs as White Dems on assistance, they're just the loudmouth racist cheats...your stereotypes of blacks, victims of your bigotry, are disgusting. Let's try opportunities in education and training and taxing the bloated rich fairly...Voodoo and deregulation is a catastrophe...see sig pp1.



There are about as many white republicans on welfare as there are black republicans - lets also not forget that whites are 72% of the population... So I'll guess and say 1,000-3,000.

Blacks are only 15% of the population but they are responsible for 50% of the welfare handouts... Mexicans are 20% "other" is 5% and whites are 25%... That is just the welfare program tho - meaning the race of those who are on welfare program - not the general population.

Food stamps pretty much have similar racial statistics.......Then again not everyone on food stamps is on welfare.


----------



## francoHFW

The Founding Fathers were the big gov't liberals of the day. Compare the USA with a constitution, bill of rights, juries, etc etc with far right monarchies of the day.And they found out they needed an army and navy and roads and canals and ports.

   Back then it was go West young man, now the free land is gone, time to grow up and get civilized...Raising taxes on the bloated rich amd getting our health care costs  and scams under control is hardly communism, dupes of the greedy corps/rich.


----------



## Vidi

Mr.Nick said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the depression, morons. Blame the victims of your greedy rich masters...
> 
> There are as many white Pubs as White Dems on assistance, they're just the loudmouth racist cheats...your stereotypes of blacks, victims of your bigotry, are disgusting. Let's try opportunities in education and training and taxing the bloated rich fairly...Voodoo and deregulation is a catastrophe...see sig pp1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are about as many white republicans on welfare as there are black republicans - lets also not forget that whites are 72% of the population... So I'll guess and say 1,000-3,000.
> 
> Blacks are only 15% of the population but they are responsible for 50% of the welfare handouts... Mexicans are 20% "other" is 5% and whites are 25%... That is just the welfare program tho - meaning the race of those who are on welfare program - not the general population.
> 
> Food stamps pretty much have similar racial statistics.......Then again not everyone on food stamps is on welfare.
Click to expand...


Just playing devils advocate here...

one could argue that theres a disporportionate amount of minorities on government assistance because of discrimnitory hiring practices.

How would you answer that argument? And CAN it be answered honestly without sounding racist?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> one could argue that theres a disporportionate amount of minorities on government assistance because of discrimnitory hiring practices.



capitalism really prevents discrimination.  The less you pay your workers the more competitive you become and the more your competition is forced to bid up wages of minorities.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ConzHateUSA said:


> Nick Nick Nick
> 
> I employ more people than you know...
> 
> I make my money off of you by working in a profession, I am 100 times smarter, more mature and more successful than you will ever be.
> 
> sorry


That and 50 cents gets you a pay phone call.


----------



## ScienceRocks

francoHFW said:


> The Founding Fathers were the big gov't liberals of the day. Compare the USA with a constitution, bill of rights, juries, etc etc with far right monarchies of the day.And they found out they needed an army and navy and roads and canals and ports.
> 
> Back then it was go West young man, now the free land is gone, time to grow up and get civilized...Raising taxes on the bloated rich amd getting our health care costs  and scams under control is hardly communism, dupes of the greedy corps/rich.



You have a point about the first part. But, How? Many of the idea's being thrown around came directly from Marx. Charging wealth from one class to another is one of them. You can't tax one class and give it to another without the *class struggle.* The question is with how do we grow all classes and with that our living standard? This is the best course of action I feel and why I support capitalism.

One of flaws is giving the wealth to the poor is giving it to people that aren't as productive(as knowledgeable) in business. This poor person may just blow it on whatever instead of trying to start a business to hire people...While the richer person may do the same, but *my point is why is he rich? *

I understand the left's feelings about how not all rich deserve it as they had it passed down to them, but not all of them. Someone had to work hard(blood, sweat and tears) and to make more goods that people wanted to have for them to have gotten rich at some point. This is how a successful economy works...It feeds into its self...

Moving wealth from one class to another isn't the way to go.  I understand that you want to help the poor, but this will just lower our living standards making us all poorer.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> If you think overthrowing a monarchy and forming their own nation is the work of right wingers youre sadly mistaken.




Who is all of human history wanted more limited government and taxaction than our saintly founders??


----------



## Mr.Nick

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Radical Right - You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders are scum??
> 
> Who wanted more limited government and taxaction than them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you think overthrowing a monarchy and forming their own nation is the work of right wingers youre sadly mistaken.
> 
> Go look up the Boston tea Party. Find out what it was REALLY about. Find out in which direction their taxes actually went. And if you come back with the standard Taxation without represenation slogan...youre wrong. Keep looking.
Click to expand...


You're not a liberal - you're a fascist right winger just like Obamafuck.....

This nation was founded on individual freedom - especially freedom of religion (ironically the settlers came here for freedom of religion yet would attack anyone that didn't agree with their religious philosophy) but the founders of our founding documents understood the tyranny via fascist theocracy that was happening in Europe. They were religious people however they wanted choice or freedom- they wanted freedom and separation from a ruling power - they wanted to be individuals - not collectivists... Not all were like that tho - Federalists believed in a strong central government and Democrat-Republicans believed only a state/local government was necessary.... 

Both believed in limited government....

You little boy are not a "liberal" - If you were you wouldn't be championing big government Obamafuck bullshit........

Just because you believe in "gay rights" or are for womans suffrage or against Jim Crow laws makes you a liberal - you're mistaken - not to mention ignorant because it was the alleged liberals er democrats that pushed and defended all that nonsense into the mid 20th century, at least in the south. 

Learn some history kid....


----------



## emptystep

I am getting the idea that some believe the 'liberals' on this board want to take Walton's money and by a homeless person a Cadilac. We don't. 

On the other side we do believe that you want to throw them under the bus.


----------



## Pho_King

Vidi said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the depression, morons. Blame the victims of your greedy rich masters...
> 
> There are as many white Pubs as White Dems on assistance, they're just the loudmouth racist cheats...your stereotypes of blacks, victims of your bigotry, are disgusting. Let's try opportunities in education and training and taxing the bloated rich fairly...Voodoo and deregulation is a catastrophe...see sig pp1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are about as many white republicans on welfare as there are black republicans - lets also not forget that whites are 72% of the population... So I'll guess and say 1,000-3,000.
> 
> Blacks are only 15% of the population but they are responsible for 50% of the welfare handouts... Mexicans are 20% "other" is 5% and whites are 25%... That is just the welfare program tho - meaning the race of those who are on welfare program - not the general population.
> 
> Food stamps pretty much have similar racial statistics.......Then again not everyone on food stamps is on welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just playing devils advocate here...
> 
> one could argue that theres a disporportionate amount of minorities on government assistance because of discrimnitory hiring practices.
> 
> How would you answer that argument? And CAN it be answered honestly without sounding racist?
Click to expand...

The answer to that argument is that the argument is full of shit and fail.


----------



## emptystep

Our young, 'free,' country had conscription. Doesn't sound very 'free' to me.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Mr.Nick said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders are scum??
> 
> Who wanted more limited government and taxaction than them???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think overthrowing a monarchy and forming their own nation is the work of right wingers youre sadly mistaken.
> 
> Go look up the Boston tea Party. Find out what it was REALLY about. Find out in which direction their taxes actually went. And if you come back with the standard Taxation without represenation slogan...youre wrong. Keep looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not a liberal - you're a fascist right winger just like Obamafuck.....
> 
> This nation was founded on individual freedom - especially freedom of religion (ironically the settlers came here for freedom of religion yet would attack anyone that didn't agree with their religious philosophy) but the founders of our founding documents understood the tyranny via fascist theocracy that was happening in Europe. They were religious people however they wanted choice or freedom- they wanted freedom and separation from a ruling power - they wanted to be individuals - not collectivists... Not all were like that tho - Federalists believed in a strong central government and Democrat-Republicans believed only a state/local government was necessary....
> 
> Both believed in limited government....
> 
> You little boy are not a "liberal" - If you were you wouldn't be championing big government Obamafuck bullshit........
> 
> Just because you believe in "gay rights" or are for womans suffrage or against Jim Crow laws makes you a liberal - you're mistaken - not to mention ignorant because it was the alleged liberals er democrats that pushed and defended all that nonsense into the mid 20th century, at least in the south.
> 
> Learn some history kid....
Click to expand...


Good post...I strongly disagree rather it was a good thing(wise) a few things on the last paragraph of your post. But as American I have that right.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you move to a country where you pay more taxes if it makes you so happy ?
> 
> I keep pointing out that Cuba would love to have you and we would love to be rid of your sorry liberal ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they know that in Cuba - everyone is just like them - a worthless parasites. So they have no one to mooch off of like they do here. Despite falsely demonizing conservatives to further their Communist agenda, they know they need us conservatives to provide for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, remember Michael Moores Sicko? He took people to Cuba to get perscription drugs? And the bottle of pills was like 12 bucks whereas the woman was paying over 100 here in the States?
> 
> They get their drugs so cheap because BigPharma is making its money off of US.
> 
> Maybe we ought to find a way to stop paying for Cubas perscription drugs huh?
> 
> 
> PS and dont say you didnt see it. There was a big hubbub about it in the news and Im sure everyone on this forum was screaming about that pinko Michael Moore for at least a week.
Click to expand...

NIce try...You forgot the part where the prices are at that level because the Cuban government subsidizes the cost....That applies to every nation where "price" is controlled.
I would not watch a MIchael Moore movie if it were the last motion picture on earth.
Moore is a partisan angry liberal hack and a hypocrite.
Fuck him. 
It pisses me off that a gentleman such as Steve Jobs who put tens of thousands of people to work, contributed to charity passes away at such a young age, while a big fat disgusting 12 sandwich eating cholesterol laden fuck like Micheal Moore who contributes absolutely NOTHING to man kind, gets to stay here on earth. 
Where the fuck is the justice in THAT!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

emptystep said:


> I am getting the idea that some believe the 'liberals' on this board want to take Walton's money and by a homeless person a Cadilac. We don't.



you do but as a liberal you're far too stupid to know it!! There is no end to how big a liberal wants the government to be. BO took over the biggest government in history and the direction is still straight up!!!

Recently, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, testified before the House Budget Committee on the growth of the 10-largest means tested federal programs that serve people who qualify by various definitions of poverty.


 Heres what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.


Haskinss list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion. 

To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesnt. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.

And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare  and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.


----------



## emptystep

Mr.Nick said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I know who is on welfare and who isn't......
> 
> You might want to get a street education first...
> 
> Obviously you have never seen a fucking housing project - EVER, or even taken a trip through the ghetto. They're all on welfare, and many are selling drugs or selling their "link cards" (food stamps) for 50 cents on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once I overheard a poor woman meeting someone she had not seen since high school. She bragged about her Section 8 subsidy just the way a real American would brag about the great job or business they had.
> 
> Liberals have all but destroyed the soul of America. THey should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last year they closed the last of the Cabrini Green housing projects and on the front of the Chicago Tribune they showed this old woman in a nice "northern" jacket drinking a 6 dollar large Starbucks cup of coffee while bitching about how America is so racist, and it's not fair how she is being relocated to a brand new free apartment....
> 
> It was pretty disgusting....
> 
> She lives her life off the taxpayers and is bitching about it in a 150 dollar coat while drinking a 6 dollar cup of coffee...... And she wants sympathy???
Click to expand...




EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting the idea that some believe the 'liberals' on this board want to take Walton's money and by a homeless person a Cadilac. We don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do but as a liberal you're far too stupid to know it!! There is no end to how big a liberal wants the government to be. BO took over the biggest government in history and the direction is still straight up!!!
> 
> Recently, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, testified before the House Budget Committee on the growth of the 10-largest means tested federal programs that serve people who qualify by various definitions of poverty.
> 
> 
> Heres what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.
> 
> 
> Haskinss list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion.
> 
> To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesnt. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.
> 
> And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare  and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.
Click to expand...


I would guess the average household income of this board's liberals is about  $75k. Do you really think we don't care about our income?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Vidi said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, remember Michael Moores Sicko? He took people to Cuba to get perscription drugs? And the bottle of pills was like 12 bucks whereas the woman was paying over 100 here in the States?
> 
> They get their drugs so cheap because BigPharma is making its money off of US.
> 
> Maybe we ought to find a way to stop paying for Cubas perscription drugs huh?
> 
> 
> PS and dont say you didnt see it. There was a big hubbub about it in the news and Im sure everyone on this forum was screaming about that pinko Michael Moore for at least a week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know shit about exchange rates do you??
> 
> Of course in your ignorant mind $12.00 US is the same as $12.00 in Cuba, China, Japan, UAE etc.. Funny how I can go to Mexico and get a beer for .50 cents at the bar but here in the US I pay $3.00. Of course you probably just see that is greed and not economics because you're a fucking idiot.
> 
> You progressives turn economic ignorance into an art form.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah ignorant is the operative word.
> 
> The EQUIVILENT of 12 US dollars
> 
> Which by the way at CURRENT exchange rates is 12 CU.
> Calculator for Cuban Convertible Pesos (CUC) Currency Exchange Rate Conversion.
> 
> So you want to try again about who doesnt know shit about exchange rates?
> 
> NEEEEXXX
Click to expand...


Are you seriously that fucking stupid??

You don't even have a common denominator to even make your assessment...


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> one could argue that theres a disporportionate amount of minorities on government assistance because of discrimnitory hiring practices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism really prevents discrimination.  The less you pay your workers the more competitive you become and the more your competition is forced to bid up wages of minorities.
Click to expand...



Youre deluding yourself if you think thats true.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> Theres your standard default position.



yes I always ask a liberal to explain what he means!! Is that too over your head??

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, very slow!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> one could argue that theres a disporportionate amount of minorities on government assistance because of discrimnitory hiring practices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism really prevents discrimination.  The less you pay your workers the more competitive you become and the more your competition is forced to bid up wages of minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Youre deluding yourself if you think thats true.
Click to expand...


if its not true why is the idiot liberal so afraid to explain??? What does your fear tell you??


----------



## Vidi

Mr.Nick said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders are scum??
> 
> Who wanted more limited government and taxaction than them???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think overthrowing a monarchy and forming their own nation is the work of right wingers youre sadly mistaken.
> 
> Go look up the Boston tea Party. Find out what it was REALLY about. Find out in which direction their taxes actually went. And if you come back with the standard Taxation without represenation slogan...youre wrong. Keep looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not a liberal - you're a fascist right winger just like Obamafuck.....
> 
> This nation was founded on individual freedom - especially freedom of religion (ironically the settlers came here for freedom of religion yet would attack anyone that didn't agree with their religious philosophy) but the founders of our founding documents understood the tyranny via fascist theocracy that was happening in Europe. They were religious people however they wanted choice or freedom- they wanted freedom and separation from a ruling power - they wanted to be individuals - not collectivists... Not all were like that tho - Federalists believed in a strong central government and Democrat-Republicans believed only a state/local government was necessary....
> 
> Both believed in limited government....
> 
> You little boy are not a "liberal" - If you were you wouldn't be championing big government Obamafuck bullshit........
> 
> Just because you believe in "gay rights" or are for womans suffrage or against Jim Crow laws makes you a liberal - you're mistaken - not to mention ignorant because it was the alleged liberals er democrats that pushed and defended all that nonsense into the mid 20th century, at least in the south.
> 
> Learn some history kid....
Click to expand...



I have never claimed to be a liberal. Nor am I opposed to limited government.

I have said many times I am for EFFECTIVE NON WASTEFUL government.

Other than your assessment of me, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Hmmm...wait a minute...if we agree...what does that make YOU?

I see myself as someone who bases my opinion on the Constitution on an issue by issue basis. You too?


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism really prevents discrimination.  The less you pay your workers the more competitive you become and the more your competition is forced to bid up wages of minorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre deluding yourself if you think thats true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if its not true why is the idiot liberal so afraid to explain??? What does your fear tell you??
Click to expand...


See post #25...remember that little Eddie? We covered this.


----------



## Vidi

Mr.Nick said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know shit about exchange rates do you??
> 
> Of course in your ignorant mind $12.00 US is the same as $12.00 in Cuba, China, Japan, UAE etc.. Funny how I can go to Mexico and get a beer for .50 cents at the bar but here in the US I pay $3.00. Of course you probably just see that is greed and not economics because you're a fucking idiot.
> 
> You progressives turn economic ignorance into an art form.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ignorant is the operative word.
> 
> The EQUIVILENT of 12 US dollars
> 
> Which by the way at CURRENT exchange rates is 12 CU.
> Calculator for Cuban Convertible Pesos (CUC) Currency Exchange Rate Conversion.
> 
> So you want to try again about who doesnt know shit about exchange rates?
> 
> NEEEEXXX
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously that fucking stupid??
> 
> You don't even have a common denominator to even make your assessment...
Click to expand...


Yes I am seriously stupid enough to go check the exchange rate and post it when someone makes accusations. How ignorant of me to actually find PROOF of my opinion instead of just posting insults like...I dont know who...OH YEAH...YOU!


----------



## Mr.Nick

emptystep said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once I overheard a poor woman meeting someone she had not seen since high school. She bragged about her Section 8 subsidy just the way a real American would brag about the great job or business they had.
> 
> Liberals have all but destroyed the soul of America. THey should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last year they closed the last of the Cabrini Green housing projects and on the front of the Chicago Tribune they showed this old woman in a nice "northern" jacket drinking a 6 dollar large Starbucks cup of coffee while bitching about how America is so racist, and it's not fair how she is being relocated to a brand new free apartment....
> 
> It was pretty disgusting....
> 
> She lives her life off the taxpayers and is bitching about it in a 150 dollar coat while drinking a 6 dollar cup of coffee...... And she wants sympathy???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting the idea that some believe the 'liberals' on this board want to take Walton's money and by a homeless person a Cadilac. We don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do but as a liberal you're far too stupid to know it!! There is no end to how big a liberal wants the government to be. BO took over the biggest government in history and the direction is still straight up!!!
> 
> Recently, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, testified before the House Budget Committee on the growth of the 10-largest &#8220;means tested&#8221; federal programs that serve people who qualify by various definitions of poverty.
> 
> 
> Here&#8217;s what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted &#8220;2011 dollars&#8221; dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.
> 
> 
> Haskins&#8217;s list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion.
> 
> To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesn&#8217;t. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.
> 
> And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare &#8212; and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would guess the average household income of this board's liberals is about  $75k. Do you really think we don't care about our income?
Click to expand...




I'd bet my dick that the progressives that post here are one of four things 1) union workers 2) college students 3) employed at a remedial job or 4) unemployed and living off welfare or in their moms basement....

90% of the non-union private sector that makes 35-40k a year and up are non-progressives....

Oh trust me I know.... I know what professions make what and what don't and you can search contributions via this site by profession. I've been doing it for years..

Campaign Finance - Money, Political Finance, Campaign Contributions

Now go see what professions donate to republicans and which donate to democrats.

Democrats are either super rich or super poor- republicans are typically the middle class - they hold middle class jobs.


----------



## francoHFW

Mr.Nick said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the depression, morons. Blame the victims of your greedy rich masters...
> 
> There are as many white Pubs as White Dems on assistance, they're just the loudmouth racist cheats...your stereotypes of blacks, victims of your bigotry, are disgusting. Let's try opportunities in education and training and taxing the bloated rich fairly...Voodoo and deregulation is a catastrophe...see sig pp1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are about as many white republicans on welfare as there are black republicans - lets also not forget that whites are 72% of the population... So I'll guess and say 1,000-3,000.
> 
> Blacks are only 15% of the population but they are responsible for 50% of the welfare handouts... Mexicans are 20% "other" is 5% and whites are 25%... That is just the welfare program tho - meaning the race of those who are on welfare program - not the general population.
> 
> Food stamps pretty much have similar racial statistics.......Then again not everyone on food stamps is on welfare.
Click to expand...


Actually, Blacks are 33%, and yes they ARE discriminated against...


----------



## Vidi

Pho_King said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are about as many white republicans on welfare as there are black republicans - lets also not forget that whites are 72% of the population... So I'll guess and say 1,000-3,000.
> 
> Blacks are only 15% of the population but they are responsible for 50% of the welfare handouts... Mexicans are 20% "other" is 5% and whites are 25%... That is just the welfare program tho - meaning the race of those who are on welfare program - not the general population.
> 
> Food stamps pretty much have similar racial statistics.......Then again not everyone on food stamps is on welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just playing devils advocate here...
> 
> one could argue that theres a disporportionate amount of minorities on government assistance because of discrimnitory hiring practices.
> 
> How would you answer that argument? And CAN it be answered honestly without sounding racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer to that argument is that the argument is full of shit and fail.
Click to expand...


So you deny that racism exists at all. Gotcha.


...filing Pho King under moron...


carry on


----------



## emptystep

Mr.Nick said:


> I'd bet my dick that the progressives that post here are one of four things 1) union workers 2) college students 3) employed at a remedial job or 4) unemployed and living off welfare or in their moms basement....
> 
> 90% of the non-union private sector that makes 35-40k a year and up are non-progressives....
> 
> Oh trust me I know.... I know what professions make what and what don't and you can search contributions via this site by profession. I've been doing it for years..
> 
> Campaign Finance - Money, Political Finance, Campaign Contributions
> 
> Now go see what professions donate to republicans and which donate to democrats.
> 
> Democrats are either super rich or super poor- republicans are typically the middle class - they hold middle class jobs.



Personally I really don't want your dick so let's just forget that idea right now.

Campaign contributions aren't going to give you an idea of who is on this board. Your model is overly simplistic.


----------



## Vidi

Mr.Nick said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last year they closed the last of the Cabrini Green housing projects and on the front of the Chicago Tribune they showed this old woman in a nice "northern" jacket drinking a 6 dollar large Starbucks cup of coffee while bitching about how America is so racist, and it's not fair how she is being relocated to a brand new free apartment....
> 
> It was pretty disgusting....
> 
> She lives her life off the taxpayers and is bitching about it in a 150 dollar coat while drinking a 6 dollar cup of coffee...... And she wants sympathy???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do but as a liberal you're far too stupid to know it!! There is no end to how big a liberal wants the government to be. BO took over the biggest government in history and the direction is still straight up!!!
> 
> Recently, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, testified before the House Budget Committee on the growth of the 10-largest &#8220;means tested&#8221; federal programs that serve people who qualify by various definitions of poverty.
> 
> 
> Here&#8217;s what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted &#8220;2011 dollars&#8221; dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.
> 
> 
> Haskins&#8217;s list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion.
> 
> To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesn&#8217;t. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.
> 
> And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare &#8212; and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would guess the average household income of this board's liberals is about  $75k. Do you really think we don't care about our income?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet my dick that the progressives that post here are one of four things 1) union workers 2) college students 3) employed at a remedial job or 4) unemployed and living off welfare or in their moms basement....
> 
> 90% of the non-union private sector that makes 35-40k a year and up are non-progressives....
> 
> Oh trust me I know.... I know what professions make what and what don't and you can search contributions via this site by profession. I've been doing it for years..
> 
> Campaign Finance - Money, Political Finance, Campaign Contributions
> 
> Now go see what professions donate to republicans and which donate to democrats.
> 
> Democrats are either super rich or super poor- republicans are typically the middle class - they hold middle class jobs.
Click to expand...


Linda Mcmahon - $767,631 in Political Contributions for 2012
Bob Perry - $6,789,200 in Political Contributions for 2012
John Raese - $10,500 in Political Contributions for 2012
Harold Simmons - $14,105,460 in Political Contributions for 2012
Miriam Adelson - $15,165,900 in Political Contributions for 2012

Hmmm according to your link. The top FIVE contributors are all uberrich people from Linda McMahon ( WWE ) to Miraim Adelson ( Sheldons wife ) and ALL of them gave to the Republicans.

( 4 of the next 5 gave to Obama though )

and I dont get why Linda McMahon is listed first she didnt even break a million. Maybe your link has flawed data?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Vidi said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ignorant is the operative word.
> 
> The EQUIVILENT of 12 US dollars
> 
> Which by the way at CURRENT exchange rates is 12 CU.
> Calculator for Cuban Convertible Pesos (CUC) Currency Exchange Rate Conversion.
> 
> So you want to try again about who doesnt know shit about exchange rates?
> 
> NEEEEXXX
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously that fucking stupid??
> 
> You don't even have a common denominator to even make your assessment...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I am seriously stupid enough to go check the exchange rate and post it when someone makes accusations. How ignorant of me to actually find PROOF of my opinion instead of just posting insults like...I dont know who...OH YEAH...YOU!
Click to expand...


You don't have a fucking common denominator dummy.....

In other-words I could buy a can of pop in Cuba for 10 cents US but in order for me to figure out that the can of pop costs I would need something to compare it to on a monitary scale........

Not to mention the Cuban Peso is worthless outside of Cuba - hell their peso is usless in Cuba....

From an economic perspective you have absolutely ZERO idea what the fuck you're talking about.....  Hell you're a fucking moron that cant even understand scale or perspective.

I know the exchange rate - now I need product pricing or living standards in Cuba. I'd be willing to bet my dick the prices of products are pretty similar.... At the same time comparing a capitalist currency to a communist currency is downright bonkers considering the models are complete opposites.

Cubans only fork over 75% of their pay to the government for basic shit....


----------



## francoHFW

thereisnospoon said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they know that in Cuba - everyone is just like them - a worthless parasites. So they have no one to mooch off of like they do here. Despite falsely demonizing conservatives to further their Communist agenda, they know they need us conservatives to provide for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, remember Michael Moores Sicko? He took people to Cuba to get perscription drugs? And the bottle of pills was like 12 bucks whereas the woman was paying over 100 here in the States?
> 
> They get their drugs so cheap because BigPharma is making its money off of US.
> 
> Maybe we ought to find a way to stop paying for Cubas perscription drugs huh?
> 
> PS and dont say you didnt see it. There was a big hubbub about it in the news and Im sure everyone on this forum was screaming about that pinko Michael Moore for at least a week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NIce try...You forgot the part where the prices are at that level because the Cuban government subsidizes the cost....That applies to every nation where "price" is controlled.
> I would not watch a MIchael Moore movie if it were the last motion picture on earth.
> Moore is a partisan angry liberal hack and a hypocrite.
> Fuck him.
> It pisses me off that a gentleman such as Steve Jobs who put tens of thousands of people to work, contributed to charity passes away at such a young age, while a big fat disgusting 12 sandwich eating cholesterol laden fuck like Micheal Moore who contributes absolutely NOTHING to man kind, gets to stay here on earth.
> Where the fuck is the justice in THAT!
Click to expand...


BS, we pay a much higher price than anywhere else for American drugs- thanks to Pub and their cronies, hater/dupe. 
Try watching sicko and stop being such a tool of greedy corps/rich...ay caramba.

Obama is a fascist RWer now? Change the channel, you're whacked. And Hitler was no socialist, Beckbot, JFC Read something.


----------



## Katzndogz

emptystep said:


> I am getting the idea that some believe the 'liberals' on this board want to take Walton's money and by a homeless person a Cadilac. We don't.
> 
> On the other side we do believe that you want to throw them under the bus.



What did Walton start off with in 1962?

If you took Walton's money and bought all the poor people Cadillacs they would sell the cadillacs to buy stuff from Walton.  Pretty soon Walton would have all the money and the poor wouldn't have any Cadillac's either.

Poor people are poor because of the way they think.  Because of the decisions they make.  They will never be rich, not even if you gave them a million dollars every year.  They would have the money for 2-3 months, then be homeless derelicts again.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Your answer was shot down in that thread too.
> 
> Your Freudian Slip contradicts your stupid video.
> Now of course, it all depends on who you are defining as "rich." If taxing thr rish doesn't work because they are too poor, taxing the poor because they are too rich must be the answer. (sarcasm) In reality the people the Right call "rich" are merely upper middle class WAGE EARNERS, not the truly rich. It's wage earners who pay the taxes, not the wealthy. It is the wealthy who are waging "class warfare" against the wage earner. Even your MessiahRushie admits it.
> 
> August 7, 2007
> CALLER:  And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and* the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income*, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.
> 
> RUSH:  It does,* exactly, and here's the dirty little secret* if you ever to pull it off.  It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. * You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income.*  I'm out of time.  I'll explain that. *There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income.  Earned income is what the income tax rate is on.  That's how "the rich" do it.  They don't have "earned" income. *
> END TRANSCRIPT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point again.  We could confiscate every dime from "the rich" and maybe pay one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.
> Bill Whittle On Eating "The Rich" | RealClearPolitics
> 
> Obama is playing games with you. And you... are letting him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you and Willie Wittless are deliberately trying to redefine the "rich" as well to do WAGE EARNERS. The truly rich do not work for the common wage!!!! They are Capital Gains Tycoons, not upper middle class wage earners who actually pay nearly all the taxes.
> 
> A Capital Gains Tycoon can make a billion dollars on the stock market and not pay a single dime on it. That gain can grow year after year tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the tycoon decides to realize some of it, but unlike an IRA where he would pay a tax penalty for cashing it before retirement age, the tycoon not only pays no penalty but also pays a lower tax rate than a wage earner. And still the tycoon is not satisfied. Their puppets, the GOP, are trying to eliminate all capital gains taxes!!!
> 
> As to Willie Wittless, the top 1% of WEALTH, not wages, have about 20 trillion in total net worth, so if you confiscated all of it as Wittless postulates with wage earners, you could pay off the entire GOP debt and have enough left over for one hell of a big party.
Click to expand...


Ohhhhh... I get it now.  Pardon me for mistaking you for a critical thinker.  I thought you were interested in a discussion of political issues, but what's readily apparent is that you're simply envious that other people have more money than you do.  
I mean, we both KNOW that capital gains are taxed several times before any checks are cut, so what else could it be? 



You know, the REAL difference between leftists and capitalists is that leftists believe there's only so much pie to go around.  They think everyone should be guaranteed a little sliver, even though when that sliver is finally passed down by government it arrives as crumbs. 
Capitalists, on the other hand... know that we can always make more pie.


----------



## Vidi

Mr.Nick said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously that fucking stupid??
> 
> You don't even have a common denominator to even make your assessment...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am seriously stupid enough to go check the exchange rate and post it when someone makes accusations. How ignorant of me to actually find PROOF of my opinion instead of just posting insults like...I dont know who...OH YEAH...YOU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a fucking common denominator dummy.....
> 
> In other-words I could buy a can of pop in Cuba for 10 cents US but in order for me to figure out that the can of pop costs I would need something to compare it to on a monitary scale........
> 
> Not to mention the Cuban Peso is worthless outside of Cuba - hell their peso is usless in Cuba....
> 
> From an economic perspective you have absolutely ZERO idea what the fuck you're talking about.....  Hell you're a fucking moron that cant even understand scale or perspective.
> 
> I know the exchange rate - now I need product pricing or living standards in Cuba. I'd be willing to bet my dick the prices of products are pretty similar.... At the same time comparing a capitalist currency to a communist currency is downright bonkers considering the models are complete opposites.
> 
> Cubans only fork over 75% of their pay to the government for basic shit....
Click to expand...


You REALLY need to stop betting your dick. Thats not something you want to lose.


So Im going to ASK questions because HEY you may actually know more than me on this subject. 

So if the exchange rate is one to one. Then if I can buy a product for one CU, then whats it cost me in US dollars?

I do understand what youre saying about ratios. If I work for 10 dollars a day and a cuban works for a dollar a day, the 10 to 1 ratio makes the price the exactly the same in respects to income of the purchaser.

But how does it effect the sellers profit?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Vidi said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess the average household income of this board's liberals is about  $75k. Do you really think we don't care about our income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet my dick that the progressives that post here are one of four things 1) union workers 2) college students 3) employed at a remedial job or 4) unemployed and living off welfare or in their moms basement....
> 
> 90% of the non-union private sector that makes 35-40k a year and up are non-progressives....
> 
> Oh trust me I know.... I know what professions make what and what don't and you can search contributions via this site by profession. I've been doing it for years..
> 
> Campaign Finance - Money, Political Finance, Campaign Contributions
> 
> Now go see what professions donate to republicans and which donate to democrats.
> 
> Democrats are either super rich or super poor- republicans are typically the middle class - they hold middle class jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linda Mcmahon - $767,631 in Political Contributions for 2012
> Bob Perry - $6,789,200 in Political Contributions for 2012
> John Raese - $10,500 in Political Contributions for 2012
> Harold Simmons - $14,105,460 in Political Contributions for 2012
> Miriam Adelson - $15,165,900 in Political Contributions for 2012
> 
> Hmmm according to your link. The top FIVE contributors are all uberrich people from Linda McMahon ( WWE ) to Miraim Adelson ( Sheldons wife ) and ALL of them gave to the Republicans.
> 
> ( 4 of the next 5 gave to Obama though )
> 
> and I dont get why Linda McMahon is listed first she didnt even break a million. Maybe your link has flawed data?
Click to expand...


Linda McMahon is also her only contributor........ All she does is donate to herself...

Besides, I said LOOK AT THE PROFESSIONS

You do know you can search by profession on that site do you not??

Good after that you can see which profession donated to which party...

I'm not shocked that site is too difficult for you to navigate..... You only need an IQ of 90+  apparently you're slow...


----------



## francoHFW

Actually, the GOP is mainly rich A-HOLES and red neck haters and fundies nowadays LOL. But thanks for the BS, Rush/Beck/Savage/Sean.


----------



## Vidi

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point again.  We could confiscate every dime from "the rich" and maybe pay one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.
> Bill Whittle On Eating "The Rich" | RealClearPolitics
> 
> Obama is playing games with you. And you... are letting him.
> 
> 
> 
> Again you and Willie Wittless are deliberately trying to redefine the "rich" as well to do WAGE EARNERS. The truly rich do not work for the common wage!!!! They are Capital Gains Tycoons, not upper middle class wage earners who actually pay nearly all the taxes.
> 
> A Capital Gains Tycoon can make a billion dollars on the stock market and not pay a single dime on it. That gain can grow year after year tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the tycoon decides to realize some of it, but unlike an IRA where he would pay a tax penalty for cashing it before retirement age, the tycoon not only pays no penalty but also pays a lower tax rate than a wage earner. And still the tycoon is not satisfied. Their puppets, the GOP, are trying to eliminate all capital gains taxes!!!
> 
> As to Willie Wittless, the top 1% of WEALTH, not wages, have about 20 trillion in total net worth, so if you confiscated all of it as Wittless postulates with wage earners, you could pay off the entire GOP debt and have enough left over for one hell of a big party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh... I get it now.  Pardon me for mistaking you for a critical thinker.  I thought you were interested in a discussion of political issues, but what's readily apparent is that you're simply envious that other people have more money than you do.
> I mean, we both KNOW that capital gains are taxed several times before any checks are cut, so what else could it be?
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the REAL difference between leftists and capitalists is that leftists believe there's only so much pie to go around.  They think everyone should be guaranteed a little sliver, even though when that sliver is finally passed down by government it arrives as crumbs.
> Capitalists, on the other hand... know that we can always make more pie.
Click to expand...


See thats where youre wrong.

The leftist isnt envious. He's pissed that someone else got breaks that are not available to him and will never become available to him because he believes that he'll never be rich.

The righty is protecting those breaks because he believes that he'll someday get those breaks when they too become rich.

One is deluded.


----------



## emptystep

Katzndogz said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting the idea that some believe the 'liberals' on this board want to take Walton's money and by a homeless person a Cadilac. We don't.
> 
> On the other side we do believe that you want to throw them under the bus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did Walton start off with in 1962?
> 
> If you took Walton's money and bought all the poor people Cadillacs they would sell the cadillacs to buy stuff from Walton.  Pretty soon Walton would have all the money and the poor wouldn't have any Cadillac's either.
> 
> Poor people are poor because of the way they think.  Because of the decisions they make.  They will never be rich, not even if you gave them a million dollars every year.  They would have the money for 2-3 months, then be homeless derelicts again.
Click to expand...


The point is we are not offering Sam's money. We offering our own money, liberal's that is. We are offering to do it through the government because we don't want to be the only ones to make sure the homeless don't starve. We don't want some druggie, slacker to have a Cadilac anymore than anyone else.


----------



## Vidi

Mr.Nick said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet my dick that the progressives that post here are one of four things 1) union workers 2) college students 3) employed at a remedial job or 4) unemployed and living off welfare or in their moms basement....
> 
> 90% of the non-union private sector that makes 35-40k a year and up are non-progressives....
> 
> Oh trust me I know.... I know what professions make what and what don't and you can search contributions via this site by profession. I've been doing it for years..
> 
> Campaign Finance - Money, Political Finance, Campaign Contributions
> 
> Now go see what professions donate to republicans and which donate to democrats.
> 
> Democrats are either super rich or super poor- republicans are typically the middle class - they hold middle class jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linda Mcmahon - $767,631 in Political Contributions for 2012
> Bob Perry - $6,789,200 in Political Contributions for 2012
> John Raese - $10,500 in Political Contributions for 2012
> Harold Simmons - $14,105,460 in Political Contributions for 2012
> Miriam Adelson - $15,165,900 in Political Contributions for 2012
> 
> Hmmm according to your link. The top FIVE contributors are all uberrich people from Linda McMahon ( WWE ) to Miraim Adelson ( Sheldons wife ) and ALL of them gave to the Republicans.
> 
> ( 4 of the next 5 gave to Obama though )
> 
> and I dont get why Linda McMahon is listed first she didnt even break a million. Maybe your link has flawed data?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linda McMahon is also her only contributor........ All she does is donate to herself...
> 
> Besides, I said LOOK AT THE PROFESSIONS
> 
> You do know you can search by profession on that site do you not??
> 
> Good after that you can see which profession donated to which party...
> 
> I'm not shocked that site is too difficult for you to navigate..... You only need an IQ of 90+  apparently you're slow...
Click to expand...


Have you considered that your ratio argument might also apply here?

Or are you so wrapped up in partisan hackery that youre unable to make simple connections between issues?


----------



## Vidi

Katzndogz said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting the idea that some believe the 'liberals' on this board want to take Walton's money and by a homeless person a Cadilac. We don't.
> 
> On the other side we do believe that you want to throw them under the bus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did Walton start off with in 1962?
> 
> If you took Walton's money and bought all the poor people Cadillacs they would sell the cadillacs to buy stuff from Walton.  Pretty soon Walton would have all the money and the poor wouldn't have any Cadillac's either.
> 
> Poor people are poor because of the way they think.  Because of the decisions they make.  They will never be rich, not even if you gave them a million dollars every year.  They would have the money for 2-3 months, then be homeless derelicts again.
Click to expand...


you should ask yourself what the tax rate was in 1962. And did it stop good old Sam?


----------



## Mr.Nick

francoHFW said:


> Actually, the GOP is mainly rich A-HOLES and red neck haters and fundies nowadays LOL. But thanks for the BS, Rush/Beck/Savage/Sean.



I'm not GOP but I'll take them any day over the progressives....

I'll never vote progressive...

I suppose you think I'm a redneck or rich? 

No I just have a clear understanding of the Bill of Rights - you know the document you alleged "liberals" enjoy taking shits on.....  You know attempting to ban guns, free speech, the press, religion, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and Tenth Amendments entirely...

But you're the "liberals"  - No you're fascist authoritarian fucks who would have absolutely ZERO problem seeing a libertarian go to prison for his or her views because they contradict your own.

You're the fucking bastards that create laws at the state level that violate peoples rights...

Just today I was reading an article about how the progressives in California want to put GPS trackers in peoples cars so they can tax them on "how much they drive." Now BITCH NAZI - do you have any fucking idea how intrusive and just over the fucking line that is??? Thoughts like that shouldn't fucking exist in the US - yet progressives dream them up everyday because they have absolutely ZERO respect for the Bill of Rights...

Then you have the audacity to call non-progressives lunatics??? really? are they the ones who want to put GPS units in peoples cars to "tax them" or better yet "track them."


----------



## Murf76

Vidi said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you and Willie Wittless are deliberately trying to redefine the "rich" as well to do WAGE EARNERS. The truly rich do not work for the common wage!!!! They are Capital Gains Tycoons, not upper middle class wage earners who actually pay nearly all the taxes.
> 
> A Capital Gains Tycoon can make a billion dollars on the stock market and not pay a single dime on it. That gain can grow year after year tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the tycoon decides to realize some of it, but unlike an IRA where he would pay a tax penalty for cashing it before retirement age, the tycoon not only pays no penalty but also pays a lower tax rate than a wage earner. And still the tycoon is not satisfied. Their puppets, the GOP, are trying to eliminate all capital gains taxes!!!
> 
> As to Willie Wittless, the top 1% of WEALTH, not wages, have about 20 trillion in total net worth, so if you confiscated all of it as Wittless postulates with wage earners, you could pay off the entire GOP debt and have enough left over for one hell of a big party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh... I get it now.  Pardon me for mistaking you for a critical thinker.  I thought you were interested in a discussion of political issues, but what's readily apparent is that you're simply envious that other people have more money than you do.
> I mean, we both KNOW that capital gains are taxed several times before any checks are cut, so what else could it be?
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the REAL difference between leftists and capitalists is that leftists believe there's only so much pie to go around.  They think everyone should be guaranteed a little sliver, even though when that sliver is finally passed down by government it arrives as crumbs.
> Capitalists, on the other hand... know that we can always make more pie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See thats where youre wrong.
> 
> The leftist isnt envious. He's pissed that someone else got breaks that are not available to him and will never become available to him because he believes that he'll never be rich.
> 
> The righty is protecting those breaks because he believes that he'll someday get those breaks when they too become rich.
> 
> One is deluded.
Click to expand...


Nope.  If the left wasn't envious and was simply "pissed that someone else got breaks", they'd be willing to understand that it's the Nanny-State which prevents poor, perspective entrepreneurs from catching a break.  They'd be for LIMITING the power of government in our personal lives instead of strengthening it.

Earlier in this thread, kwc57 put on a very thought-provoking thread about "Jose the Tamale Salesman".  My suggestion to you would be to go back to that post #298, and really THINK about what it would take for Jose to get that business off the ground by the standards we use today.  I mean, consider the hurdles in his path and the consequences of not being able to even try due to his lack of resources.  WHY should it be so difficult to sell homemade tamales?  And why should we be surprised if he and his family end up on food stamps and public welfare after denying him the chance to improve his family's circumstances?   Dig down into it, and see if you don't see what I see.  We're in Jose's way.  And because we are, he's dependent instead of resourceful.


----------



## emptystep

I have to go in a couple minutes so let me just spell this out right quick. 

Some people, both rich and poor, believe that everyone should help out in the common good to some degree. That would mean that, yes, richer would sometimes give to those that need help.

Some people don't want to help out, ever. There are no enough of these people to win an election so they have to fill ignorant people full of lies about liberals taking all the money and buying slacker, druggies Cadilacs. 

Now I am not saying Romney is a lying, greedy person. We can see from his tax returns that he feels part of America and does his part every year. We can see that, right?


----------



## emptystep

Mr.Nick said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the GOP is mainly rich A-HOLES and red neck haters and fundies nowadays LOL. But thanks for the BS, Rush/Beck/Savage/Sean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not GOP but I'll take them any day over the progressives....
> 
> I'll never vote progressive...
> 
> I suppose you think I'm a redneck or rich?
> 
> No I just have a clear understanding of the Bill of Rights - you know the document you alleged "liberals" enjoy taking shits on.....  You know attempting to ban guns, free speech, the press, religion, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and Tenth Amendments entirely...
> 
> But you're the "liberals"  - No you're fascist authoritarian fucks who would have absolutely ZERO problem seeing a libertarian go to prison for his or her views because they contradict your own.
> 
> You're the fucking bastards that create laws at the state level that violate peoples rights...
> 
> Just today I was reading an article about how the progressives in California want to put GPS trackers in peoples cars so they can tax them on "how much they drive." Now BITCH NAZI - do you have any fucking idea how intrusive and just over the fucking line that is??? Thoughts like that shouldn't fucking exist in the US - yet progressives dream them up everyday because they have absolutely ZERO respect for the Bill of Rights...
> 
> Then you have the audacity to call non-progressives lunatics??? really? are they the ones who want to put GPS units in peoples cars to "tax them" or better yet "track them."
Click to expand...


And yes, here is a whole page of crap someone is feeding you so they don't have to pay taxes. You are screwing yourself by the way.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think overthrowing a monarchy and forming their own nation is the work of right wingers youre sadly mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is all of human history wanted more limited government and taxaction than our saintly founders??
Click to expand...


Our saintly founders were of different political pursuasions. If they had all thought alike they would not have needed all summer and all those compromises to make a Constitution. And what the saintly founders did was take a government with no taxes, no power, so limited it almost didn't exist and created a government of much larger size, gave it numerous new enumerated powers, including the power to tax, and made those new laws superior. 
With our form of government the political party not in power usually sets up the usual whine that the government is doing nasty things and violating the Constitution.


----------



## Murf76

emptystep said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the GOP is mainly rich A-HOLES and red neck haters and fundies nowadays LOL. But thanks for the BS, Rush/Beck/Savage/Sean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not GOP but I'll take them any day over the progressives....
> 
> I'll never vote progressive...
> 
> I suppose you think I'm a redneck or rich?
> 
> No I just have a clear understanding of the Bill of Rights - you know the document you alleged "liberals" enjoy taking shits on.....  You know attempting to ban guns, free speech, the press, religion, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and Tenth Amendments entirely...
> 
> But you're the "liberals"  - No you're fascist authoritarian fucks who would have absolutely ZERO problem seeing a libertarian go to prison for his or her views because they contradict your own.
> 
> You're the fucking bastards that create laws at the state level that violate peoples rights...
> 
> Just today I was reading an article about how the progressives in California want to put GPS trackers in peoples cars so they can tax them on "how much they drive." Now BITCH NAZI - do you have any fucking idea how intrusive and just over the fucking line that is??? Thoughts like that shouldn't fucking exist in the US - yet progressives dream them up everyday because they have absolutely ZERO respect for the Bill of Rights...
> 
> Then you have the audacity to call non-progressives lunatics??? really? are they the ones who want to put GPS units in peoples cars to "tax them" or better yet "track them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yes, here is a whole page of crap someone is feeding you so they don't have to pay taxes. You are screwing yourself by the way.
Click to expand...


They pay PLENTY of taxes.  The top 20% of earners pay 94% of income tax.  That's almost ALL.  What you folks are suggesting is that they start paying us more directly... dare I say?... _"spreading the wealth"_? 
Already, nearly half of American households are receiving some sort of government check.


----------



## Murf76

emptystep said:


> I have to go in a couple minutes so let me just spell this out right quick.
> 
> Some people, both rich and poor, believe that everyone should help out in the common good to some degree. That would mean that, yes, richer would sometimes give to those that need help.
> 
> Some people don't want to help out, ever. There are no enough of these people to win an election so they have to fill ignorant people full of lies about liberals taking all the money and buying slacker, druggies Cadilacs.
> 
> Now I am not saying Romney is a lying, greedy person. We can see from his tax returns that he feels part of America and does his part every year. We can see that, right?



Yeah, we can.  Romney gave 15% of his annual income to charity last year.  Barack and Michelle Obama gave 1%.

_Charity_ is voluntary.  Not taken at the point of a gun.



Oh... and did you further know that not only is Mitt Romney generous with his cash... he's also been known to snag a few human (and canine) potential drowning victims from disaster?
http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/news/x1128483358#axzz21DGNeHMB
Good guy all around.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Vidi said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linda Mcmahon - $767,631 in Political Contributions for 2012
> Bob Perry - $6,789,200 in Political Contributions for 2012
> John Raese - $10,500 in Political Contributions for 2012
> Harold Simmons - $14,105,460 in Political Contributions for 2012
> Miriam Adelson - $15,165,900 in Political Contributions for 2012
> 
> Hmmm according to your link. The top FIVE contributors are all uberrich people from Linda McMahon ( WWE ) to Miraim Adelson ( Sheldons wife ) and ALL of them gave to the Republicans.
> 
> ( 4 of the next 5 gave to Obama though )
> 
> and I dont get why Linda McMahon is listed first she didnt even break a million. Maybe your link has flawed data?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linda McMahon is also her only contributor........ All she does is donate to herself...
> 
> Besides, I said LOOK AT THE PROFESSIONS
> 
> You do know you can search by profession on that site do you not??
> 
> Good after that you can see which profession donated to which party...
> 
> I'm not shocked that site is too difficult for you to navigate..... You only need an IQ of 90+  apparently you're slow...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you considered that your ratio argument might also apply here?
> 
> Or are you so wrapped up in partisan hackery that youre unable to make simple connections between issues?
Click to expand...


There is no hackery there - It's data.

That site proves that progressives are either extremely wealthy or they're nothing.

Republicans on the other hand get the majority of their contributions from the non-union  middle class or on behalf of small businesses.

Romney gets his funds from middle class people who donate 500 bucks and that shit adds up really quick.... Meanwhile Obama gets his money from idiots like Morgan Freeman or Bill Maher...

Given the contributions Obama is going to get TKO'ed in this election...


----------



## Mr.Nick

emptystep said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the GOP is mainly rich A-HOLES and red neck haters and fundies nowadays LOL. But thanks for the BS, Rush/Beck/Savage/Sean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not GOP but I'll take them any day over the progressives....
> 
> I'll never vote progressive...
> 
> I suppose you think I'm a redneck or rich?
> 
> No I just have a clear understanding of the Bill of Rights - you know the document you alleged "liberals" enjoy taking shits on.....  You know attempting to ban guns, free speech, the press, religion, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and Tenth Amendments entirely...
> 
> But you're the "liberals"  - No you're fascist authoritarian fucks who would have absolutely ZERO problem seeing a libertarian go to prison for his or her views because they contradict your own.
> 
> You're the fucking bastards that create laws at the state level that violate peoples rights...
> 
> Just today I was reading an article about how the progressives in California want to put GPS trackers in peoples cars so they can tax them on "how much they drive." Now BITCH NAZI - do you have any fucking idea how intrusive and just over the fucking line that is??? Thoughts like that shouldn't fucking exist in the US - yet progressives dream them up everyday because they have absolutely ZERO respect for the Bill of Rights...
> 
> Then you have the audacity to call non-progressives lunatics??? really? are they the ones who want to put GPS units in peoples cars to "tax them" or better yet "track them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yes, here is a whole page of crap someone is feeding you so they don't have to pay taxes. You are screwing yourself by the way.
Click to expand...


Oh really?

Bay Area Drivers Could Be Tracked By GPS, Taxed Per Mile Driven « CBS San Francisco


----------



## Foxfyre

I would also like to point out that our leftist brethren who are so enamored with those high tax rates of decades ago never want to look at all the tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions available to high wage earners back then.  That would be those tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions that were eliminated and no longer exist as the tax rates came down.

That, plus making it more attractive for the rich to re-invest some of the assets, is why tax revenues went UP as the tax rates came down and the bounty to the federal treasury actually increased and why the top 20% shoulder far more of the tax burden than they did back then.

But to some of our leftist friends they don't really care about that.  What is important to them is that more prosperous people are stripped of much more of their earnings so those who earn less can feel righteous.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Seems to me we should just let the government launch all businesses from now on.  Since business owners are irrelevant, the government can do all the hiring and take all the risks.  I'm sure it can do that stuff better anyway, plus it has bottomless pockets.

.

.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

francoHFW said:


> Actually, the GOP is mainly rich A-HOLES and red neck haters and fundies nowadays LOL. But thanks for the BS, Rush/Beck/Savage/Sean.



don't forget Jefferson , Madision, Monroe since they are the Republican "A holes" who founded the country based on the idea of freedom and liberty from government. 

Why not try Cuba?? Its not far away and the climate is great!!


----------



## bripat9643

Mac1958 said:


> It doesn't matter.
> 
> The poor work harder than business owners..



Bullshit



Mac1958 said:


> Because they drive on roads.
> 
> Something like that.
> 
> .



?


----------



## emptystep

Murf76 said:


> They pay PLENTY of taxes.  The top 20% of earners pay 94% of income tax.  That's almost ALL.  What you folks are suggesting is that they start paying us more directly... dare I say?... _"spreading the wealth"_?
> Already, nearly half of American households are receiving some sort of government check.



"'They' pay PLENTY of taxes." 
They? Do 'they' include democrats?

"...start paying 'us' more directly..."
Do us include republicans?

Where do get this 'they' and 'us' stuff? Your model is over simplified.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own three fully functional small town bakeries. In each I spent several years being the main baker first learning the business then teaching it to others so they could run it for me. Eventually though, I needed parts for my ovens which were no longer being manufactured so I went to a local machine shop. The owner and I got along well ( especially because I was a CNC machinist for seven years before I started my first bakery ) and eventually I invested in his business. Eventually he wanted to retire so I bought him out. I found a few more cleints and saw an opportunity to gain an account that required a major expansion. I split off a several of my employees into a new busiess to serve that signle account, but eventually expanded to include sevral other accounts. The first machine shop is pretty much a job shop. Small runs of parts from 10 to 1000 parts. The second is in constant production where we run about 30 different parts at least 20,000 parts each year.
> 
> The chemical business is something Im trying from scratch. Its a new industry that I think has a lot of potential for accumulating some serious wealth. Better than 1% type wealth. It could pan out...but it could not. So its not something Im putting a lot of eggs from my basket into.
> 
> Im a member of the local chamber of commerce and even ran for county commissioner several years back ( I lost oh well ).
> 
> I also took over my fathers rental properties for him after he needed triple bypass surgery and couldnt run them himself. He had it soooo screwed up. The last time he rented from anyone all that was reuired was a handshake and he just didnt get that times had changed. I set up his company with background check providers and got the delinquent renters out of his properties and got new paying customers in. When I stepped into his business, it was hemerraging money, when I stepped out, it was in the black. My friends at the time used to joke that I was a part time slum lord.
> 
> I did have one major failure. The local dry cleaner was going out of business and I thought I could turn that business around and turn a profit doing it. But I couldnt. It took far too much of my time and I found I couldnt really trust others to do the work well. Half assed work drives away customers. I lost a lot of money on that one. Ah well. Such is life.
> 
> So hey, mock all you want. I have two houses, five kids, one granddaughter and while the economy has slowed me down, it hasnt devastated me ( though my father in law went from millions in the bank to working nights at wal mart. I offered to stake him in a new business but he says hes done with it. He helped me greatly over the years so I wish hed take it but thats a whole other story. ) Your mockery doesnt change the fact that I am correct in my assertion that success is not predicated solely on the acts of the individual but also of the group within the business itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the gov't?   Do you think you owe more in taxes cuz the gov't built roads and bridges and stuff with our tax dollars?   How much credit do you think they deserve for your success?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I owe what the government asks of me. If Reagan say 28% I owe 28%. If Clinton say 39%, I owe 39%. And if Obama wants to go back to 39%, and its passes, then THAT is what I owe.
> 
> If I dont like the tax rate, I am more than within my rights to petition my senator and congressperson and ask them to propose changes.
> 
> What I do not do is whine about how I "earned" my money and how dare these "parasites" try to sponge the sweat of my brow, the fruit of my labor. I dont whine that my success puts me in a higher tax bracket. Its like movie stars who whine that they lost their privacy. Everytime I see one on TV complain about it I yell at the TV," Thats what 12 million dollars for 6 weeks of work gets you asshole!  Good trade! "
> 
> Same thing. Im in a higher tax bracket. I pay more in taxes. But I bring home more than most people as well.
> 
> Good trade.
Click to expand...


Owe them morally, ding dong, not owe them legally.  I'd be nice if you leftists quit trying to evade arguments about what the laws should be by citing what they are at the moment.

No one's "whining" about being successful enough to go into a higher tax bracket.  Another evasion on your part.  The problem - which is quite real, even if you and your fictional businesses just smile happily and say, "Whatever you want, Papa Government!" - is being treated like the goose that lays the golden eggs, BEFORE the townspeople realize that gutting it is a bad idea.


----------



## Oddball

Foxfyre said:


> I would also like to point out that our leftist brethren who are so enamored with those high tax rates of decades ago never want to look at all the tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions available to high wage earners back then.  That would be those tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions that were eliminated and no longer exist as the tax rates came down.
> 
> That, plus making it more attractive for the rich to re-invest some of the assets, is why tax revenues went UP as the tax rates came down and the bounty to the federal treasury actually increased and why the top 20% shoulder far more of the tax burden than they did back then.
> 
> But to some of our leftist friends they don't really care about that.  What is important to them is that more prosperous people are stripped of much more of their earnings so those who earn less can feel righteous.


They also don't give a shit when their great avatars -Kennedy, Rockefeller, Kerry, Kohl, Frankenstein, Blabberman-Schultz, etcetera- stash or "invest" some of their massive wealth in offshore banks and take advantage of the lower rates in their investment incomes.


----------



## OODA_Loop

emptystep said:


> There are no enough of these people to win an election so they have to fill ignorant people full of lies about liberals taking all the money and buying slacker, druggies Cadilacs.



I would feel more inclined to expand social programs if I could just once some see one iota of a sincere effort to prevent gaming the system instead of the constant defense of it like your statement.

Do not piss down my leg.

I know rain when I see it.


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
> Myopic twits...



Apparently you believe "patriot" is a euphemism for "moron."


----------



## bripat9643

ConzHateUSA said:


> I tell my friends about you disgusting pieces of human filth, but they dont believe me, the type who dont think they care about politics, they dont know you disgusting scum exist, sitting there hating everything and everyone the way you do...



You must work for the government.


----------



## emptystep

Foxfyre said:


> I would also like to point out that our leftist brethren who are so enamored with those high tax rates of decades ago never want to look at all the tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions available to high wage earners back then.  That would be those tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions that were eliminated and no longer exist as the tax rates came down.
> 
> That, plus making it more attractive for the rich to re-invest some of the assets, is why tax revenues went UP as the tax rates came down and the bounty to the federal treasury actually increased and why the top 20% shoulder far more of the tax burden than they did back then.
> 
> But to some of our leftist friends they don't really care about that.  What is important to them is that more prosperous people are stripped of much more of their earnings so those who earn less can feel righteous.



And you base all this left/right bullshit on what???


----------



## bripat9643

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> My only regret is that I haven't kept track of all the names I've been called because I didn't like what Obama said about business owners.  Just a few, off the top of my pointy little head:
> 
> _Bigot
> Racist
> Clueless
> Twit
> Liar
> Idiot
> Fucking idiot_
> 
> Crap.  There has to be at least a half dozen more.  I always think about compiling lists like this when it's too late.  Good thing I've been married nearly 30 years, the name-calling doesn't bug me.
> 
> .



The name calling is a surefire clue that criticism of Obama's admission is scoring a direct hit.  You don't see fireworks like that when you miss.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Seems to me we should just let the government launch all businesses from now on.  Since business owners are irrelevant, the government can do all the hiring and take all the risks.  I'm sure it can do that stuff better anyway, plus it has bottomless pockets.
> .



yes we'd have 1000's of crony capitalist Solyndras. BO gave 71% of his energy investments dollars to his bundlers- those who raised campaign cash for him. Have the green jobs of the future been invented yet???


----------



## bripat9643

ConzHateUSA said:


> You dont know who is on welfare and who isnt...
> 
> You dont know anything about history, you really are an incredibly stupid person, seriously
> 
> You might want to get a real education first.



It's spelled "don't" and "isn't."

I just thought you might clear that up before you go around calling people stupid.


----------



## emptystep

OODA_Loop said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no enough of these people to win an election so they have to fill ignorant people full of lies about liberals taking all the money and buying slacker, druggies Cadilacs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would feel more inclined to expand social programs if I could just once some see one iota of a sincere effort to prevent gaming the system instead of the constant defense of it like your statement.
> 
> Do not piss down my leg.
> 
> I know rain when I see it.
Click to expand...


There is gaming of the welfare system, and government contracts, and library loans, and road hogs, and everything else. What we need is to look at the issues intelligently and logically. Hearing about how the whole problem is sneeky poor people and lefties want to take your guns and your God just makes a difficult problem worse.


----------



## bripat9643

edthecynic said:


> No, because it says "but ALSO" as you well know. Clearly he is saying that individual initiative goes together with cooperation to produce the GREATEST success. The rest of what you say is what GOP hate radio has brainwashed you with.



Government isn't "cooperation."  Government is compulsion, force, macht.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> I tell my friends about you disgusting pieces of human filth, but they dont believe me, the type who dont think they care about politics, they dont know you disgusting scum exist, sitting there hating everything and everyone the way you do...



If there are reasons not to hate liberals please present your best one??
Why are you so afraid to even try? What does that tell you about the liberal IQ? You insist that you are right yet you know you lack the IQ to even present a reason. That must tell you something about your blind Nazi-like self assurance?


----------



## bripat9643

ConzHateUSA said:


> I know, lets erase 200 yrs of racism and having whites in charge of everything at the end of a gun, and start over, game?
> 
> Here is how we do it, take all the land and money and natural resources away from everyone in the USofA...
> 
> Make everyone equal, for instance members of the Walton family wont have billions that they worked not one hour for, and poor people wouldnt be living in shacks, etc.
> 
> Then give each adult person a check for One Million dollars, and say go!
> 
> 
> 
> You white old fat baggers will then have the same chance as everyone else, fair?



It's neither fair nor just.  Why should anyone have everything they've worked for taken away from them?  Only a commie would imagine that to be just.


----------



## bripat9643

edthecynic said:


> Again you and Willie Wittless are deliberately trying to redefine the "rich" as well to do WAGE EARNERS. The truly rich do not work for the common wage!!!! They are Capital Gains Tycoons, not upper middle class wage earners who actually pay nearly all the taxes.
> 
> A Capital Gains Tycoon can make a billion dollars on the stock market and not pay a single dime on it. That gain can grow year after year tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the tycoon decides to realize some of it, but unlike an IRA where he would pay a tax penalty for cashing it before retirement age, the tycoon not only pays no penalty but also pays a lower tax rate than a wage earner. And still the tycoon is not satisfied. Their puppets, the GOP, are trying to eliminate all capital gains taxes!!!
> 
> As to Willie Wittless, the top 1% of WEALTH, not wages, have about 20 trillion in total net worth, so if you confiscated all of it as Wittless postulates with wage earners, you could pay off the entire GOP debt and have enough left over for one hell of a big party.




Total bullshit.  Futhermore, you're ignoring the fact that the money is invested in plant and equipment, which means it's providing jobs for thousands of people.  You would cut off your own nose to spite your face.   That's what liberalism is all about, unfortunately - oganized idiocy,


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

bripat9643 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, lets erase 200 yrs of racism and having whites in charge of everything at the end of a gun, and start over, game?
> 
> Here is how we do it, take all the land and money and natural resources away from everyone in the USofA...
> 
> Make everyone equal, for instance members of the Walton family wont have billions that they worked not one hour for, and poor people wouldnt be living in shacks, etc.
> 
> Then give each adult person a check for One Million dollars, and say go!
> 
> 
> 
> You white old fat baggers will then have the same chance as everyone else, fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's neither fair nor just.  Why should anyone have everything they've worked for taken away from them?  Only a commie would imagine that to be just.
Click to expand...


And of course slavery existed all over the world and still exists today in parts of Africa. And of course many other injustices have existed since the dawn of time, at least by modern standards. 

American freedom has done the best job of correcting them not the Stalinist Nazi Maoist totalitarian violence for which Conshate prays.


----------



## bripat9643

ABikerSailor said:


> Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are considered to be inalienable rights here, but if you're stuck in the place you just described, your rights to those things are pretty limited as well, especially if you're in an area controlled by a war lord.
> 
> Try again.




In other words, they aren't inalienable.

Do you even know what the word means?

You just proved that people become liberals because they are stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the rest of the sentence. Pledge to each other our LIVES, FORTUNES AND SACRED HONOR.
> 
> 
> It means exactly what it says.
> 
> And just like Obamas statement, it not means what you think it means if you take it out of context and put partisan spin on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To accomplish the REVOLUTION Vidi, to accomplish the REVOLUTION, not for all purposes for all reasons for the rest of their lives.  To a man they were almost 100% opposed to ANY form of welfare state or ANY action of government that would obligate anybody beyond the most narrow of definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except once the Revolution was over, they wrote the Constitution and formed a nation instead of staying as individual states. .
Click to expand...


No, they formed a federation.   Only later did propagandists claim they formed a nation.



Vidi said:


> [Again, they united for the common good.
> 
> Im sorry but the facts of history simply do not support your narrative.



People join Rotary for the common good.  That doesn't mean Rotary has a claim on all their earnings and property.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I think the final score here is that business owners need to shut the fuck up because they drive on roads.
> 
> Next?
> 
> .




Consider: 



> Yes, entrepreneurship and individualism are wonderful things, but they depend on the stability and infrastructure and schooling provided by government. These do not come free; they must be paid for, and it's only fair that those who are able to do the most with these blessings share some of the rewards with government so that others can one day follow in their path. As Sarlin pointed out in a subsequent post, Romney, even as he was willfully misinterpreting Obama's point, also restated it: "There's no question your mom and dad, your school teachers, the people that provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help."
> 
> No man is an island. If you want to blame anybody for poisoning the world with that socialistic idea, blame John Donne.
> 
> The New Republic: You-Didn't-Build-That-Gate : NPR


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> You have got to be the dumbest of the dumb. The Constitution specifcally enumerates the powers of a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> We have no national government? LOL You should tell Mitt Romney that. Hes trying to become the head of a fictious government.



You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "federation."


----------



## bripat9643

emptystep said:


> You should worry more about what they are putting in your kool-aid. Hey, did you hear that there are no homeless vets living under bridges also?
> 
> (Different day, same brainless shit.)



Do you have any evidence of one that is?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you and Willie Wittless are deliberately trying to redefine the "rich" as well to do WAGE EARNERS. The truly rich do not work for the common wage!!!! They are Capital Gains Tycoons, not upper middle class wage earners who actually pay nearly all the taxes.
> 
> A Capital Gains Tycoon can make a billion dollars on the stock market and not pay a single dime on it. That gain can grow year after year tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the tycoon decides to realize some of it, but unlike an IRA where he would pay a tax penalty for cashing it before retirement age, the tycoon not only pays no penalty but also pays a lower tax rate than a wage earner. And still the tycoon is not satisfied. Their puppets, the GOP, are trying to eliminate all capital gains taxes!!!
> 
> As to Willie Wittless, the top 1% of WEALTH, not wages, have about 20 trillion in total net worth, so if you confiscated all of it as Wittless postulates with wage earners, you could pay off the entire GOP debt and have enough left over for one hell of a big party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit.  Futhermore, you're ignoring the fact that the money is invested in plant and equipment, which means it's providing jobs for thousands of people.  You would cut off your own nose to spite your face.   That's what liberalism is all about, unfortunately - oganized idiocy,
Click to expand...


great point, about 62.4% is held as business assets. Steal it all and we'd have instant depression. See why we are positive liberals have a low IQ??

"In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity."-Dommhoff


----------



## Foxfyre

Oddball said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also like to point out that our leftist brethren who are so enamored with those high tax rates of decades ago never want to look at all the tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions available to high wage earners back then.  That would be those tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions that were eliminated and no longer exist as the tax rates came down.
> 
> That, plus making it more attractive for the rich to re-invest some of the assets, is why tax revenues went UP as the tax rates came down and the bounty to the federal treasury actually increased and why the top 20% shoulder far more of the tax burden than they did back then.
> 
> But to some of our leftist friends they don't really care about that.  What is important to them is that more prosperous people are stripped of much more of their earnings so those who earn less can feel righteous.
> 
> 
> 
> They also don't give a shit when their great avatars -Kennedy, Rockefeller, Kerry, Kohl, Frankenstein, Blabberman-Schultz, etcetera- stash or "invest" some of their massive wealth in offshore banks and take advantage of the lower rates in their investment incomes.
Click to expand...


This is true.  Nor do they care that a fair and equitable flat and certain tax system would bring a whole big boatload of those offshore dollars back home where most would be reinvested in the American economy again and this interminable recession could be ended.

It isn't about America really.  It isn't about what is 'fair'.  It isn't about what produces the most benefits for the most people.  For them it is pure fuzzy logic class envy and hatred.  So long as they THINK the rich are paying more, they are happy no matter what else goes to hell in a hand basket.


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you move to a country where you pay more taxes if it makes you so happy ?
> 
> I keep pointing out that Cuba would love to have you and we would love to be rid of your sorry liberal ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they know that in Cuba - everyone is just like them - a worthless parasites. So they have no one to mooch off of like they do here. Despite falsely demonizing conservatives to further their Communist agenda, they know they need us conservatives to provide for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, remember Michael Moores Sicko? He took people to Cuba to get perscription drugs? And the bottle of pills was like 12 bucks whereas the woman was paying over 100 here in the States?
> 
> They get their drugs so cheap because BigPharma is making its money off of US.
> 
> Maybe we ought to find a way to stop paying for Cubas perscription drugs huh?
> 
> 
> PS and dont say you didnt see it. There was a big hubbub about it in the news and Im sure everyone on this forum was screaming about that pinko Michael Moore for at least a week.
Click to expand...


Michael Moore didn't show you the hospitals where the families of patients have to bribe the doctors to provide medication or treat their loved ones.  they have to bribe the staff to provide clean linen and decent meals.  These hospitals are filthy and the patients recieve no care without greasing a lot of palms.

Only the terminally gullible believe the Cuban medical system is superior to ours.

Here are some examples of the great healthcare the masses recieve in Cuba:


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only liberals are on welfare? Talk about self righteous with a huge dose of obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - but _only_ liberals are proud to be on welfare and make a concerted effort to stay on it for life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Youve accused ME of being a liberal. Ive never been on welfare...and never will.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, but it's almost gauranteed that you're sucking on the government tit.



Vidi said:


> [So its not ALL liberals then right? Just the ones that are actually on welfare.
> 
> But not Michelle Bachman who gets farm subsidies, or Walmart who gets LAND donated to them for their stores, or any of the other multibillion dollar corporations reciving government hand outs. Theyre all ok right?



There's a simple solution to the problem:  put an end to the subsidies and the donated land.  But  liberal turds like you won't do that, will you?


----------



## emptystep

bripat9643 said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should worry more about what they are putting in your kool-aid. Hey, did you hear that there are no homeless vets living under bridges also?
> 
> (Different day, same brainless shit.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence of one that is?
Click to expand...


First presidential election I assume.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime I buy a gallon of gasoline I help build a road or a bridge. obama didn't do that, he had help. bussiness is the engine of American life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent point.  Rather than Obama arrogantly telling business that "You didn't get there on your own", business should be telling Obama and the rest of the government, "Look, if you've got a lot of money and power, you didn't get it on your own.
> 
> *We're always struck by politicians who say, 'Well, the country works because I'm just so smart, because I know better than everyone else.  *If you're spending a lot of money, someone along the line had to give it to you.  There were a whole lot of taxpayers funding your pork projects.  Taxpayers funded and worked for this unbelievable American system you're now taking credit for.  If you've got roads and bridges, you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> The Internet didn't become the driving economic and cultural force that it is because of government.  Private business created the ideas, did the research, and spent the money to make it what it is today.
> 
> The point is, when we do things together, we the taxpayers foot the bill and actually do the work.  There are some things, like fighting fires, for which we tolerate government as a necessary evil.  We are proud to be one nation, but WE are the driving force of America's success, not government."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can say that because they ran for office and had the majority of the voters agree with them. Now Mob rule doesnt make one smart by any means, but we all said their ideas were good ones when we elected them.
> 
> which is kind of the point. oure absolutely correct when you say WE are the driving force of Americans success, but you failed to connect that all the way to a government "of the people, by the people, for the people".
> 
> WE are also the government.
> 
> At least we are supposed to be.
Click to expand...


No, Sparkles, they CAN'T say that.  At all.  I don't give a fuck HOW many voters voted for them.  This country doesn't work because politicians are smart, or know better than other people.  *This country doesn't work because of politicians.*  Period.  End of discussion.

I failed to connect the people as the driving force of America "all the way" to the government precisely because the government is NOT the driving force of America.  At its best, it is a necessary evil that the people tolerate in order to act in community with each other, but that doesn't make it the driving force of America, or even part of it.  And our government hasn't been at its best for a very, VERY long time.  As it stands now, our government is more often than not a millstone around the neck of the people it's supposed to serve, an anchor tied to our legs and holding us back.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> For them it is pure fuzzy logic class envy and hatred.  So long as they THINK the rich are paying more, they are happy no matter what else goes to hell in a hand basket.



great point!! BO is basing his campaign on raising taxes  from 36% to 39% on the rich when it will collect only $80 billion/year against a $1.5 trillion deficit and $17 trillion debt!!

Its working too!! The liberals are completely distracted from BO's depression!!


----------



## emptystep

Foxfyre said:


> For them it is pure fuzzy logic class envy and hatred.



So you are saying that I, as a liberal, have class envy and hatred. Which class do I envy? And who do I hate? And why?


----------



## bripat9643

Katzndogz said:


> Of course companies get land donated to them!  After all they are going to hire workers, pay taxes.  A gift of land is a cheap price to pay.   Actually the land isn't ever given, there is a grace period of usually five years before they have to pay for the land.
> 
> Sometimes liberals are so stupid they follow their heads right up their own asses.



Actually all that happens is that they are exempt from paying property taxes for a few years.

Of course, liberals are the people who vote for this bullshit.  Then they whine about capitalists for accepting it.  If the government is giving out stuff for free, only a fool would turn it down.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

emptystep said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For them it is pure fuzzy logic class envy and hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that I, as a liberal, have class envy and hatred. Which class do I envy? And who do I hate? And why?
Click to expand...


why not cut the BS and give us your best reason for being a liberal??
Why are you so afraid to even try??


----------



## Katzndogz

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they know that in Cuba - everyone is just like them - a worthless parasites. So they have no one to mooch off of like they do here. Despite falsely demonizing conservatives to further their Communist agenda, they know they need us conservatives to provide for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, remember Michael Moores Sicko? He took people to Cuba to get perscription drugs? And the bottle of pills was like 12 bucks whereas the woman was paying over 100 here in the States?
> 
> They get their drugs so cheap because BigPharma is making its money off of US.
> 
> Maybe we ought to find a way to stop paying for Cubas perscription drugs huh?
> 
> 
> PS and dont say you didnt see it. There was a big hubbub about it in the news and Im sure everyone on this forum was screaming about that pinko Michael Moore for at least a week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Moore didn't show you the hospitals where the families of patients have to bribe the doctors to provide medication or treat their loved ones.  they have to bribe the staff to provide clean linen and decent meals.  These hospitals are filthy and the patients recieve no care without greasing a lot of palms.
> 
> Only the terminally gullible believe the Cuban medical system is superior to ours.
Click to expand...


You just described the hospital system in the UK.


----------



## bripat9643

ConzHateUSA said:


> This whole general welfare argument could end if we made everything equal and fair, my challenge
> 
> take everything away from everyone, give everyone the same thing, baggers would be BEGGING for govt intervention within hours



No, actually they would arm themselves and march on Washington.


----------



## emptystep

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For them it is pure fuzzy logic class envy and hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that I, as a liberal, have class envy and hatred. Which class do I envy? And who do I hate? And why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why not cut the BS and give us your best reason for being a liberal??
> Why are you so afraid to even try??
Click to expand...


Because I believe in America and I believe in Americans.

Any other questions?


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> In one of my bakery I have three very intelligent and very hard working immigrants from Nigeria. The stories they have relayed to me tell me that you dont have a clue as to what youre talking about. And I say that NOT to attack you but to make a point.
> 
> The real problem in Africa is they dont have what we have here. A society protected by a government that allows for real opportunity.
> 
> You should look at Africa as a lesson of what happens when money controls governments instead of the people.



Nope.  That's what happens when government control over business is unlimited.  If you try to start a business in Nigeria, 50 government officials will come buy expecting to get their palms greased.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

emptystep said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that I, as a liberal, have class envy and hatred. Which class do I envy? And who do I hate? And why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not cut the BS and give us your best reason for being a liberal??
> Why are you so afraid to even try??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I believe in America and I believe in Americans.
> 
> Any other questions?
Click to expand...


is your IQ so low that you think that is a meaningful response??

Don't we all believe in America??????? See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be plain slow or down right stupid??

Ask a conservative the same questions and see if he has to run for the hills. What does that tell you?


----------



## Foxfyre

emptystep said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For them it is pure fuzzy logic class envy and hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that I, as a liberal, have class envy and hatred. Which class do I envy? And who do I hate? And why?
Click to expand...


I don't know.  Do you think Obama is right?  Do you honestly believe that business owners don't earn or deserve their profits as our President and his supporters on this board seem to think?

Do you really believe the government can facilitate us all helping each other out  and make it great for almost everybody if it just has a bunch more of our money?

Do you reject Adam Smith's and the Founders' and Walter Williams' concept that it is not government and it is not welfare or wealth distribution that creates a thriving healthy economy but rather it is everybody doing what they can to put money in their own pocket and put bread on their table?

If you answer yes, yes, yes, then yep.  You are a member of the class envy and hatred group.


----------



## francoHFW

Cuba's about 5 minutes of the movie. 

Romneycare for all! Already a great success.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

emptystep said:


> Because I believe in America Any other questions?



yes why do you believe in it??????????????????????

1) Because it was founded on the principle of freedom from liberal government??


2) Because its Constitution was so badly written that it can be subverted into a communist document such that freedom disappears and government controls everything?


----------



## emptystep

away from keyboard for a few minutes...


----------



## francoHFW

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In one of my bakery I have three very intelligent and very hard working immigrants from Nigeria. The stories they have relayed to me tell me that you dont have a clue as to what youre talking about. And I say that NOT to attack you but to make a point.
> 
> The real problem in Africa is they dont have what we have here. A society protected by a government that allows for real opportunity.
> 
> You should look at Africa as a lesson of what happens when money controls governments instead of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's what happens when government control over business is unlimited.  If you try to start a business in Nigeria, 50 government officials will come buy expecting to get their palms greased.
Click to expand...



A great reason GOOD gov't is needed. Keep cutting their pay and oversight and we'll have corruption like that.


----------



## Katzndogz

There's "America" and there's obama's america.  Anyone who believes in obama's america is beyond foolish.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

francoHFW said:


> Cuba's about 5 minutes of the movie.
> 
> Romneycare for all! Already a great success.



But dear Romney care is not for all, its for the liberals of MA. Why not be American and let each state decide what they want as Romney advocates.

Do we want another near genocide like the Great Society programs that amounted to a war on blacks? Its far better to let each state experiment so we don't have another national near genocide. This is why we have federalism. Over your head??


----------



## Oddball

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I think the final score here is that business owners need to shut the fuck up because they drive on roads.
> 
> Next?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, entrepreneurship and individualism are wonderful things, but they depend on the stability and infrastructure and schooling provided by government. These do not come free; they must be paid for, and it's only fair that those who are able to do the most with these blessings share some of the rewards with government so that others can one day follow in their path. As Sarlin pointed out in a subsequent post, Romney, even as he was willfully misinterpreting Obama's point, also restated it: "There's no question your mom and dad, your school teachers, the people that provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help."
> 
> No man is an island. If you want to blame anybody for poisoning the world with that socialistic idea, blame John Donne.
> 
> The New Republic: You-Didn't-Build-That-Gate : NPR
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Chris

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I believe in America Any other questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes why do you believe in it??????????????????????
> 
> 1) Because it was founded on the principle of freedom from liberal government??
> 
> 
> 2) Because its Constitution was so badly written that it can be subverted into a communist document such that freedom disappears and government controls everything?
Click to expand...


Lack of regulation of Wall Street destroyed the world economy.

Lack of regulation of BP spilled 2 million barrels of oil in the Gulf.

Lack of gun control regulation killed 1 million Americans since 1960.

You really don't get it do you?

Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.


----------



## bripat9643

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you and Willie Wittless are deliberately trying to redefine the "rich" as well to do WAGE EARNERS. The truly rich do not work for the common wage!!!! They are Capital Gains Tycoons, not upper middle class wage earners who actually pay nearly all the taxes.
> 
> A Capital Gains Tycoon can make a billion dollars on the stock market and not pay a single dime on it. That gain can grow year after year tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the tycoon decides to realize some of it, but unlike an IRA where he would pay a tax penalty for cashing it before retirement age, the tycoon not only pays no penalty but also pays a lower tax rate than a wage earner. And still the tycoon is not satisfied. Their puppets, the GOP, are trying to eliminate all capital gains taxes!!!
> 
> As to Willie Wittless, the top 1% of WEALTH, not wages, have about 20 trillion in total net worth, so if you confiscated all of it as Wittless postulates with wage earners, you could pay off the entire GOP debt and have enough left over for one hell of a big party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit.  Futhermore, you're ignoring the fact that the money is invested in plant and equipment, which means it's providing jobs for thousands of people.  You would cut off your own nose to spite your face.   That's what liberalism is all about, unfortunately - oganized idiocy,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> great point, about 62.4% is held as business assets. Steal it all and we'd have instant depression. See why we are positive liberals have a low IQ??
> 
> "In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity."-Dommhoff
Click to expand...


Most of the rest is held by institutional investors like pension funds.  there's also a huge amount locked up in 401K and IRA plans.  In other words, what shit-for-bains is really attacking is granny's pension.


----------



## Ernie S.

emptystep said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that I, as a liberal, have class envy and hatred. Which class do I envy? And who do I hate? And why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not cut the BS and give us your best reason for being a liberal??
> Why are you so afraid to even try??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I believe in America and I believe in Americans.
> 
> Any other questions?
Click to expand...

Apparently your idea of the ideal American is one who can not make it without government intervention.
I'm sorry I don't meet your criteria.


----------



## francoHFW

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I believe in America Any other questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes why do you believe in it??????????????????????
> 
> 1) Because it was founded on the principle of freedom from liberal government??
> 
> 
> 2) Because its Constitution was so badly written that it can be subverted into a communist document such that freedom disappears and government controls everything?
Click to expand...


Brainwashed IDIOCY. 1) They WERE liberals, and 2) talk of communism is hysterical Beckism- change the channel.


----------



## bripat9643

emptystep said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should worry more about what they are putting in your kool-aid. Hey, did you hear that there are no homeless vets living under bridges also?
> 
> (Different day, same brainless shit.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence of one that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First presidential election I assume.
Click to expand...


Is that supposed to be proof that vets are sleeping under bridges?


----------



## bripat9643

emptystep said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For them it is pure fuzzy logic class envy and hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that I, as a liberal, have class envy and hatred. Which class do I envy? And who do I hate? And why?
Click to expand...


You envy everyone who's making more than you.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In one of my bakery I have three very intelligent and very hard working immigrants from Nigeria. The stories they have relayed to me tell me that you dont have a clue as to what youre talking about. And I say that NOT to attack you but to make a point.
> 
> The real problem in Africa is they dont have what we have here. A society protected by a government that allows for real opportunity.
> 
> You should look at Africa as a lesson of what happens when money controls governments instead of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's what happens when government control over business is unlimited.  If you try to start a business in Nigeria, 50 government officials will come buy expecting to get their palms greased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A great reason GOOD gov't is needed. Keep cutting their pay and oversight and we'll have corruption like that.
Click to expand...

We had a GOOD government here until it got in the business of handing out other peoples' money in return for votes.
But congratulations! You got through an entire post without using the words "pubdupes" and "change the channel"/


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> A great reason GOOD gov't is needed. Keep cutting their pay and oversight and we'll have corruption like that.



The phrase "good governmnt" is any oxymoron.  The more power government has, the more corrupt it becomes.  Corruption comes with government just as fleas come with dogs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Chris said:


> Lack of regulation of Wall Street destroyed the world economy.



you mean lack of capitalism almost destroyed the world economy?

Who can say with a straight face that the housing crisis was not caused by Fanny Freddie Fed when most of the liberal government was organized to get folks into homes the capitalist free market said they could not afford.

See why we are positive a liberal will slow. He has Nazi like faith in genius liberal regulators when capitalism is obviously the best regulator.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> At times we are so used to seeing something that we are blind to the implications of what we are seeing. Sort of reminds me of the law of gravity; how many people were aware of gravity as being unusual until Newton.
> How many of us believed that we we're  independent creatures not needing anyone or any thing but ourselves. Then we think about it and realize how dependent we really are. People certainly seem to flock together and seem dependent on others despite the Republcian handbook on rugged individualism. And so another Republican truth falls to the floor with so many others. But not to worry, a new manual of snappy Republican truths and phrases will soon be out. How about, "Please Uncle Sam, I'd rather do it myself," it was a grabber in the Sixties?"



Nice try at a straw man, but no cigar.  There's no "You think you don't need anyone or anything else" about being offended by the notion that we shouldn't take credit for our own success and should instead thank the government for it.

If I want to thank my mother and father for the upbringing they gave me and the tools it provided me to build my life with, I can and will do that without any pompous sermonizing from Obama.

If I want to thank the handful of teachers who made a difference in my life - and since I attended public schools, you'd best believe that most of my education came through MY work, not theirs - I can and will do that without Obama hubristically announcing it like he's the only one who ever thought of the idea.

I regularly thank my customers for choosing to do business with me rather than my competitors, and I didn't need Obama and his snarky smirk to tell me to do it.

I thank, or did thank, these people because what they gave me was a voluntary choice on their part, and a result of THEIR individual struggle to achieve something in their own, individual lives (Yes, I know that teachers are paid for their jobs, but I think we can all agree that the truly special ones stand out in our memories precisely because they go way beyond what they're paid for).

If you think I'm going to thank the government for doing the job for which I pay it, and at which it does a glacially slow, red tape-laden, bare minimum performance more often than not, you're as delusional as Obama in his belief that we are going to equate the individuals in our lives with the government.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Ernie S. said:


> Apparently your idea of the ideal American is one who can not make it without government intervention.
> I'm sorry I don't meet your criteria.



A nation is no stronger than each individual in that nation. Liberals subvert the country by encouraging each individual to be a leech. Those few who really cant make it should not be helped by the Federal government since federal government has been the source of evil throughout human history!! Jefferson's America is nothing more than this realization. America's huge success is based on nothing more than this realization.

How important would Hitler have been without a central government?


----------



## Ernie S.

Chris said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I believe in America Any other questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes why do you believe in it??????????????????????
> 
> 1) Because it was founded on the principle of freedom from liberal government??
> 
> 
> 2) Because its Constitution was so badly written that it can be subverted into a communist document such that freedom disappears and government controls everything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of Wall Street destroyed the world economy.
> 
> Lack of regulation of BP spilled 2 million barrels of oil in the Gulf.
> 
> Lack of gun control regulation killed 1 million Americans since 1960.
> 
> You really don't get it do you?
> 
> Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.
Click to expand...

There are literally thousands of gun control laws on the book. We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the laws we have.
I can drive 50 miles from here and buy a Glock and walk away with it on the spot, or I can drive 2 miles, buy one legally and wait a week while it goes through the legal hurdles. All more regulation would do is put more hurdles in the way of my legal purchase, but wouldn't effect black market sales one iota. Laws are for those that respect the law. Those that don't, would prefer more unarmed marks.


----------



## Cecilie1200

francoHFW said:


> Try being a REAL Patriot and be thankful and happily pay taxes to the country that made you possible.
> Myopic twits...



There's nothing patriotic about selling out your heritage, your community, and your childrens' futures to a bunch of bullshitting politicians, and meekly herding together with the other sheep.  I realize that the idea of a "patriotism" that takes the same paucity of thought, effort, and risk as everything else you liberals do is terribly appealing to the leftist mind, but it's as big a lie as all the other things your leaders have told you.


----------



## healthmyths

Dick Tuck said:


> As to the OP, his comments brought about a good discussion.  How do those who make it, leverage on public money to get to where they get?




What do you mean by "leverage"?

I pointed out in another thread that 18 wheel gasoline tanker carrying 85,000 gallons of gas will generate over $50,000 in federal/state gas tax alone. Without the tanker carrying this gas how would the drivers buy the gas they need?
Sure the tanker is using the highway.. but it also pays federal/state gasoline taxes.

Then what about water the business uses?
Do they not PAY for the water that comes through the water lines?  Businesses will all use collective hundreds of times the amount of water residentials use.

So what about police force?  Doesn't the business pay property taxes?
For example in the community I live in, a high profile company pays on $65 million property $1.4 million in taxes.
AND they have their OWN security force around their property.. but they still pay !
So it takes over 600 homes with $100,000/home to equal.. and that means a lot of security!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> A great reason GOOD gov't is needed. Keep cutting their pay and oversight and we'll have corruption like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "good governmnt" is any oxymoron.  The more power government has, the more corrupt it becomes.  Corruption comes with government just as fleas come with dogs.
Click to expand...


a liberal will lack the IQ to understand the basics of American freedom:

"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence"- Jefferson.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Chris said:


> Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.



perfectly stupid as usual, James Bond!! Capitalism is based on peaceful voluntary economic transactions between buyers and sellers.

The Mafia is based on violence.  See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

Do you think Bond would be insulted to see a liberal fool use his image?


----------



## Cecilie1200

naturegirl said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a side note Foxfyre, I think when you add government there are winners and losers choosen.  Rarely does government help everyone equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.   There are some who will NEVER use those roads and therefore don't benefit from them in the same way others do, yet we ALL benefit from them because we ALL have to consume something simply in order to live.  And most of that which we consume is transported, delivered, and made available to us via the same roads.  The guy using them proactively to transport consumable products is of course going to receive more benefit than is the guy who benefits only in the most passive way.
> 
> But the point Williams was making is that the way a free people is interconnected is not necessarily in mutual cooperation though the people may find that to be beneficial too.  Most of us benefit from each other only incidentally.  The guy in Venezuela doesn't know I exist when he operates the oil well that pumps a barrel of crude that eventually, through the participation of millions of people in multiple countries, makes its way into the tank of my car in the form of unleaded gasoline.   He doesn't care about me in the least.  He might or might not throw me a rope if I was drowining.
> 
> But he nevertheless played a role in me having gasoline to fuel my car.
> 
> THAT is how we all work together to accomplish what we accomplish.  Yes, I couldn't prosper by doing my own thing unless millions of others of you are also doing your own thing to put bread on your respective tables.  And not one of us is fully aware of how we are benefitting anybody else, but we do simply by looking to our own interests.
> 
> And still, despite all that, nobody built my business and made it profitable but me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People seem to forget there was an America before the industrial revolution.  There was an America before electricity and running water.  I guess those early pioneers didn't make it on their own.
Click to expand...


Government is not my business partner.  It is not an active participant in working toward the success of my life, and it really doesn't give much of a shit about me or my problems.  Government is a part of the backdrop against which I conduct my life, a piece of the environment in which I live, much like the ground and the sky and the weather and, yes, the other human beings who happen to live on this planet.  I appreciate that the sun shines and the plants grow and the ecosystem exists, but I'm not going to credit my success in life to them, and I'm not going to credit it to two more ubiquitous environmental factors, the government and the billions of other total strangers who share the planet.

Enough is fucking enough with this insistent liberal push toward a collective hive mind.


----------



## Zxereus




----------



## francoHFW

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of Wall Street destroyed the world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean lack of capitalism almost destroyed the world economy?
> 
> Who can say with a straight face that the housing crisis was not caused by Fanny Freddie Fed when most of the liberal government was organized to get folks into homes the capitalist free market said they could not afford.
> 
> See why we are positive a liberal will slow. He has Nazi like faith in genius liberal regulators when capitalism is obviously the best regulator.
Click to expand...


So it was just a coincidence F+F went from 80% of real estate loans to 25%, banks took over, under BOOOSH 2003-2006? Hilarious, dupe.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is a disastrous process when the government presumes it has the expertise and ability to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that?? those in government throughout history all presumed they had the expertise to do that and everything else. That is why Jefferson gave us freedom from liberal government when he created America.
> Freedom from government expertise is why America reversed all of human history and became the greatest country in all of human human history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I blame the schools, clearly you guys didnt learn a god damn thing...
> wait, not the schools fault, you are just stupid
Click to expand...


This from the guy who cannot compose a single sentence that's even vaguely correct in its grammar or punctuation, and can't come up with any other insult than, "Stupid, stupid, you're all so stupid, you're just stupid."

Investigate the concept of synonyms, Sparkles.  I'm sure someone will read you the definition if you ask nicely.


----------



## LilOlLady

healthmyths said:


> really feel that way when he said:
> *If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.*



YOU LIE. He did not say that.
The official transcript relates:


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.  [Emphasis added]

He continued:


*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. [Emphasis added]


and you still don't fucking understand what he meant.
No man is a island


----------



## LilOlLady

This is a quotation from John Donne (1572-1631). It appears in Devotions upon emergent occasions and seuerall steps in my sicknes - Meditation XVII, 1624:


"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."


----------



## Zxereus




----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Radical Right - You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders are scum??
> 
> Who wanted more limited government and taxaction than them???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you know nothing about the slave owning founders
Click to expand...


Neither do you, if you lump them all together as "slave owners".

But what else can one expect from a juvenile but childishly simplistic attempts at moralizing?


----------



## HUGGY

healthmyths said:


> really feel that way when he said:
> If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.
> 
> Is he THAT dumb to criticize the major voting block that put him in office..
> 76% of all voters white.. of which 44% voted for him in 2008... and now he is criticizing some of the same people that voted him into office?  IS THAT DUMB or does he mean it?
> 
> If he means it he again is showing the incredible ignorance of what it takes to start and keep a business going.. and this pompous BUTT thinks these people had NOTHING to do with it?
> 
> Now the WH is trying to walk this back by saying well businesses need roads and bridges..
> hmmm  Cuba/Russia have bridges.. so why are Cubans still driving cars from the USA built in the 50s?
> If Obama intended to say well the Internet was a government project... he was right!
> BUT OBAMA.... what funded that research?  TAX dollars make up 97% of Federal revenue!
> So businesses that make a profit have employees that pay taxes, pay property taxes and Federal taxes that CREATED the Internet!
> SO is he like ALGORE that totally ignorant as to how the Federal government pays its bills?
> 
> NO Obama meant that statement and was stupid for making it!
> His whole educational background hated businesses hated profits.. hated USA and it is totally true or WHY else is he bent on tearing people down?  Tearing businesses down?
> Tearing the USA down???



I guess the English language is troublesome for you.  Understandable.  I believe Obama's comments were intended for those that can comprehend The English Language.  You may need some assistance.  Get some.


----------



## healthmyths

LilOlLady said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> really feel that way when he said:
> *If youve got a business -- you didnt build that, Obama told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., on Friday. Somebody else made that happen.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU LIE. He did not say that.
> The official transcript relates:
> 
> 
> 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.  [Emphasis added]
> 
> He continued:
> 
> 
> *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. [Emphasis added]
> 
> 
> and you still don't fucking understand what he meant.
> No man is a island
Click to expand...


Tell me something. Do you think Obama knows what DARPA is cause I KNOW you don't!
But the point is DARPA started the internet.
Guess where DARPA got it's money to start DARPA?
Department of Defense.
Where did Department of Defense get it's money?
TAXPAYERS.. dumb f...k!!!


----------



## Zxereus

ConzHateUSA said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance companies denied coverage to sick people on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is why we have Rolex AD's, travel agents, private jets, etc.
> 
> Health insurance is the biggest scam in history, these idiots make me rich
Click to expand...


Hi "Randys" .


----------



## Cecilie1200

emptystep said:


> I am getting the idea that some believe the 'liberals' on this board want to take Walton's money and by a homeless person a Cadilac. We don't.
> 
> On the other side we do believe that you want to throw them under the bus.



No, we don't think that.  What we think is that some on this board want to take all of the Walton family's money and give it to the government to "administer", ie. spend on a lot of pork and vote buying.  I doubt they'd give any one person enough of anything to buy a Cadillac.

Considering that liberals appear to believe that right and wrong are defined by personal profit and benefit, I can't imagine why you think anyone cares about your spin on what else you believe.


----------



## Cecilie1200

emptystep said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting the idea that some believe the 'liberals' on this board want to take Walton's money and by a homeless person a Cadilac. We don't.
> 
> On the other side we do believe that you want to throw them under the bus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did Walton start off with in 1962?
> 
> If you took Walton's money and bought all the poor people Cadillacs they would sell the cadillacs to buy stuff from Walton.  Pretty soon Walton would have all the money and the poor wouldn't have any Cadillac's either.
> 
> Poor people are poor because of the way they think.  Because of the decisions they make.  They will never be rich, not even if you gave them a million dollars every year.  They would have the money for 2-3 months, then be homeless derelicts again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is we are not offering Sam's money. We offering our own money, liberal's that is. We are offering to do it through the government because we don't want to be the only ones to make sure the homeless don't starve. We don't want some druggie, slacker to have a Cadilac anymore than anyone else.
Click to expand...


The point is, you're NOT offering your own money.  You're offering EVERYONE'S money, whether they agree with you or not, and when they say, "We think that's a bad idea", you start excoriating and verbally abusing them and telling them how "greedy" and "selfish" and "unpatriotic" they are, simply because THEY don't think that the government is the only possible way of ever dealing with problems.

If you were offering YOUR OWN money, not a single shit would be given.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting the idea that some believe the 'liberals' on this board want to take Walton's money and by a homeless person a Cadilac. We don't.
> 
> On the other side we do believe that you want to throw them under the bus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did Walton start off with in 1962?
> 
> If you took Walton's money and bought all the poor people Cadillacs they would sell the cadillacs to buy stuff from Walton.  Pretty soon Walton would have all the money and the poor wouldn't have any Cadillac's either.
> 
> Poor people are poor because of the way they think.  Because of the decisions they make.  They will never be rich, not even if you gave them a million dollars every year.  They would have the money for 2-3 months, then be homeless derelicts again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should ask yourself what the tax rate was in 1962. And did it stop good old Sam?
Click to expand...


Wonderful plan.  "Sam Walton worked around insanely confiscatory tax rates, so why bother trying to make things better?"  Just because people manage to triumph over adversity doesn't make the adversity a good thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

emptystep said:


> I have to go in a couple minutes so let me just spell this out right quick.
> 
> Some people, both rich and poor, believe that everyone should help out in the common good to some degree. That would mean that, yes, richer would sometimes give to those that need help.
> 
> Some people don't want to help out, ever. There are no enough of these people to win an election so they have to fill ignorant people full of lies about liberals taking all the money and buying slacker, druggies Cadilacs.
> 
> Now I am not saying Romney is a lying, greedy person. We can see from his tax returns that he feels part of America and does his part every year. We can see that, right?



Let me spell this out right quick.

Some people, both rich and poor, believe that the only way to "help out in the common good" is to give shitloads of money to government bureaucrats and let them do as they please with it.  Those same people assume that anyone who disagrees with their "The only way to do anything is lots of government" attitude automatically "don't want to help out, ever", and sanctimoniously force those people to conform to their ideas, all the while patting themselves on their back for how morally superior they are.


----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## bobcollum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/humor...nk-that-meme-thread.html?highlight=obama+meme


----------



## 007




----------



## Chris

Cecilie1200 said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to go in a couple minutes so let me just spell this out right quick.
> 
> Some people, both rich and poor, believe that everyone should help out in the common good to some degree. That would mean that, yes, richer would sometimes give to those that need help.
> 
> Some people don't want to help out, ever. There are no enough of these people to win an election so they have to fill ignorant people full of lies about liberals taking all the money and buying slacker, druggies Cadilacs.
> 
> Now I am not saying Romney is a lying, greedy person. We can see from his tax returns that he feels part of America and does his part every year. We can see that, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me spell this out right quick.
> 
> Some people, both rich and poor, believe that the only way to "help out in the common good" is to give shitloads of money to government bureaucrats and let them do as they please with it.  Those same people assume that anyone who disagrees with their "The only way to do anything is lots of government" attitude automatically "don't want to help out, ever", and sanctimoniously force those people to conform to their ideas, all the while patting themselves on their back for how morally superior they are.
Click to expand...


Modern day conservatism is the political codification fo selfishness.


----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## Cecilie1200

emptystep said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the GOP is mainly rich A-HOLES and red neck haters and fundies nowadays LOL. But thanks for the BS, Rush/Beck/Savage/Sean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not GOP but I'll take them any day over the progressives....
> 
> I'll never vote progressive...
> 
> I suppose you think I'm a redneck or rich?
> 
> No I just have a clear understanding of the Bill of Rights - you know the document you alleged "liberals" enjoy taking shits on.....  You know attempting to ban guns, free speech, the press, religion, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and Tenth Amendments entirely...
> 
> But you're the "liberals"  - No you're fascist authoritarian fucks who would have absolutely ZERO problem seeing a libertarian go to prison for his or her views because they contradict your own.
> 
> You're the fucking bastards that create laws at the state level that violate peoples rights...
> 
> Just today I was reading an article about how the progressives in California want to put GPS trackers in peoples cars so they can tax them on "how much they drive." Now BITCH NAZI - do you have any fucking idea how intrusive and just over the fucking line that is??? Thoughts like that shouldn't fucking exist in the US - yet progressives dream them up everyday because they have absolutely ZERO respect for the Bill of Rights...
> 
> Then you have the audacity to call non-progressives lunatics??? really? are they the ones who want to put GPS units in peoples cars to "tax them" or better yet "track them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yes, here is a whole page of crap someone is feeding you so they don't have to pay taxes. You are screwing yourself by the way.
Click to expand...


Oh?  "Crap so that they don't have to pay taxes", is it?  Would you really like to discuss how much of the federal budget - or any given state budget, for that matter - is going to wasteful pork and inappropriately intrusive programs, rather than the appropriate purviews of government, for which no one sane objects to paying, however much you've deluded yourself that people who complain about high taxes and bloated government "just don't want to pay ANY taxes"?

We can go there, if you think you can muster the intellectual honesty.


----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## 007




----------



## bobcollum

Pole Rider has yet to realize his thread has been merged with a very busy one.


----------



## 007




----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter.
> 
> The poor work harder than business owners..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they drive on roads.
> 
> Something like that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


He was being sarcastic, but apparently everyone is so het up and ready to pounce at a second's notice that no one picked up on it.


----------



## 007

bobcollum said:


> Pole Rider has yet to realize his thread has been merged with a very busy one.



Cried to the mods already there little bobbyscrotum?


----------



## Chris

saveliberty said:


> If we all got these great benefits from the government, why do we have to give even more to those who failed to achieve?



Because the Romneys need the money.


----------



## bobcollum

Pale Rider said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pole Rider has yet to realize his thread has been merged with a very busy one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cried to the mods already there little bobbyscrotum?
Click to expand...


Honestly, wasn't me, I just noticed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Krauthammer doesn't get it.
> 
> Our government is of, for and by the people. That makes it the personification of our society. You can seperate society from a monarch, or a communist committee, or a dictator, but in a democracy, they are one in the same. THAT'S what made America so different at its founding. WE are the government.
> 
> And Steve Jobs IS the perfect example because he keeps being credited with building the Mac. Steve Jobs didn't build the Mac! That was Steve Wozniak. Jobs was a salesman. And he sold The Wozs invention.
> 
> And every time that little fact is ignored to make the "individual" argument, it not further proves that it's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reword this so it makes some sense ?
> 
> Krauthammer has a point of view that is shared by many of us.  There is no getting it or not getting it.
> 
> But I can tell you that government is not the personification of our society.  That is a really stupid statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't believe in We the people?
Click to expand...


So you believe the government is "We the people"?


----------



## 007

bobcollum said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pole Rider has yet to realize his thread has been merged with a very busy one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cried to the mods already there little bobbyscrotum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, wasn't me, I just noticed.
Click to expand...


So now you're a liar on top of being bobscrotum...


----------



## Chris




----------



## 007




----------



## Cecilie1200

loinboy said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was literally NO WAY to take Obama's comments out of context.  Think about it for a minute... the reason he made the speech that he did was to justify his larger argument about raising taxes.  Why he thinks it's okay to ask more of the business community IS the context.
> 
> The guy said what he meant.  And he did it in such a way as to make it impossible to take it any other way.  Just because you see his speech reduced to one sentence, doesn't mean that the one sentence you see isn't actually representative of the whole.
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no way to take it out of context, why did you edit out the part regarding roads and bridges?
Click to expand...


Already discussed that to a fare-thee-well.  Not our fault you weren't here for it.


----------



## bobcollum

Pale Rider said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cried to the mods already there little bobbyscrotum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, wasn't me, I just noticed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're a liar on top of being bobscrotum...
Click to expand...


Baseless accusations, I'd be a fool to expect anything else.


----------



## 007




----------



## 007

bobcollum said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, wasn't me, I just noticed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're a liar on top of being bobscrotum...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baseless accusations, I'd be a fool to expect anything else.
Click to expand...

You're a fool regardless.


----------



## Chris

The lack of regulations destroyed the world economy in 2008.


----------



## 007




----------



## bobcollum

Pale Rider said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're a liar on top of being bobscrotum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baseless accusations, I'd be a fool to expect anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fool regardless.
Click to expand...


Says the jackass spamming someone else's thread with jpgs.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is a disastrous process when the government presumes it has the expertise and ability to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that?? those in government throughout history all presumed they had the expertise to do that and everything else. That is why Jefferson gave us freedom from liberal government when he created America.
> Freedom from government expertise is why America reversed all of human history and became the greatest country in all of human human history
Click to expand...


Who in the world told you that Jefferson created America? You certainly didn't read that in any history book, and not even Limbaugh would tell you that. Even Limbaugh thinks his listeners are smarter than that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

loinboy said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did they need roads and bridges?
> It comes down to which came first, businesses or roads and highways?
> Why would you need a highway or roads if not for businesses which employ people who live in towns that grow into cities?
> 
> 
> 
> The town came first, the business came second.
> 
> Name me one city that started with a business and not local residents.
Click to expand...


Actually, the businesses came at the same time as the "local residents", since the local residents started doing business as soon as they arrived.  They had to, if they didn't want to starve.

Can't imagine how YOU think this worked.

If you're entertaining some hazy picture of a handful of homesteaders on isolated farms hanging out and attracting a store owner to come and open a mercantile, you might want to also add in the little detail that the homesteaders wouldn't have bothered to build roads.


----------



## 007

bobcollum said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baseless accusations, I'd be a fool to expect anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the jackass spamming someone else's thread with jpgs.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one that merged the threads dumbass. I'd have been happy with the one I started being left where it was.

Wanna get the last word in now little girl. OK. You're a boring little twat anyway.


----------



## bobcollum

Pale Rider said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the jackass spamming someone else's thread with jpgs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wanna get the last word in little girl. OK. You're a boring little twat anyway.
Click to expand...


Thanks.


----------



## Vidi

Cecilie1200 said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was literally NO WAY to take Obama's comments out of context.  Think about it for a minute... the reason he made the speech that he did was to justify his larger argument about raising taxes.  Why he thinks it's okay to ask more of the business community IS the context.
> 
> The guy said what he meant.  And he did it in such a way as to make it impossible to take it any other way.  Just because you see his speech reduced to one sentence, doesn't mean that the one sentence you see isn't actually representative of the whole.
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no way to take it out of context, why did you edit out the part regarding roads and bridges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already discussed that to a fare-thee-well.  Not our fault you weren't here for it.
Click to expand...


It wasnt answered. It was dodged with partisan hackery.


----------



## francoHFW

Listen, dupes, he said business owners are great BUT they didn't do it w/o gov't. Try it with no law and order, corrupt officials, no schools, no defence etc etc etc. DUH.

All your graphics and *out of context lies *are pure PUBCRAPPE, and under Reaganomics and voodoo we've lost our edge in infrastructure, physical and mental- ie education and roads, airports ETCETCETCETC. Myopic non reinvestment and greed...


----------



## 007




----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> A great reason GOOD gov't is needed. Keep cutting their pay and oversight and we'll have corruption like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "good governmnt" is any oxymoron.  The more power government has, the more corrupt it becomes.  Corruption comes with government just as fleas come with dogs.
Click to expand...


So any and all government is therefore bad?

You must hate the Founding Fathers then.


----------



## Cecilie1200

freedombecki said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did they need roads and bridges?
> It comes down to which came first, businesses or roads and highways?
> Why would you need a highway or roads if not for businesses which employ people who live in towns that grow into cities?
> 
> 
> 
> The town came first, the business came second.
> 
> Name me one city that started with a business and not local residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Little America, Wyoming
> 
> Hershey, Pennsylvania
Click to expand...


Eloy, Arizona, as well as many other cities and towns in America that were built up around railroad stops and switch stations.


----------



## Cecilie1200

emptystep said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that I, as a liberal, have class envy and hatred. Which class do I envy? And who do I hate? And why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not cut the BS and give us your best reason for being a liberal??
> Why are you so afraid to even try??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I believe in America and I believe in Americans.
> 
> Any other questions?
Click to expand...


Yeah.  Can you vague that up for us a bit?


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of Wall Street destroyed the world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean lack of capitalism almost destroyed the world economy?
> 
> Who can say with a straight face that the housing crisis was not caused by Fanny Freddie Fed when most of the liberal government was organized to get folks into homes the capitalist free market said they could not afford.
> 
> See why we are positive a liberal will slow. He has Nazi like faith in genius liberal regulators when capitalism is obviously the best regulator.
Click to expand...


I can say it with a straight face. ecause your scenario isnt true. YES the Fms definitely played a part in it, but the problem wasnt them but how they were used as a buffer between private banking and mortgage defaults.

Do you remember the days before the DO NOT CALL list? When it seemed like every other phone call was from some financial institution telling you how much money you could have if only youd refinance your house with them? 

And then our neighbors started showing up with new cars and oh my isnt it wonderful. All they had to do was refi and it didnt matter because their house would only go UP in value. After all, God isnt making more land is he? 

All that debt. Everyone owing everyone until one day, someone needed that money and they called in the marker. And when they did everyone looked over their shoulder expecting the OTHER GUY to pay the bill and guess who was at the end of the line? The FMs. 

So we blame THEM, but the truth is the entire system was fucked from the get go. And BOTH parties pushed this country headlong into that quagmire all the while congratulating themselves on what a greatjob they were doing.

And what REALLY put it all in play was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Republican legislation HAPPILY signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. 

It removed the barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. So everyone was playing russion roulette with the economy.

And pay attention Partisan Hacks!

BOTH PARTYS LOVED THE IDEA!






And fucking Bill Clinton signed it with THIS signing statement:



> Heres an exerpt:
> 
> The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries.
> 
> Removal of barriers to competition will enhance the stability of our financial services system. Financial services firms will be able to diversify their product offerings
> 
> William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act



And that allowed for banking institutions to package mortages as securities and start selling them to each other all backed by their own insurance firms.


Right there in that document is the Great Recession.

And BOTH partys were happily united in passing it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no way to take it out of context, why did you edit out the part regarding roads and bridges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already discussed that to a fare-thee-well.  Not our fault you weren't here for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasnt answered. It was dodged with partisan hackery.
Click to expand...


In other words, the answers weren't what you wanted to hear, so you just dismissed them as non-existent.


----------



## francoHFW

You can see why the GOP is such a total failure at governing- they don't believe in it- incredibly shortsighted...

Listen, dupes, he said business owners are great BUT they didn't do it w/o gov't. Try it with no law and order, corrupt officials, no schools, no defence etc etc etc. DUH.All your graphics and out of context lies are pure PUBCRAPPE, and under Reaganomics and voodoo we've lost our edge in infrastructure, physical and mental- ie education and roads, airports ETCETCETCETC. Myopic non reinvestment and greed...


----------



## francoHFW

It took Bush regulators looking the other way  for their cronies to make the Depression. And Gramm-Leach-Bliley were all Pubs.


----------



## buckeye45_73

francoHFW said:


> It took Bush regulators looking the other way for their cronies to make the Depression. And Gramm-Leach-Bliley were all Pubs.


 
Kinda like the Obama regulators with BP.......


----------



## francoHFW

Don't be stupid- Those were Booosh regulators and regulations, OBVIOUSLY. They were a joke, and Obama was BUSY averting the Pub Depression. 

Again, Fanny+F went from 80% to 25% of mortgages from 2003-7, fuqueheads. Yes, Pubs lie THAT much! Change the GD channel. And the "liberal" networks (ONCE!) are cowards and barely journalists at all...


----------



## Listening

francoHFW said:


> Don't be stupid- Those were Booosh regulators and regulations, OBVIOUSLY. They were a joke, and Obama was BUSY averting the Pub Depression.
> 
> Again, Fanny+F went from 80% to 25% of mortgages from 2003-7, fuqueheads. Yes, Pubs lie THAT much! Change the GD channel. And the "liberal" networks (ONCE!) are cowards and barely journalists at all...



Pull your head out of your ass and buy a plane ticket to Cuba.  You will raise the I.Q. of the U.S. when you leave.

Retired teacher my ass.

Obama was busy  taking a mild recession and turning it into a lengthy one.  Great job.

Dickweed.


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid- Those were Booosh regulators and regulations, OBVIOUSLY. They were a joke, and Obama was BUSY averting the Pub Depression.
> 
> Again, Fanny+F went from 80% to 25% of mortgages from 2003-7, fuqueheads. Yes, Pubs lie THAT much! Change the GD channel. And the "liberal" networks (ONCE!) are cowards and barely journalists at all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pull your head out of your ass and buy a plane ticket to Cuba. You will raise the I.Q. of the U.S. when you leave.
> 
> Retired teacher my ass.
> 
> Obama was busy taking a mild recession and turning it into a lengthy one. Great job.
> 
> Dickweed.
Click to expand...

 
Franco is an old doddering FOOL that never learned.


----------



## francoHFW

A mild recession? A 9% retraction not seen since the FIRST Pub World Depression- you're a total fool. And a REAL ESTATE meltdown, the worst kind. The middle class lost 40% of their wealth, ya brainwashed SHYTTEHEAD!. Change the GD channel fcs...


----------



## francoHFW

Ah, my favorite misled chumps. Guys I party with LOL.


----------



## buckeye45_73

francoHFW said:


> Don't be stupid- Those were Booosh regulators and regulations, OBVIOUSLY. They were a joke, and Obama was BUSY averting the Pub Depression.
> 
> Again, Fanny+F went from 80% to 25% of mortgages from 2003-7, fuqueheads. Yes, Pubs lie THAT much! Change the GD channel. And the "liberal" networks (ONCE!) are cowards and barely journalists at all...


thats all you got? Bush blaming again? IF they stay on between Presidents, maybe they were Clinton regulators

Talking with you is like talking with a 13 year old, way too easy to win.


----------



## The Gadfly

francoHFW said:


> Ah, my favorite misled chumps. Guys I party with LOL.



Move to Cuba, comrade; you'll like it there, and America can spare every commie-lib democrap who wants to join you. Just don't EVER come back.....


----------



## francoHFW

It was a DEPRESSION, you don't feq with the oil industry when the banking system has melted down. Bush ATF was ALSO out of control. Worst president EVER is saying something. And the worst propaganda machine in US history. And the most misled voters EVER. Ask anyone BUT  your lying heroes...


----------



## francoHFW

If Romney gets elected, I may be leaving for a while. But I'm an American first, and a better one than you. Seriously- I try to make it better, and am not lazy enough to be satisfied with stupid, obviously incorrect talking points and hate. Morocco, India, Turkey- you know, mainly with the expats, like when I was in Spain with the bar I couldn't open, but CHEAPER.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should worry more about what they are putting in your kool-aid. Hey, did you hear that there are no homeless vets living under bridges also?
> 
> (Different day, same brainless shit.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence of one that is?
Click to expand...


Our Memorial Day Remembrance: Homeless Veteran Facts and Homeless Veterans Statistics | Corp and State @CorpAndState.com


----------



## MuadDib




----------



## Clementine

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



Those who pay taxes pay for all the roads, etc.    Not everyone chooses to use them for building a business.   Some use them for stealing cars or drug trafficking.   

We all have the same opportunity to build a business and make something of ourselves.   While we can't do everything without roads and bridges, we do have to take the initiative and keep at it.    We all need jobs, at least those of us who would rather not be on the doles if we are able bodied, and no one complains when a good job is available.   But, what good is a high paying job if we didn't bother to become qualified for them?

Bottom line is that tax payers pay for government and government uses some of that money to build roads and such.   Of course, more money gets wasted on their stupid programs, but that's another topic.    

We can all use what is available to better our lives or we can do nothing.   I am tired of the ones who do nothing and then bitch because the next guy has it so good.   

Businesses start with an idea and people willing to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops to get going.   We pay dearly for construction workers to build the actual structure.  We pay taxes and a host of other fees to comply with laws when we start businesses.   We soon will pay dearly because of Obamacare.   Then we keep paying escalating taxes for all the things we need to keep the business going.    

We all pay taxes that are supposed to keep the infrastructure solid, but sometimes the money gets raided for other things and the roads are crappy and the bridges are rotting.   

Then Obama tells us that people didn't build business, that someone else made that happen.   Bullshit.   That is what a loser who doesn't know the first thing about creating a business says.

Obama didn't earn the peace prize.   Somebody else made that happen.   And I read recently that they are sorry they made that happen because they counted on Obama earning the prize after it was given.      I guess he thinks all people got things the way he did.

Most Republicans are business owners.   Most Democrat leaders are lawyers.

Republicans like capitalism, people climbing the ladder to success and a strong economy.   

Democrats sue people on behalf of their clients.   Currently, their clients are illegal aliens and government dependents.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point again.  We could confiscate every dime from "the rich" and maybe pay one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.
> Bill Whittle On Eating "The Rich" | RealClearPolitics
> 
> Obama is playing games with you. And you... are letting him.
> 
> 
> 
> Again you and Willie Wittless are deliberately trying to redefine the "rich" as well to do WAGE EARNERS. The truly rich do not work for the common wage!!!! They are Capital Gains Tycoons, not upper middle class wage earners who actually pay nearly all the taxes.
> 
> A Capital Gains Tycoon can make a billion dollars on the stock market and not pay a single dime on it. That gain can grow year after year tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the tycoon decides to realize some of it, but unlike an IRA where he would pay a tax penalty for cashing it before retirement age, the tycoon not only pays no penalty but also pays a lower tax rate than a wage earner. And still the tycoon is not satisfied. Their puppets, the GOP, are trying to eliminate all capital gains taxes!!!
> 
> As to Willie Wittless, the top 1% of WEALTH, not wages, have about 20 trillion in total net worth, so if you confiscated all of it as Wittless postulates with wage earners, you could pay off the entire GOP debt and have enough left over for one hell of a big party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh... I get it now.  Pardon me for mistaking you for a critical thinker.  I thought you were interested in a discussion of political issues, but what's readily apparent is that you're simply envious that other people have more money than you do.
> *I mean, we both KNOW that capital gains are taxed several times before any checks are cut,* so what else could it be?
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the REAL difference between leftists and capitalists is that leftists believe there's only so much pie to go around. * They think *everyone should be guaranteed a little sliver, even though when that sliver is finally passed down by government it arrives as crumbs.
> Capitalists, on the other hand... know that we can always make more pie.
Click to expand...

Whenever CON$ are confronted with facts that explode their brainwashing they go into insult mode as programmed.

We both know that capital gains are never taxed until they are realized, and then for the very first time, so you have reduced yourself to out and out lying. even if you are going to argue that all money has been taxed before as it passed through other hands before it became capital gains in the tycoons hands and therefore is entitled to special tax privilages, the exact same thing could be said for wages and therefore wages deserve the same special tax privilages.

The real difference between the Left and the Right is the Right believes they can make up bullshit about what anyone else THINKS. The Right have anointed themselves as mind-readers.


----------



## edthecynic

Mr.Nick said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the depression, morons. Blame the victims of your greedy rich masters...
> 
> There are as many white Pubs as White Dems on assistance, they're just the loudmouth racist cheats...your stereotypes of blacks, victims of your bigotry, are disgusting. Let's try opportunities in education and training and taxing the bloated rich fairly...Voodoo and deregulation is a catastrophe...see sig pp1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are about as many white republicans on welfare as there are black republicans - lets also not forget that whites are 72% of the population... So I'll guess and say 1,000-3,000.
> 
> *Blacks are only 15% of the population but they are responsible for 50% of the welfare handouts*... Mexicans are 20% "other" is 5% and *whites are 25%*... That is just the welfare program tho - meaning the race of those who are on welfare program - not the general population.
> 
> Food stamps pretty much have similar racial statistics.......Then again not everyone on food stamps is on welfare.
Click to expand...

Thank you for again proving that every stat from a racist CON$ervoFascist is a lie.

What is the race percentage for welfare recipients

The percentages those on welfare by race as of 2011 are listed below in descending order by percentage. 
Black-39.8%
White-38.8%
Hispanic-15.7%
Other-3.3%
Asian-2.4%


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> A great reason GOOD gov't is needed. Keep cutting their pay and oversight and we'll have corruption like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "good governmnt" is any oxymoron.  The more power government has, the more corrupt it becomes.  Corruption comes with government just as fleas come with dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So any and all government is therefore bad?.
Click to expand...


Yes.



Vidi said:


> [You must hate the Founding Fathers then.



They were certainly naive to believe the government could be kept small.


----------



## edthecynic

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you and Willie Wittless are deliberately trying to redefine the "rich" as well to do WAGE EARNERS. The truly rich do not work for the common wage!!!! They are Capital Gains Tycoons, not upper middle class wage earners who actually pay nearly all the taxes.
> 
> A Capital Gains Tycoon can make a billion dollars on the stock market and not pay a single dime on it. That gain can grow year after year tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the tycoon decides to realize some of it, but unlike an IRA where he would pay a tax penalty for cashing it before retirement age, the tycoon not only pays no penalty but also pays a lower tax rate than a wage earner. And still the tycoon is not satisfied. Their puppets, the GOP, are trying to eliminate all capital gains taxes!!!
> 
> As to Willie Wittless, the top 1% of WEALTH, not wages, have about 20 trillion in total net worth, so if you confiscated all of it as Wittless postulates with wage earners, you could pay off the entire GOP debt and have enough left over for one hell of a big party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit.  Futhermore, you're ignoring the fact that the money is invested in plant and equipment, which means it's providing jobs for thousands of people.  You would cut off your own nose to spite your face.   That's what liberalism is all about, unfortunately - oganized idiocy,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> great point, about 62.4% is held as business assets. Steal it all and we'd have instant depression. See why we are positive liberals have a low IQ??
> 
> "In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity."-Dommhoff
Click to expand...

Hey you two assholes, I wasn't suggesting we actually confiscate the wealth of the top 1%, I was opnly pointing out the flaw in Willie Wittless' argument.

This is the thing about CON$ervoFascists, they can only argue with the Straw Men they create.


----------



## JoeB131

naturegirl said:


> Yea, well government is the enemy............here are some more Jefferson quotes I have confirmed are true.
> 
> "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
> 
> "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "



Sorry, you don't get a second bite at the apple...  

Those people whose lives were saved yesterday by the quick actions of first responders in Colorado didn't consider the government their "enemy".  They were probably damned glad those first responders were there and got them to safety or treated their injuries.  

Hey, I want all you wingnuts who rip on government workers to remember that those people who responded to Aurora were "government workers" in  "Public Sector unions".


----------



## Freewill

Sorry double post


----------



## Freewill

The outright lie that anyone thinks there should not be ANY government is put down here:

Zombie » The Ultimate Takedown of Obama&#8217;s &#8216;You Didn&#8217;t Build That&#8217; Speech


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



Liz Warren is a fucking joke. A total absolute fucking joke and a fraud and a Neo-Marxist

Who the fuck cares what she says?


----------



## jillian

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liz Warren is a fucking joke. A total absolute fucking joke and a fraud and a Neo-Marxist
> 
> Who the fuck cares what she says?
Click to expand...


apparently, an awful lot since she and brown are neck and neck ... 

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Massachusetts Senate - Brown vs. Warren

but we know you're allergic to educted people, so it's understandable that you'd find elizabeth warren offensive.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, well government is the enemy............here are some more Jefferson quotes I have confirmed are true.
> 
> "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
> 
> "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you don't get a second bite at the apple...
> 
> Those people whose lives were saved yesterday by the quick actions of first responders in Colorado didn't consider the government their "enemy".  They were probably damned glad those first responders were there and got them to safety or treated their injuries.
> 
> Hey, I want all you wingnuts who rip on government workers to remember that those people who responded to Aurora were "government workers" in  "Public Sector unions".
Click to expand...


First go fuck yourself

Second that's not the issue

Third feel free to hang your useless self in the bathroom of a Transvestite Bar

Fourth go fuck yourself again


----------



## CrusaderFrank

jillian said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liz Warren is a fucking joke. A total absolute fucking joke and a fraud and a Neo-Marxist
> 
> Who the fuck cares what she says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> apparently, an awful lot since she and brown are neck and neck ...
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Massachusetts Senate - Brown vs. Warren
> 
> but we know you're allergic to educted people, so it's understandable that you'd find elizabeth warren offensive.
Click to expand...


Jilly, you're the party of Robert KKK Byrd, Charlie Rangel, and Liz "High Cheekbones" Warren, we know you have no standard whatsoever for who you put in office. 

The Party of Barack 57 States Obama and Joe Biden has to keep telling us how educated and intelligent they are. It feels like the Thatcher "Power is like being a lady... if you have to tell people you are, you aren't" quote. Democrats keep insisting on telling us how smart they are and all they do is sound a lot like Freddy Corleone in the process

Here's Liz Warren Yearbook pic from Harvard. Note the high cheekbones.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, well government is the enemy............here are some more Jefferson quotes I have confirmed are true.
> 
> "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
> 
> "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you don't get a second bite at the apple...
> 
> Those people whose lives were saved yesterday by the quick actions of first responders in Colorado didn't consider the government their "enemy".  They were probably damned glad those first responders were there and got them to safety or treated their injuries.
> 
> Hey, I want all you wingnuts who rip on government workers to remember that those people who responded to Aurora were "government workers" in  "Public Sector unions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First go fuck yourself
> 
> Second that's not the issue
> 
> Third feel free to hang your useless self in the bathroom of a Transvestite Bar
> 
> Fourth go fuck yourself again
Click to expand...


Not at all.  Your boy, Governor WeirdMormonRobot, seems to think we have too many govenrment workers and they make too much money. (i.e. they haven't gone along with the abuse like the private sector has.) 

So this is EXACTLY the issue.  You guys complain these folks are getting pensions and good salaries, I'm glad they are there, good at their jobs and enthusiastic about doing them. 

And so were a lot of folks in Colorado, whether it be the wounded who were treated and rushed to hospitals or Holmes' neighbors, who woke up Friday Morning to find themselves living next to a bomb that "lazy government workers" are trying to defuse safely.


----------



## Mac1958

Listening said:


> Obama was busy  taking a mild recession and turning it into a lengthy one.  Great job.





A mild recession?

Holy crap.  

Congratulations.  You made me speechless.  I don't even know what to say here.

.


----------



## JoeB131

Mac1958 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was busy  taking a mild recession and turning it into a lengthy one.  Great job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mild recession?
> 
> Holy crap.
> 
> Congratulations.  You made me speechless.  I don't even know what to say here.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It boggles the fucking mind that anyone would say something like that.


----------



## Mac1958

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was busy  taking a mild recession and turning it into a lengthy one.  Great job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mild recession?
> 
> Holy crap.
> 
> Congratulations.  You made me speechless.  I don't even know what to say here.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It boggles the fucking mind that anyone would say something like that.
Click to expand...



See, this is an example of what really fascinates me about partisan ideologues.  When I see something as completely absurd as this, a few questions immediately start running through what remains of my little mind:

1. Surely this person realizes this isn't true, right?
2. Wait, maybe they do, how could that be?
3. What was the thought process that completely blocked out all evidence and allowed them to come to this conclusion?
4. Is this person having any contrary thoughts about this statement?
5. If so, what are they doing with those thoughts?  How are they handling them?
6. What outside influences have contributed to such thought processes?  Fox and MSNBC?  Is it that simple?
7. Do they approach other areas of life like this, where they just ignore contrary evidence and run with stuff?
8. Does thinking in a vacuum, in an intellectual cocoon, become habit, second nature?
9. Or maybe, is this just a game they like to play, really having little to do with the topic at hand, just fun?

If course, while these questions and others are bouncing around in my little brain, I'm sitting there in front of the computer, transfixed, trying not to drool.

.


----------



## chanel

> No, the liberal media's effort to defend the president by putting his remarks in context doesn't help Obama at all, because his you didn't build that statement was, in context, even worse than if read as a standalone sentence.
> 
> Its even worse for Obama because if you believe that no one deserves sole credit for their successes, then you must also believe no one is responsible for their sins. Yet for some reason, I dont think well see the president claiming credit for the fact that the accused Batman killer, James Holmes drove to the movie theater on government-created roads.
> 
> That would probably be too much context.
> 
> Read more: Sorry Media,


----------



## naturegirl

I truly think Obama and his Dem controlled congress were more focused on "fundamentally changing" the way America works than they were in ending the recession.  

This is one of the biggest problems I have with die hard Dems, they only think about today, what looks good NOW, let someone else deal with the problems down the road.  We're just not going to worry about it, today is all that matters.

Pelosi said it...........we have to pass the bill to see what's in it.  In other words, let's pass it and see what happens, at least we did something today.


----------



## chanel

Well if he wins in November, I will be the last person to criticize his multiple vacations and golf outings.  He'll do less damage on the golf course.

We need the Senate more than the presidency IMHO.


----------



## regent

naturegirl said:


> I truly think Obama and his Dem controlled congress were more focused on "fundamentally changing" the way America works than they were in ending the recession.
> 
> This is one of the biggest problems I have with die hard Dems, they only think about today, what looks good NOW, let someone else deal with the problems down the road.  We're just not going to worry about it, today is all that matters.
> 
> Pelosi said it...........we have to pass the bill to see what's in it.  In other words, let's pass it and see what happens, at least we did something today.



Look at the history of the two parties just since the Great Depression. The programs for the future the Democrats have put in practice, and the Republican programs to remove those programs. You might begin with Social Security and Glass Steagall. It took 25 years, 12 attempts and 300 million dollars to get rid of Glass Steagall. Social Security is harder but Republicans are still trying.


----------



## barry1960

Mac1958 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mild recession?
> 
> Holy crap.
> 
> Congratulations.  You made me speechless.  I don't even know what to say here.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It boggles the fucking mind that anyone would say something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is an example of what really fascinates me about partisan ideologues.  When I see something as completely absurd as this, a few questions immediately start running through what remains of my little mind:
> 
> 1. Surely this person realizes this isn't true, right?
> 2. Wait, maybe they do, how could that be?
> 3. What was the thought process that completely blocked out all evidence and allowed them to come to this conclusion?
> 4. Is this person having any contrary thoughts about this statement?
> 5. If so, what are they doing with those thoughts?  How are they handling them?
> 6. What outside influences have contributed to such thought processes?  Fox and MSNBC?  Is it that simple?
> 7. Do they approach other areas of life like this, where they just ignore contrary evidence and run with stuff?
> 8. Does thinking in a vacuum, in an intellectual cocoon, become habit, second nature?
> 9. Or maybe, is this just a game they like to play, really having little to do with the topic at hand, just fun?
> 
> If course, while these questions and others are bouncing around in my little brain, I'm sitting there in front of the computer, transfixed, trying not to drool.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well said, but with all the partisan ideologues on this message board I would invest in large amounts of handiwipes for all that drooling. 

My theory, given the unbelievable number of postings of some, is that they spend their entire day hunched over the computer, either unemployed or retired, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, FOX news or MSNBC droning on in the background, pounding out insulting responses to other member's postings. I guess it is their way, at least in their minds, of defending truth, justice and the American way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you don't get a second bite at the apple...
> 
> Those people whose lives were saved yesterday by the quick actions of first responders in Colorado didn't consider the government their "enemy".  They were probably damned glad those first responders were there and got them to safety or treated their injuries.
> 
> Hey, I want all you wingnuts who rip on government workers to remember that those people who responded to Aurora were "government workers" in  "Public Sector unions".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First go fuck yourself
> 
> Second that's not the issue
> 
> Third feel free to hang your useless self in the bathroom of a Transvestite Bar
> 
> Fourth go fuck yourself again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Your boy, Governor WeirdMormonRobot, seems to think we have too many govenrment workers and they make too much money. (i.e. they haven't gone along with the abuse like the private sector has.)
> 
> So this is EXACTLY the issue.  You guys complain these folks are getting pensions and good salaries, I'm glad they are there, good at their jobs and enthusiastic about doing them.
> 
> And so were a lot of folks in Colorado, whether it be the wounded who were treated and rushed to hospitals or Holmes' neighbors, who woke up Friday Morning to find themselves living next to a bomb that "lazy government workers" are trying to defuse safely.
Click to expand...


You're confused, which is not surprising considering you're part of the Progressive Collective and a fucking hack to boot

The Federal government is not the only government in the Land. I know you look to it the way many religious people look at God and think of God, as omnipresent as omniscient. 

Hospitals and police are part of local government.

Can you say "local government"?

Try it.

Local Government.

And you're still a fucking hack


----------



## Mac1958

barry1960 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It boggles the fucking mind that anyone would say something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is an example of what really fascinates me about partisan ideologues.  When I see something as completely absurd as this, a few questions immediately start running through what remains of my little mind:
> 
> 1. Surely this person realizes this isn't true, right?
> 2. Wait, maybe they do, how could that be?
> 3. What was the thought process that completely blocked out all evidence and allowed them to come to this conclusion?
> 4. Is this person having any contrary thoughts about this statement?
> 5. If so, what are they doing with those thoughts?  How are they handling them?
> 6. What outside influences have contributed to such thought processes?  Fox and MSNBC?  Is it that simple?
> 7. Do they approach other areas of life like this, where they just ignore contrary evidence and run with stuff?
> 8. Does thinking in a vacuum, in an intellectual cocoon, become habit, second nature?
> 9. Or maybe, is this just a game they like to play, really having little to do with the topic at hand, just fun?
> 
> If course, while these questions and others are bouncing around in my little brain, I'm sitting there in front of the computer, transfixed, trying not to drool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said, but with all the partisan ideologues on this message board I would invest in large amounts of handiwipes for all that drooling.
> 
> My theory, given the unbelievable number of postings of some, is that they spend their entire day hunched over the computer, either unemployed or retired, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, FOX news or MSNBC droning on in the background, pounding out insulting responses to other member's postings. I guess it is their way, at least in their minds, of defending truth, justice and the American way.
Click to expand...



Nice to know I'm not alone on this!

.


----------



## saveliberty

You did get there on your own.

It was a long process, but you took risks and decided to take on more education, move, purchase a car and home your income could afford, have kids, refuse government aid, take a second job, invest, save, take less vacations and a thousand other things.  Don't let the President tell you the government needs you to repay all the kindnesses it has bestowed.


----------



## Mac1958

saveliberty said:


> You did get there on your own.
> 
> It was a long process, but you took risks and decided to take on more education, move, purchase a car and home your income could afford, have kids, refuse government aid, take a second job, invest, save, take less vacations and a thousand other things.



And hell, that's just a part of it.  

Someone who has never conceived of, started, grown and operated a business has no freakin' idea.  None. Zero.

Doesn't stop them from minimizing your efforts, though.  

.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you and Willie Wittless are deliberately trying to redefine the "rich" as well to do WAGE EARNERS. The truly rich do not work for the common wage!!!! They are Capital Gains Tycoons, not upper middle class wage earners who actually pay nearly all the taxes.
> 
> A Capital Gains Tycoon can make a billion dollars on the stock market and not pay a single dime on it. That gain can grow year after year tax free, like an unlimited IRA, until the tycoon decides to realize some of it, but unlike an IRA where he would pay a tax penalty for cashing it before retirement age, the tycoon not only pays no penalty but also pays a lower tax rate than a wage earner. And still the tycoon is not satisfied. Their puppets, the GOP, are trying to eliminate all capital gains taxes!!!
> 
> As to Willie Wittless, the top 1% of WEALTH, not wages, have about 20 trillion in total net worth, so if you confiscated all of it as Wittless postulates with wage earners, you could pay off the entire GOP debt and have enough left over for one hell of a big party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh... I get it now.  Pardon me for mistaking you for a critical thinker.  I thought you were interested in a discussion of political issues, but what's readily apparent is that you're simply envious that other people have more money than you do.
> *I mean, we both KNOW that capital gains are taxed several times before any checks are cut,* so what else could it be?
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the REAL difference between leftists and capitalists is that leftists believe there's only so much pie to go around. * They think *everyone should be guaranteed a little sliver, even though when that sliver is finally passed down by government it arrives as crumbs.
> Capitalists, on the other hand... know that we can always make more pie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever CON$ are confronted with facts that explode their brainwashing they go into insult mode as programmed.
> 
> We both know that capital gains are never taxed until they are realized, and then for the very first time, so you have reduced yourself to out and out lying. even if you are going to argue that all money has been taxed before as it passed through other hands before it became capital gains in the tycoons hands and therefore is entitled to special tax privilages, the exact same thing could be said for wages and therefore wages deserve the same special tax privilages.
> 
> The real difference between the Left and the Right is the Right believes they can make up bullshit about what anyone else THINKS. The Right have anointed themselves as mind-readers.
Click to expand...


Insult?  Observation?  Take it as you will.  By process of elimination there's nothing left to conclude but that your stance is nothing more than the same class warfare political strategy that Barack Obama employs.

Investment capital IS taxed twice.  It's taxed when the company earns income and it's taxed again when stocks are cashed in.  What's more, greedy leftists seem to forget that while it's true that the very wealthy are profiting in higher dollar amounts, they aren't the only ones investing these days.  Since the advent of 401ks, IRAs, and other retirement plans, middle America is invested as well with _"42 percent of all returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000. Seventy-two percent, or 6.4 million returns, were for households with incomes below $100,000"_.  The elderly, in particularly are _"two and a half times as likely to realize capital gains in a given year as are tax filers under the age of sixty-five"_.
Capital Gains Taxes: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

What they're doing is attempting to rob my retirement account and yours too if it's invested.  But what is it that this administration is doing that would make us believe that they're going to behave responsibly with our money? 

They've REFUSED to make a budget for the past 3+ years.  They've increased our national debt to almost 16 Trillion.  They won't even look at entitlements, all ahead of schedule on their way to going bust.  In fact, they've saddled us with another one which dwarfs the ones we've got, and is already forecast to cost three times as much as they said it would.  

You people argue that the government spends our money better than we do, but where's your evidence that it's so?  If you could simply unwrap your minds from your slavish devotion to the political class, you'd see the evidence all around you that it doesn't.  Obama's foray into socialist _wealth redistribution_ hasn't benefited anyone.  And it's not likely to either.  You can't honestly think that all the left's sacred cows are going to survive when we're pulling a trillion dollars out of the economy by the end of the decade just to service the debt?

These people DON'T DESERVE one more red cent from any American, no matter how filthy rich that one American might be.  Because they've PROVED they can't behave responsibly with it.  They fill your heads with talk of _infrastructure_ and use that argument to forward their Robin Hood political games, but when they produced their "stimulus" bill, less than 5% went toward it.  What does that tell you??? 

I'm sorry to say it, but some of you folks need to wise up.  This isn't team sports, where we root for whichever jersey we like best.  It's not The Red Team vs. The Blue Team.  This is the future of our country; it's the future of our children and their children after them.  And if you're not using your interest in politics with that in mind, what the hell are you doing?


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. Well we don't have to assume much at all when we say 'Obama is out of touch with reality'.
2. His defenders can strapulate how much the physical aspects of the infrastructure some  how and some way gurders anything we as business people have acomplished while they attempt to build a plausable explanation of what Obama was saying, adding a fluff to this, in order to lay thier heads on this stupid pillow. "He said we didn't build that"
3. How many roads did Obama build himself?
4. And tax money always builds the roads, and tax money comes from who else, 'The People', tollways build a lot of roads as well, so those who use those roads pay for them, and bonds, and tax on gasoline from 'The People'.
5. This whole idea that those who start a business don't actually start and build it themselves is total loonacy.
6. Is Obama saying being in business is being apart of some common link or collective, that everyone who starts a business is plugged into, is this; like  *The Matrix Movie*?
7. Sorry to break this to you people, but that is untrue, if you start a business you are on your own, no one will be there for you, and the roads won't help you either, they will just be there, as a road, most businesses fail in first year.
8. The only way Obama is correct is when he handed out those trillions of dollars to Solandra and those other failed solar companies, which all that did was waste money, like going fishing and putting on the hook a perfectly eatable fish and casting it in the water. Obama failed or how shall I put it, created a slush fund of untold billions to lean on when he's out of office in November.
9. If you try to defend Obama you are nothing but a *Obamabot*
10. Don't thank me for this, just doing my part to show you how very stoopid Obama really is.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Papageorgio

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh... I get it now.  Pardon me for mistaking you for a critical thinker.  I thought you were interested in a discussion of political issues, but what's readily apparent is that you're simply envious that other people have more money than you do.
> *I mean, we both KNOW that capital gains are taxed several times before any checks are cut,* so what else could it be?
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the REAL difference between leftists and capitalists is that leftists believe there's only so much pie to go around. * They think *everyone should be guaranteed a little sliver, even though when that sliver is finally passed down by government it arrives as crumbs.
> Capitalists, on the other hand... know that we can always make more pie.
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever CON$ are confronted with facts that explode their brainwashing they go into insult mode as programmed.
> 
> We both know that capital gains are never taxed until they are realized, and then for the very first time, so you have reduced yourself to out and out lying. even if you are going to argue that all money has been taxed before as it passed through other hands before it became capital gains in the tycoons hands and therefore is entitled to special tax privilages, the exact same thing could be said for wages and therefore wages deserve the same special tax privilages.
> 
> The real difference between the Left and the Right is the Right believes they can make up bullshit about what anyone else THINKS. The Right have anointed themselves as mind-readers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insult?  Observation?  Take it as you will.  By process of elimination there's nothing left to conclude but that your stance is nothing more than the same class warfare political strategy that Barack Obama employs.
> 
> Investment capital IS taxed twice.  It's taxed when the company earns income and it's taxed again when stocks are cashed in.  What's more, greedy leftists seem to forget that while it's true that the very wealthy are profiting in higher dollar amounts, they aren't the only ones investing these days.  Since the advent of 401ks, IRAs, and other retirement plans, middle America is invested as well with _"42 percent of all returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000. Seventy-two percent, or 6.4 million returns, were for households with incomes below $100,000"_.  The elderly, in particularly are _"two and a half times as likely to realize capital gains in a given year as are tax filers under the age of sixty-five"_.
> Capital Gains Taxes: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
> 
> What they're doing is attempting to rob my retirement account and yours too if it's invested.  But what is it that this administration is doing that would make us believe that they're going to behave responsibly with our money?
> 
> They've REFUSED to make a budget for the past 3+ years.  They've increased our national debt to almost 16 Trillion.  They won't even look at entitlements, all ahead of schedule on their way to going bust.  In fact, they've saddled us with another one which dwarfs the ones we've got, and is already forecast to cost three times as much as they said it would.
> 
> You people argue that the government spends our money better than we do, but where's your evidence that it's so?  If you could simply unwrap your minds from your slavish devotion to the political class, you'd see the evidence all around you that it doesn't.  Obama's foray into socialist _wealth redistribution_ hasn't benefited anyone.  And it's not likely to either.  You can't honestly think that all the left's sacred cows are going to survive when we're pulling a trillion dollars out of the economy by the end of the decade just to service the debt?
> 
> These people DON'T DESERVE one more red cent from any American, no matter how filthy rich that one American might be.  Because they've PROVED they can't behave responsibly with it.  They fill your heads with talk of _infrastructure_ and use that argument to forward their Robin Hood political games, but when they produced their "stimulus" bill, less than 5% went toward it.  What does that tell you???
> 
> I'm sorry to say it, but some of you folks need to wise up.  This isn't team sports, where we root for whichever jersey we like best.  It's not The Red Team vs. The Blue Team.  This is the future of our country; it's the future of our children and their children after them.  And if you're not using your interest in politics with that in mind, what the hell are you doing?
Click to expand...


Thank you, Murfs, I tire of the left and the divisive strategy they employ, they use the rich as the wedge and before it is over they will take from everyone else and claim it isn't their fault. Edthecynic complains about the insults then does his own insulting. 

The government for the last several decades has not been responsible and we are in the mess we are in because of it. Again, it matters not which party is in control, they are burdening the people they claim to serve. They gain their power by spending the people's money and we allow it. 

We need to cut red tape, we need to cut spending, we need to streamline our government so it better and more efficiently serves the people that elect our leaders.

All the overlapping of government agencies means the government has gotten to big and needs scaled back. 

It isn't political affiliation, it is common sense.


----------



## regent

Try going through the day doing the rugged individualist thing, accepting no aid, free or paid, from anyone. Can it be done?


----------



## Foxfyre

All you really have to do is the math people.

Do you honestly believe taking more taxes from the people, swallowing most of them up in the existing bureaucracy, and then funneling them back out in a few work projects is beneficial to the economy?  If you honestly beieve that you are way left of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.

If you believe more people benefit from not diluting investment capital by leaving it in private sector hands in the first place, you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.

If you believe government will manage healthcare more effectively, efficiently, humanely, and economically, you are way left of center.   You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.

If you understand that if we weren't affording healthcare in the first place, diluting investment capital in the private sector and adding dozens or hundreds of more layers of government bureaucracy and funding tens of thousands new government employees to administrate it absolutely won't make healthcare more affordable, then you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.

If you believe we should be grateful to and owe everybody else, most especially government, because we have a successful business, you are way left of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.

If you know in your heart that you built your business and your working it to make a profit along with everybody else working their businesses that they built to make a profit is what makes a strong, effective, efficient economy, then you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.


----------



## barry1960

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Well we don't have to assume much at all when we say 'Obama is out of touch with reality'.
> 2. His defenders can strapulate how much the physical aspects of the infrastructure some  how and some way gurders anything we as business people have acomplished while they attempt to build a plausable explanation of what Obama was saying, adding a fluff to this, in order to lay thier heads on this stupid pillow. "He said we didn't build that"
> 3. How many roads did Obama build himself?
> 4. And tax money always builds the roads, and tax money comes from who else, 'The People', tollways build a lot of roads as well, so those who use those roads pay for them, and bonds, and tax on gasoline from 'The People'.
> 5. This whole idea that those who start a business don't actually start and build it themselves is total loonacy.
> 6. Is Obama saying being in business is being apart of some common link or collective, that everyone who starts a business is plugged into, is this; like  *The Matrix Movie*?
> 7. Sorry to break this to you people, but that is untrue, if you start a business you are on your own, no one will be there for you, and the roads won't help you either, they will just be there, as a road, most businesses fail in first year.
> 8. The only way Obama is correct is when he handed out those trillions of dollars to Solandra and those other failed solar companies, which all that did was waste money, like going fishing and putting on the hook a perfectly eatable fish and casting it in the water. Obama failed or how shall I put it, created a slush fund of untold billions to lean on when he's out of office in November.
> 9. If you try to defend Obama you are nothing but a *Obamabot*
> 10. Don't thank me for this, just doing my part to show you how very stoopid Obama really is.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas



Do you think you might have read into what Obama said just a bit?


----------



## Listening

francoHFW said:


> A mild recession? A 9% retraction not seen since the FIRST Pub World Depression- you're a total fool. And a REAL ESTATE meltdown, the worst kind. The middle class lost 40% of their wealth, ya brainwashed SHYTTEHEAD!. Change the GD channel fcs...



Yes, mild dickweed.

Retraction ????   

Retired school teacher my ass.

Contraction....fool.

And it was a lot worse because of Obama and the dems in congress.

You need to get away from Randi and Rush and listen to more CSPAN.


----------



## Oldstyle

barry1960 said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Well we don't have to assume much at all when we say 'Obama is out of touch with reality'.
> 2. His defenders can strapulate how much the physical aspects of the infrastructure some  how and some way gurders anything we as business people have acomplished while they attempt to build a plausable explanation of what Obama was saying, adding a fluff to this, in order to lay thier heads on this stupid pillow. "He said we didn't build that"
> 3. How many roads did Obama build himself?
> 4. And tax money always builds the roads, and tax money comes from who else, 'The People', tollways build a lot of roads as well, so those who use those roads pay for them, and bonds, and tax on gasoline from 'The People'.
> 5. This whole idea that those who start a business don't actually start and build it themselves is total loonacy.
> 6. Is Obama saying being in business is being apart of some common link or collective, that everyone who starts a business is plugged into, is this; like  *The Matrix Movie*?
> 7. Sorry to break this to you people, but that is untrue, if you start a business you are on your own, no one will be there for you, and the roads won't help you either, they will just be there, as a road, most businesses fail in first year.
> 8. The only way Obama is correct is when he handed out those trillions of dollars to Solandra and those other failed solar companies, which all that did was waste money, like going fishing and putting on the hook a perfectly eatable fish and casting it in the water. Obama failed or how shall I put it, created a slush fund of untold billions to lean on when he's out of office in November.
> 9. If you try to defend Obama you are nothing but a *Obamabot*
> 10. Don't thank me for this, just doing my part to show you how very stoopid Obama really is.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you might have read into what Obama said just a bit?
Click to expand...


After 3 1/2 years of an Obama Administration, Barry...I think I've got a pretty good fix on what Obama's feelings are towards the Private Sector.  Between his comment that the Private Sector was doing "fine" and that we needed to spend more money on the Public Sector when the Private Sector is still down about 3 million jobs...and now this comment about how it wasn't individuals that built their businesses and that they owe much of it to the government...it's pretty obvious that our current President is not on your "side" if you're a business owner in this country.  Barack primarily sees the Private Sector as the means to fund Government...which he sees as the answer to all problems.


----------



## Oldstyle

Listening said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mild recession? A 9% retraction not seen since the FIRST Pub World Depression- you're a total fool. And a REAL ESTATE meltdown, the worst kind. The middle class lost 40% of their wealth, ya brainwashed SHYTTEHEAD!. Change the GD channel fcs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, mild dickweed.
> 
> Retraction ????
> 
> Retired school teacher my ass.
> 
> Contraction....fool.
> 
> And it was a lot worse because of Obama and the dems in congress.
> 
> You need to get away from Randi and Rush and listen to more CSPAN.
Click to expand...


Is Franco claiming to be a school teacher?  Now THAT is funny stuff!


----------



## Foxfyre

Oldstyle said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Well we don't have to assume much at all when we say 'Obama is out of touch with reality'.
> 2. His defenders can strapulate how much the physical aspects of the infrastructure some  how and some way gurders anything we as business people have acomplished while they attempt to build a plausable explanation of what Obama was saying, adding a fluff to this, in order to lay thier heads on this stupid pillow. "He said we didn't build that"
> 3. How many roads did Obama build himself?
> 4. And tax money always builds the roads, and tax money comes from who else, 'The People', tollways build a lot of roads as well, so those who use those roads pay for them, and bonds, and tax on gasoline from 'The People'.
> 5. This whole idea that those who start a business don't actually start and build it themselves is total loonacy.
> 6. Is Obama saying being in business is being apart of some common link or collective, that everyone who starts a business is plugged into, is this; like  *The Matrix Movie*?
> 7. Sorry to break this to you people, but that is untrue, if you start a business you are on your own, no one will be there for you, and the roads won't help you either, they will just be there, as a road, most businesses fail in first year.
> 8. The only way Obama is correct is when he handed out those trillions of dollars to Solandra and those other failed solar companies, which all that did was waste money, like going fishing and putting on the hook a perfectly eatable fish and casting it in the water. Obama failed or how shall I put it, created a slush fund of untold billions to lean on when he's out of office in November.
> 9. If you try to defend Obama you are nothing but a *Obamabot*
> 10. Don't thank me for this, just doing my part to show you how very stoopid Obama really is.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you might have read into what Obama said just a bit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After 3 1/2 years of an Obama Administration, Barry...I think I've got a pretty good fix on what Obama's feelings are towards the Private Sector.  Between his comment that the Private Sector was doing "fine" and that we needed to spend more money on the Public Sector when the Private Sector is still down about 3 million jobs...and now this comment about how it wasn't individuals that built their businesses and that they owe much of it to the government...it's pretty obvious that our current President is not on your "side" if you're a business owner in this country.  Barack primarily sees the Private Sector as the means to fund Government...which he sees as the answer to all problems.
Click to expand...


What is amazing is the lavish adoration his followers heap on him even as he holds them in such contempt.  But similar phenomena has existed through history when would be dictators and or those employing the Marxist and/or Alinsky methods have gradually wrested it all away from the people.

I don't know what is in Obama's heart and do not presume to suggest it is evil.  He may in fact really think that what he does is in the best interest of all in the long run.  But those of us who have actually read history books know all too well in the history of the world that the consequences of ever stronger, more authoritarian, more intrusive government has invariably prospered a favored few and impoverished the many.  Conversely, the more individual freedom and initative there is, the more prosperity results.


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liz Warren is a fucking joke. A total absolute fucking joke and a fraud and a Neo-Marxist
> 
> Who the fuck cares what she says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, an awful lot since she and brown are neck and neck ...
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Massachusetts Senate - Brown vs. Warren
> 
> but we know you're allergic to educted people, so it's understandable that you'd find elizabeth warren offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jilly, you're the party of Robert KKK Byrd, Charlie Rangel, and Liz "High Cheekbones" Warren, we know you have no standard whatsoever for who you put in office.
> 
> The Party of Barack 57 States Obama and Joe Biden has to keep telling us how educated and intelligent they are. It feels like the Thatcher "Power is like being a lady... if you have to tell people you are, you aren't" quote. Democrats keep insisting on telling us how smart they are and all they do is sound a lot like Freddy Corleone in the process
> 
> Here's Liz Warren Yearbook pic from Harvard. Note the high cheekbones.
Click to expand...


It's not that liberals and Democrats keep telling us how educated and intelligent they are. It people like you who keep proving how uneducated and unintelligent you are.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> All you really have to do is the math people.
> 
> Do you honestly believe taking more taxes from the people, swallowing most of them up in the existing bureaucracy, and then funneling them back out in a few work projects is beneficial to the economy?  If you honestly beieve that you are way left of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe more people benefit from not diluting investment capital by leaving it in private sector hands in the first place, you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe government will manage healthcare more effectively, efficiently, humanely, and economically, you are way left of center.   You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you understand that if we weren't affording healthcare in the first place, diluting investment capital in the private sector and adding dozens or hundreds of more layers of government bureaucracy and funding tens of thousands new government employees to administrate it absolutely won't make healthcare more affordable, then you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe we should be grateful to and owe everybody else, most especially government, because we have a successful business, you are way left of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you know in your heart that you built your business and your working it to make a profit along with everybody else working their businesses that they built to make a profit is what makes a strong, effective, efficient economy, then you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.



We've been waiting over 30 years for 'trickle down' to happen. It never did, and it never will. The conservative era that began with Nixon and Reagan has brought us exactly WHAT? Skyrocketing prices on everything we consume. Reagan created as much debt in 8 years that ALL the presidents that preceded him accumulated...COMBINED.

Ronald Reagan was the WORST president for the small businessman/woman...The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked.

Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent.

For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.

A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.

Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagans policies? At least $3 trillion.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Murf76 said:


> Insult?  Observation?  Take it as you will.  By process of elimination there's nothing left to conclude but that your stance is nothing more than the same class warfare political strategy that Barack Obama employs.
> 
> Investment capital IS taxed twice.  It's taxed when the company earns income and it's taxed again when stocks are cashed in.  What's more, greedy leftists seem to forget that while it's true that the very wealthy are profiting in higher dollar amounts, they aren't the only ones investing these days.  Since the advent of 401ks, IRAs, and other retirement plans, middle America is invested as well with _"42 percent of all returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000. Seventy-two percent, or 6.4 million returns, were for households with incomes below $100,000"_.  The elderly, in particularly are _"two and a half times as likely to realize capital gains in a given year as are tax filers under the age of sixty-five"_.
> Capital Gains Taxes: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
> 
> What they're doing is attempting to rob my retirement account and yours too if it's invested.  But what is it that this administration is doing that would make us believe that they're going to behave responsibly with our money?
> 
> They've REFUSED to make a budget for the past 3+ years.  They've increased our national debt to almost 16 Trillion.  They won't even look at entitlements, all ahead of schedule on their way to going bust.  In fact, they've saddled us with another one which dwarfs the ones we've got, and is already forecast to cost three times as much as they said it would.
> 
> You people argue that the government spends our money better than we do, but where's your evidence that it's so?  If you could simply unwrap your minds from your slavish devotion to the political class, you'd see the evidence all around you that it doesn't.  Obama's foray into socialist _wealth redistribution_ hasn't benefited anyone.  And it's not likely to either.  You can't honestly think that all the left's sacred cows are going to survive when we're pulling a trillion dollars out of the economy by the end of the decade just to service the debt?
> 
> These people DON'T DESERVE one more red cent from any American, no matter how filthy rich that one American might be.  Because they've PROVED they can't behave responsibly with it.  They fill your heads with talk of _infrastructure_ and use that argument to forward their Robin Hood political games, but when they produced their "stimulus" bill, less than 5% went toward it.  What does that tell you???
> 
> I'm sorry to say it, but some of you folks need to wise up.  This isn't team sports, where we root for whichever jersey we like best.  It's not The Red Team vs. The Blue Team.  This is the future of our country; it's the future of our children and their children after them.  And if you're not using your interest in politics with that in mind, what the hell are you doing?


  



			
				USMB Rep Police said:
			
		

> You must spread some reputation.....


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you really have to do is the math people.
> 
> Do you honestly believe taking more taxes from the people, swallowing most of them up in the existing bureaucracy, and then funneling them back out in a few work projects is beneficial to the economy?  If you honestly beieve that you are way left of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe more people benefit from not diluting investment capital by leaving it in private sector hands in the first place, you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe government will manage healthcare more effectively, efficiently, humanely, and economically, you are way left of center.   You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you understand that if we weren't affording healthcare in the first place, diluting investment capital in the private sector and adding dozens or hundreds of more layers of government bureaucracy and funding tens of thousands new government employees to administrate it absolutely won't make healthcare more affordable, then you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe we should be grateful to and owe everybody else, most especially government, because we have a successful business, you are way left of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you know in your heart that you built your business and your working it to make a profit along with everybody else working their businesses that they built to make a profit is what makes a strong, effective, efficient economy, then you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been waiting over 30 years for 'trickle down' to happen. It never did, and it never will. The conservative era that began with Nixon and Reagan has brought us exactly WHAT? Skyrocketing prices on everything we consume. Reagan created as much debt in 8 years that ALL the presidents that preceded him accumulated...COMBINED.
> 
> Ronald Reagan was the WORST president for the small businessman/woman...The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
> 
> In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.
> 
> The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked.
> 
> Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
> 
> In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent.
> 
> For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.
> 
> A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.
> 
> Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagans policies? At least $3 trillion.
Click to expand...


In a nutshell, you believe you deserve and are entitled to a share of what I worked for and earned whether you worked at all or earned anything in your life.


----------



## Vast LWC

tinydancer said:


> The "Class warfare strategy" isn't working. The latest Gallup poll is a testament to Obama's failure to make Romney's wealth an issue.
> 
> And other polls show that the average blue collar working is not going to be cheering The O on like they did last time. His popularity is dropping like a stone.
> 
> *"An overwhelming majority of voters  75 percent  say that Mitt Romneys $200 million net worth makes no difference in their choice between him and President Barack Obama, according to a new Gallup poll.
> 
> Meanwhile, 20 percent of voters say Romneys wealth makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.
> 
> Breaking it down by party affiliation, among Republicans, 89 percent say Romneys riches make no difference, 8 percent say they are a reason to vote for him, and 4 percent say they are a reason to vote against him. Among Democrats, 62 percent dont care about Romneys wealth, 37 percent say its a negative factor, and 1 percent say its positive.
> 
> The sentiment of independents may be most important, as they are likely to decide the elections outcome. In this demographic 76 are indifferent to Romneys wealth, 19 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.
> 
> Read more on Newsmax.com: Gallup: Majority Say Romneys Wealth Wont Affect Their Vote
> Insert links, not just references or posts will be deleted. Thanks.*


*

No-one is suggesting that people would vote for or against anyone based on their wealth.

You've apparently missed the entire point.*


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you really have to do is the math people.
> 
> Do you honestly believe taking more taxes from the people, swallowing most of them up in the existing bureaucracy, and then funneling them back out in a few work projects is beneficial to the economy?  If you honestly beieve that you are way left of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe more people benefit from not diluting investment capital by leaving it in private sector hands in the first place, you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe government will manage healthcare more effectively, efficiently, humanely, and economically, you are way left of center.   You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you understand that if we weren't affording healthcare in the first place, diluting investment capital in the private sector and adding dozens or hundreds of more layers of government bureaucracy and funding tens of thousands new government employees to administrate it absolutely won't make healthcare more affordable, then you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe we should be grateful to and owe everybody else, most especially government, because we have a successful business, you are way left of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you know in your heart that you built your business and your working it to make a profit along with everybody else working their businesses that they built to make a profit is what makes a strong, effective, efficient economy, then you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been waiting over 30 years for 'trickle down' to happen. It never did, and it never will. The conservative era that began with Nixon and Reagan has brought us exactly WHAT? Skyrocketing prices on everything we consume. Reagan created as much debt in 8 years that ALL the presidents that preceded him accumulated...COMBINED.
> 
> Ronald Reagan was the WORST president for the small businessman/woman...The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
> 
> In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.
> 
> The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked.
> 
> Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
> 
> In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent.
> 
> For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.
> 
> A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.
> 
> Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagans policies? At least $3 trillion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, you believe you deserve and are entitled to a share of what I worked for and earned whether you worked at all or earned anything in your life.
Click to expand...


In a nutshell, you are a social Darwinist who believes that all people need is punishment to 'see the light'. You spew the exact same philosophy that was the foundation of fascism, communism and every atrocity that has ever occurred. The most dangerous and vile part of your social Darwinism is not your Monica Lewinsky worship of a hierarchy, it your dismissal and disdain for the common men and women on this planet.

You and I have gone over this all before. And you always continue to ignore FACTS that will never ever change. Like the FACT Social Security and Medicare are vital and necessary because what afflicts senior citizens can NOT be corrected with your vial punishment.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> You and I have gone over this all before. And you always continue to ignore FACTS that will never ever change. Like the FACT Social Security and Medicare are vital and necessary because what afflicts senior citizens can NOT be corrected with your vial punishment.



I love how you use the term "FACTS".

Your statement about Social Security and Medicare are CONCLUSIONS....not facts.

You state them as articles of faith, but they are not.

A case can be made and a CONCLUSION drawn that Social Security and Medicare are self fullfilling prophecies.

I would never vote to end them because of the promises made to those who are now come to depend upon them.  However, I would revisit their goals and be more than willing to look at alternatives for those who are just coming into the workplace.

But, I will go back to my statement that what you call FACTS are not FACTS.

No wonder you think you bury people with your B.S.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, well government is the enemy............here are some more Jefferson quotes I have confirmed are true.
> 
> "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
> 
> "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you don't get a second bite at the apple...
> 
> Those people whose lives were saved yesterday by the quick actions of first responders in Colorado didn't consider the government their "enemy".  They were probably damned glad those first responders were there and got them to safety or treated their injuries.
> 
> Hey, I want all you wingnuts who rip on government workers to remember that those people who responded to Aurora were "government workers" in  "Public Sector unions".
Click to expand...


I want you to remember that the people who carried victims out of the theater during the shooting weren't.

Asshole.


----------



## boedicca

Oldstyle said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Well we don't have to assume much at all when we say 'Obama is out of touch with reality'.
> 2. His defenders can strapulate how much the physical aspects of the infrastructure some  how and some way gurders anything we as business people have acomplished while they attempt to build a plausable explanation of what Obama was saying, adding a fluff to this, in order to lay thier heads on this stupid pillow. "He said we didn't build that"
> 3. How many roads did Obama build himself?
> 4. And tax money always builds the roads, and tax money comes from who else, 'The People', tollways build a lot of roads as well, so those who use those roads pay for them, and bonds, and tax on gasoline from 'The People'.
> 5. This whole idea that those who start a business don't actually start and build it themselves is total loonacy.
> 6. Is Obama saying being in business is being apart of some common link or collective, that everyone who starts a business is plugged into, is this; like  *The Matrix Movie*?
> 7. Sorry to break this to you people, but that is untrue, if you start a business you are on your own, no one will be there for you, and the roads won't help you either, they will just be there, as a road, most businesses fail in first year.
> 8. The only way Obama is correct is when he handed out those trillions of dollars to Solandra and those other failed solar companies, which all that did was waste money, like going fishing and putting on the hook a perfectly eatable fish and casting it in the water. Obama failed or how shall I put it, created a slush fund of untold billions to lean on when he's out of office in November.
> 9. If you try to defend Obama you are nothing but a *Obamabot*
> 10. Don't thank me for this, just doing my part to show you how very stoopid Obama really is.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you might have read into what Obama said just a bit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After 3 1/2 years of an Obama Administration, Barry...I think I've got a pretty good fix on what Obama's feelings are towards the Private Sector.  Between his comment that the Private Sector was doing "fine" and that we needed to spend more money on the Public Sector when the Private Sector is still down about 3 million jobs...and now this comment about how it wasn't individuals that built their businesses and that they owe much of it to the government...it's pretty obvious that our current President is not on your "side" if you're a business owner in this country.  Barack primarily sees the Private Sector as the means to fund Government...which he sees as the answer to all problems.
Click to expand...



After 3+ years of the Obama Presidency, it's pretty clear we have a collectivist in the White House.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liz Warren is a fucking joke. A total absolute fucking joke and a fraud and a Neo-Marxist
> 
> Who the fuck cares what she says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> apparently, an awful lot since she and brown are neck and neck ...
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Massachusetts Senate - Brown vs. Warren
> 
> but we know you're allergic to educted people, so it's understandable that you'd find elizabeth warren offensive.
Click to expand...


Amazing what some money spent in the right places will accomplish, isn't it? 

Tell me something, why would any self respecting person listen to a person who spins a fanciful yarn about being a Cherokee, uses that yarn to gain employment, and then deny she did this? How about the fact that she committed fraud in at lest one of her papers when she deliberately used numbers that she knew were inaccurate? Do you, personally, think this is the type of person that should be in the Senate?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Mac1958 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mild recession?
> 
> Holy crap.
> 
> Congratulations.  You made me speechless.  I don't even know what to say here.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It boggles the fucking mind that anyone would say something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is an example of what really fascinates me about partisan ideologues.  When I see something as completely absurd as this, a few questions immediately start running through what remains of my little mind:
> 
> 1. Surely this person realizes this isn't true, right?
> 2. Wait, maybe they do, how could that be?
> 3. What was the thought process that completely blocked out all evidence and allowed them to come to this conclusion?
> 4. Is this person having any contrary thoughts about this statement?
> 5. If so, what are they doing with those thoughts?  How are they handling them?
> 6. What outside influences have contributed to such thought processes?  Fox and MSNBC?  Is it that simple?
> 7. Do they approach other areas of life like this, where they just ignore contrary evidence and run with stuff?
> 8. Does thinking in a vacuum, in an intellectual cocoon, become habit, second nature?
> 9. Or maybe, is this just a game they like to play, really having little to do with the topic at hand, just fun?
> 
> If course, while these questions and others are bouncing around in my little brain, I'm sitting there in front of the computer, transfixed, trying not to drool.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement, yet you think what we have now is a mild recovery, and you think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you really have to do is the math people.
> 
> Do you honestly believe taking more taxes from the people, swallowing most of them up in the existing bureaucracy, and then funneling them back out in a few work projects is beneficial to the economy?  If you honestly beieve that you are way left of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe more people benefit from not diluting investment capital by leaving it in private sector hands in the first place, you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe government will manage healthcare more effectively, efficiently, humanely, and economically, you are way left of center.   You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you understand that if we weren't affording healthcare in the first place, diluting investment capital in the private sector and adding dozens or hundreds of more layers of government bureaucracy and funding tens of thousands new government employees to administrate it absolutely won't make healthcare more affordable, then you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you believe we should be grateful to and owe everybody else, most especially government, because we have a successful business, you are way left of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> If you know in your heart that you built your business and your working it to make a profit along with everybody else working their businesses that they built to make a profit is what makes a strong, effective, efficient economy, then you are right of center.  You don't have to demonize somebody to know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been waiting over 30 years for 'trickle down' to happen. It never did, and it never will. The conservative era that began with Nixon and Reagan has brought us exactly WHAT? Skyrocketing prices on everything we consume. Reagan created as much debt in 8 years that ALL the presidents that preceded him accumulated...COMBINED.
> 
> Ronald Reagan was the WORST president for the small businessman/woman...The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
> 
> In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.
> 
> The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked.
> 
> Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
> 
> In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent.
> 
> For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.
> 
> A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.
> 
> Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagans policies? At least $3 trillion.
Click to expand...


Too bad for you it actually did.

http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pursuing_American_Dream.pdf


----------



## chanel

Huh? How about a lifetime? 

Are you serious dude?


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and I have gone over this all before. And you always continue to ignore FACTS that will never ever change. Like the FACT Social Security and Medicare are vital and necessary because what afflicts senior citizens can NOT be corrected with your vial punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you use the term "FACTS".
> 
> Your statement about Social Security and Medicare are CONCLUSIONS....not facts.
> 
> You state them as articles of faith, but they are not.
> 
> A case can be made and a CONCLUSION drawn that Social Security and Medicare are self fullfilling prophecies.
> 
> I would never vote to end them because of the promises made to those who are now come to depend upon them.  However, I would revisit their goals and be more than willing to look at alternatives for those who are just coming into the workplace.
> 
> But, I will go back to my statement that what you call FACTS are not FACTS.
> 
> No wonder you think you bury people with your B.S.
Click to expand...


I present FACTS, you emote a dogmatic ideology, based on.........? 

Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?

Medicare is the greatest accomplishment in our nation's history...

FACTS...

47 MILLIONthe number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENTthe number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENTthe number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENTthe number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is extremely or very important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost. 

More


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> In a nutshell, you are a social Darwinist who believes that all people need is punishment to 'see the light'. You spew the exact same philosophy that was the foundation of fascism, communism and every atrocity that has ever occurred. The most dangerous and vile part of your social Darwinism is not your Monica Lewinsky worship of a hierarchy, it your dismissal and disdain for the common men and women on this planet.
> 
> You and I have gone over this all before. And you always continue to ignore FACTS that will never ever change. Like the FACT Social Security and Medicare are vital and necessary because what afflicts senior citizens can NOT be corrected with your vial punishment.



Tell me something. Why is Social Darwinism a bad thing? Didn't Darwinism result in life as we know it today? Is your belief and support of evolution merely a political stance to give you an argument against Christians who believe in God? Wouldn't that make you a hack?

Just an FYI here, Hofstadter's epic work of alternate history applied the term Social Darwinism to a person who supported labor unions and opposed corporations.You might want to do a little research before you throw around terms you do not understand.


----------



## Mac1958

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It boggles the fucking mind that anyone would say something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is an example of what really fascinates me about partisan ideologues.  When I see something as completely absurd as this, a few questions immediately start running through what remains of my little mind:
> 
> 1. Surely this person realizes this isn't true, right?
> 2. Wait, maybe they do, how could that be?
> 3. What was the thought process that completely blocked out all evidence and allowed them to come to this conclusion?
> 4. Is this person having any contrary thoughts about this statement?
> 5. If so, what are they doing with those thoughts?  How are they handling them?
> 6. What outside influences have contributed to such thought processes?  Fox and MSNBC?  Is it that simple?
> 7. Do they approach other areas of life like this, where they just ignore contrary evidence and run with stuff?
> 8. Does thinking in a vacuum, in an intellectual cocoon, become habit, second nature?
> 9. Or maybe, is this just a game they like to play, really having little to do with the topic at hand, just fun?
> 
> If course, while these questions and others are bouncing around in my little brain, I'm sitting there in front of the computer, transfixed, trying not to drool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement, yet you think what we have now is a mild recovery, and you think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.
Click to expand...



*The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement*
Of course there has been some improvement.  We were losing 750,000 jobs a month; the intrabank lending system was broken, now it's just lousy; we were literally on the cliff's edge, now we're a step or two back.  Maybe half a step.  Improvement as in other recessions?  Nope, but this is not even close to the same global economic environment.

*You think what we have now is a mild recovery*
Where did I say that, precisely?  This economy is dead in the water right now, very little velocity of money, and no doubt an unemployment rate higher than the announced number.

*You think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.*
Indeed, the likes of which we have never seen, building over the course of almost three decades, and building globally.  And for the GOP to think that this was/is just another recession, that we could have just popped back in a year or two or five like nothing had happened, indicates either (a) an abject lack of knowledge and understanding of what has happened, or, far more likely, (b) a willingness to lie for political gain.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Mac1958 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is an example of what really fascinates me about partisan ideologues.  When I see something as completely absurd as this, a few questions immediately start running through what remains of my little mind:
> 
> 1. Surely this person realizes this isn't true, right?
> 2. Wait, maybe they do, how could that be?
> 3. What was the thought process that completely blocked out all evidence and allowed them to come to this conclusion?
> 4. Is this person having any contrary thoughts about this statement?
> 5. If so, what are they doing with those thoughts?  How are they handling them?
> 6. What outside influences have contributed to such thought processes?  Fox and MSNBC?  Is it that simple?
> 7. Do they approach other areas of life like this, where they just ignore contrary evidence and run with stuff?
> 8. Does thinking in a vacuum, in an intellectual cocoon, become habit, second nature?
> 9. Or maybe, is this just a game they like to play, really having little to do with the topic at hand, just fun?
> 
> If course, while these questions and others are bouncing around in my little brain, I'm sitting there in front of the computer, transfixed, trying not to drool.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement, yet you think what we have now is a mild recovery, and you think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement*
> Of course there has been some improvement.  We were losing 750,000 jobs a month; the intrabank lending system was broken, now it's just lousy; we were literally on the cliff's edge, now we're a step or two back.  Maybe half a step.  Improvement as in other recessions?  Nope, but this is not even close to the same global economic environment.
> 
> *You think what we have now is a mild recovery*
> Where did I say that, precisely?  This economy is dead in the water right now, very little velocity of money, and no doubt an unemployment rate higher than the announced number.
> 
> *You think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.*
> Indeed, the likes of which we have never seen, building over the course of almost three decades, and building globally.  And for the GOP to think that this was/is just another recession, that we could have just popped back in a year or two or five like nothing had happened, indicates either (a) an abject lack of knowledge and understanding of what has happened, or, far more likely, (b) a willingness to lie for political gain.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Some improvement is not the opposite of no real improvement, thanks for playing.


----------



## Mac1958

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement, yet you think what we have now is a mild recovery, and you think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement*
> Of course there has been some improvement.  We were losing 750,000 jobs a month; the intrabank lending system was broken, now it's just lousy; we were literally on the cliff's edge, now we're a step or two back.  Maybe half a step.  Improvement as in other recessions?  Nope, but this is not even close to the same global economic environment.
> 
> *You think what we have now is a mild recovery*
> Where did I say that, precisely?  This economy is dead in the water right now, very little velocity of money, and no doubt an unemployment rate higher than the announced number.
> 
> *You think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.*
> Indeed, the likes of which we have never seen, building over the course of almost three decades, and building globally.  And for the GOP to think that this was/is just another recession, that we could have just popped back in a year or two or five like nothing had happened, indicates either (a) an abject lack of knowledge and understanding of what has happened, or, far more likely, (b) a willingness to lie for political gain.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some improvement is not the opposite of no real improvement, thanks for playing.
Click to expand...



Ah, so the discussion hinges on your personal interpretation of "some" vs. "real".  

Good grief.

"Playing", indeed.  I'm not good at partisan games.  Another waste of my time.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, you are a social Darwinist who believes that all people need is punishment to 'see the light'. You spew the exact same philosophy that was the foundation of fascism, communism and every atrocity that has ever occurred. The most dangerous and vile part of your social Darwinism is not your Monica Lewinsky worship of a hierarchy, it your dismissal and disdain for the common men and women on this planet.
> 
> You and I have gone over this all before. And you always continue to ignore FACTS that will never ever change. Like the FACT Social Security and Medicare are vital and necessary because what afflicts senior citizens can NOT be corrected with your vial punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something. Why is Social Darwinism a bad thing? Didn't Darwinism result in life as we know it today? Is your belief and support of evolution merely a political stance to give you an argument against Christians who believe in God? Wouldn't that make you a hack?
> 
> Just an FYI here, Hofstadter's epic work of alternate history applied the term Social Darwinism to a person who supported labor unions and opposed corporations.You might want to do a little research before you throw around terms you do not understand.
Click to expand...


Alternate history? It is so refreshing to hear a right winger describe what they spew.

REAL history...

THE SOCIAL WEAPON: DARWINISM

The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as useless" exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countriesfrom Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Swedenwere compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies.

The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin.

As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as inferior" was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the fittest" would survive and the rest would be eliminatedand that all this would lead to human progress."

With his theory of evolution, Darwin sought to apply this philosophy of selfishness to the natural sciences. Ignoring the examples of solidarity and cooperation created by God in nature, he maintained that all living things were engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival. On the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever, he even claimed that this same ruthlessness applied to human societies. When his theory of evolution was applied to human society, social Darwinism appeared on the scene.

--------------------------------

Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al: The Role of Darwinian Evolution in Their Lives


--------------------------------

Darwins critical influence on the ruthless extremes of capitalism

--------------------------------

Republican Economics As Social Darwinism

--------------------------------


The Tea Parties Bring Back Social Darwinism

--------------------------------

Darwinism: Then and Now


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh... I get it now.  Pardon me for mistaking you for a critical thinker.  I thought you were interested in a discussion of political issues, but what's readily apparent is that you're simply envious that other people have more money than you do.
> *I mean, we both KNOW that capital gains are taxed several times before any checks are cut,* so what else could it be?
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the REAL difference between leftists and capitalists is that leftists believe there's only so much pie to go around. * They think *everyone should be guaranteed a little sliver, even though when that sliver is finally passed down by government it arrives as crumbs.
> Capitalists, on the other hand... know that we can always make more pie.
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever CON$ are confronted with facts that explode their brainwashing they go into insult mode as programmed.
> 
> We both know that capital gains are never taxed until they are realized, and then for the very first time, so you have reduced yourself to out and out lying. even* if you are going to argue that all money has been taxed before as it passed through other hands before it became capital gains in the tycoons hands and therefore is entitled to special tax privilages, the exact same thing could be said for wages and therefore wages deserve the same special tax privilages.*
> 
> The real difference between the Left and the Right is the Right believes they can make up bullshit about what anyone else THINKS. The Right have anointed themselves as mind-readers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insult?  Observation?  Take it as you will.  By process of elimination there's nothing left to conclude but that your stance is nothing more than the same class warfare political strategy that Barack Obama employs.
> 
> *Investment capital IS taxed twice.  It's taxed when the company earns income and it's taxed again when stocks are cashed in. * What's more, greedy leftists seem to forget that while it's true that the very wealthy are profiting in higher dollar amounts, they aren't the only ones investing these days.  Since the advent of 401ks, IRAs, and other retirement plans, middle America is invested as well with _"42 percent of all returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000. Seventy-two percent, or 6.4 million returns, were for households with incomes below $100,000"_.  The elderly, in particularly are _"two and a half times as likely to realize capital gains in a given year as are tax filers under the age of sixty-five"_.
Click to expand...

The conpany and the investor are two separate entities. Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.

And as fat as that bullshit that the little guy is getting a big share of the capital gains, the top 20% own 90% of all the stock and the bottom 80% own 10%. So while a lot of little people have some stock through an mutual fund, etc., the amount is so miniscule they are not getting very much from their stock.

The rest of your post was just a desperate attempt to change the subject awayu from an argument you know you are wrong about. Even your MessiahRushie admits that wage earner income is what is taxed the most to keep the wage earner from becoming wealthy as the capital gains tycoon. And this little tidbit from your link proves it. Wage earners pay 33 times more in taxes than the capitol gains tycoons.

Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)

*Capital gains tax	 $45*
Corporate income tax	$132
*Individual income tax	$794
Social Security taxes	$713*
Total revenues	$1,782
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH:    I've told you before:* the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! * There is no "wealth" tax.  So this is a big misnomer.  ...  
But there's no tax on wealth.  There is a tax on income, and *the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.*
I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Mac1958 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement*
> Of course there has been some improvement.  We were losing 750,000 jobs a month; the intrabank lending system was broken, now it's just lousy; we were literally on the cliff's edge, now we're a step or two back.  Maybe half a step.  Improvement as in other recessions?  Nope, but this is not even close to the same global economic environment.
> 
> *You think what we have now is a mild recovery*
> Where did I say that, precisely?  This economy is dead in the water right now, very little velocity of money, and no doubt an unemployment rate higher than the announced number.
> 
> *You think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.*
> Indeed, the likes of which we have never seen, building over the course of almost three decades, and building globally.  And for the GOP to think that this was/is just another recession, that we could have just popped back in a year or two or five like nothing had happened, indicates either (a) an abject lack of knowledge and understanding of what has happened, or, far more likely, (b) a willingness to lie for political gain.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some improvement is not the opposite of no real improvement, thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so the discussion hinges on your personal interpretation of "some" vs. "real".
> 
> Good grief.
> 
> "Playing", indeed.  I'm not good at partisan games.  Another waste of my time.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Question, did you not just post this?



> This economy is dead in the water right now



Again, I say, some is not the opposite of real. It appears you agree, but you still want to argue,


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and I have gone over this all before. And you always continue to ignore FACTS that will never ever change. Like the FACT Social Security and Medicare are vital and necessary because what afflicts senior citizens can NOT be corrected with your vial punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you use the term "FACTS".
> 
> Your statement about Social Security and Medicare are CONCLUSIONS....not facts.
> 
> You state them as articles of faith, but they are not.
> 
> A case can be made and a CONCLUSION drawn that Social Security and Medicare are self fullfilling prophecies.
> 
> I would never vote to end them because of the promises made to those who are now come to depend upon them.  However, I would revisit their goals and be more than willing to look at alternatives for those who are just coming into the workplace.
> 
> But, I will go back to my statement that what you call FACTS are not FACTS.
> 
> No wonder you think you bury people with your B.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Bfgrn said:


> I present FACTS, you emote a dogmatic ideology, based on.........?



What ideology was presented above ?  You wonder to where you want to and only address what fits your narrative.  You don't get to set the rules.

My statements above still stand.  You present conclusions as facts and that is akin to misrepresentation.


Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?



Bfgrn said:


> Medicare is the greatest accomplishment in our nation's history...



Opinion and/or Conclusion.  You'd need to provide a standard for how we would determine this. 

I happen to think it is a mess......and my opinion is just as useless as yours.



Bfgrn said:


> FACTS...



We shall see



Bfgrn said:


> 47 MILLION&#8230;the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care



That is a fact.



Bfgrn said:


> 51 PERCENT&#8230;the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare



When was medicare passed ?

And no they don't.  Not everyone takes medicare.  I have posted the business about the Mayo in Phoenix enough to say look it up yourself.

But, it is true that once you pass a certain age, you have access to Medicare.  If you want to go on a supplemental plan (as in you choose), you can get access to more health care.

That is a fact.



Bfgrn said:


> 30 PERCENT&#8230;the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT



O.K. I am game.  How did Medicare bring down poverty rates ?  



Bfgrn said:


> 72 PERCENT&#8230;the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is &#8220;extremely&#8221; or &#8220;very&#8221; important to their retirement security



This is a poll.  The respondent percentage is a fact.  It says nothing else and does not support the conclusion that it is the greatest achievement in the history of the U.S.  It simply says that we've managed to get the elderly hooked on a government program.



Bfgrn said:


> Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.



These are not "facts".

The first statement is probably very true.

The second statement needs some financials put behind it (and some good financials....not some government bull).

The third statement is not categorically true.  It is not a fact.  I would be willing to be that it makes the lives of most seniors "better" (given we can agree on what better means).



Bfgrn said:


> Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.



What are the facts here.

Older people generally require more care than younger people.

Most seniors live on less income (and have less expenses outside of medical care).

Many live on S.S. only.

Let's add that the government has always told people that S.S. should not be seen as the only retirement income for the elderly.  That is a fact...just look at your statements.

In 1965 LBJ was swimming in money to dole out.  His S.S. increases (from what I recall) were simply based on getting the trust fund lowered...it was getting that large.

LBJ always liked giving away money.

You've quoted this before...BTW and did not answer the question as to why I we have to preserve homes and savings for seniors.  This is not a fact nor an objective of the program.


And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost. 

More[/QUOTE]

O.K. the blathering in the website quote is more than I want to deal with.  Needless to say they can quote some facts, but then draw conclusions that I don't agree with and are not supported by their so called facts.

So, we identified a few facts.  We've weeded out a lot of bull (opinion called fact...).

What next ?

You certainly have not made the case for it being the greatest accomplishment of this country.


----------



## OODA_Loop

edthecynic said:


> Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.



I only pay income tax once ....... upon earning.  If I invest what I earn, I don't pay income tax on it again.   I pay capital gains.  Which is less.


----------



## edthecynic

OODA_Loop said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only pay income tax once ....... upon earning.  If I invest what I earn, I don't pay income tax on it again.   I pay capital gains.  Which is less.
Click to expand...

You only pay cap gains on the increase in value over what you paid for the stock, so that increase is only taxed once.

I was just using the posters "logic" that the increase in stock value was taxed twice because the company paid taxes on it before the stockholder paid taxes on it. The same could be said for wages, there were taxes paid many times on the same dollar before it was paid in wages and taxed again. But just like wages were taxed only once after they were paid in wages, capital gains are taxed only once after they are realized by the stockholder.


----------



## OODA_Loop

edthecynic said:


> The same could be said for wages, there were taxes paid many times on the same dollar before it was paid in wages and taxed again.



Not by the earner.    Taxation upstream by my employer is not levied against or credited to me.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Chris said:


> The lack of regulations destroyed the world economy in 2008.



Not regulations. Politicians willing to look the other way as long as their political interests are served.
Federal and state regulations are crushing legitimate business. Confiscatory taxation is doing the same.


----------



## edthecynic

OODA_Loop said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same could be said for wages, there were taxes paid many times on the same dollar before it was paid in wages and taxed again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not by the earner.    Taxation upstream by my employer is not levied against or credited to me.
Click to expand...

You keep pulling quotes out of their context!

The poster I was replying to was claiming the upstream taxes paid by the corporation made the taxes paid by the stockholder a double taxation on capital gains. I merely pointed out if upstream taxes make for double taxation on capital gains, then upstream taxes also make income taxes double taxation.
Get it?


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever CON$ are confronted with facts that explode their brainwashing they go into insult mode as programmed.
> 
> We both know that capital gains are never taxed until they are realized, and then for the very first time, so you have reduced yourself to out and out lying. even* if you are going to argue that all money has been taxed before as it passed through other hands before it became capital gains in the tycoons hands and therefore is entitled to special tax privilages, the exact same thing could be said for wages and therefore wages deserve the same special tax privilages.*
> 
> The real difference between the Left and the Right is the Right believes they can make up bullshit about what anyone else THINKS. The Right have anointed themselves as mind-readers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insult?  Observation?  Take it as you will.  By process of elimination there's nothing left to conclude but that your stance is nothing more than the same class warfare political strategy that Barack Obama employs.
> 
> *Investment capital IS taxed twice.  It's taxed when the company earns income and it's taxed again when stocks are cashed in. * What's more, greedy leftists seem to forget that while it's true that the very wealthy are profiting in higher dollar amounts, they aren't the only ones investing these days.  Since the advent of 401ks, IRAs, and other retirement plans, middle America is invested as well with _"42 percent of all returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000. Seventy-two percent, or 6.4 million returns, were for households with incomes below $100,000"_.  The elderly, in particularly are _"two and a half times as likely to realize capital gains in a given year as are tax filers under the age of sixty-five"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The conpany and the investor are two separate entities. Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.
> 
> And as fat as that bullshit that the little guy is getting a big share of the capital gains, the top 20% own 90% of all the stock and the bottom 80% own 10%. So while a lot of little people have some stock through an mutual fund, etc., the amount is so miniscule they are not getting very much from their stock.
> 
> The rest of your post was just a desperate attempt to change the subject awayu from an argument you know you are wrong about. Even your MessiahRushie admits that wage earner income is what is taxed the most to keep the wage earner from becoming wealthy as the capital gains tycoon. And this little tidbit from your link proves it. Wage earners pay 33 times more in taxes than the capitol gains tycoons.
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> 
> *Capital gains tax	 $45*
> Corporate income tax	$132
> *Individual income tax	$794
> Social Security taxes	$713*
> Total revenues	$1,782
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
> 
> The Truth About Taxes
> August 6, 2007
> RUSH:    I've told you before:* the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! * There is no "wealth" tax.  So this is a big misnomer.  ...
> But there's no tax on wealth.  There is a tax on income, and *the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.*
> I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."
Click to expand...


To begin with, ignoring the rest of my post as you did, is hardly a refutation of my argument that the current administration is UNWORTHY of any additional revenues to begin with.  They've proved conclusively over the past 3 and a half years that they can't be trusted to behave responsibly with it.  

In response to your argument on capital gains... I would still disagree.  You say that two separate entities are being taxed, but the investors essentially ARE the corporation.  They provide the capital, and the money that they buy their stocks with is taxed as earned income before the stock is even bought, at the corporate level when profits are made, and again as capital gains taxes.

Don't forget that Obama's  Robin Hood political gambit is not targeted simply toward giant corporations and investors.  Most of the small businesses affected would be LLCs and S Corps., and those business _would_ see their taxes raised as _income tax_.

What Obama is doing is pointlessly divisive.  The only one he wants to help is HIMSELF.  'Eating the Rich' wouldn't provide a drop in the bucket and he KNOWS that.  He knows it.  We don't have a revenue problem.  We've got a spending problem.  Revenues have tripled since 1965, and that's in adjusted dollars.  But our spending has more than quintupled.  And this administration won't even put out a budget.

He's yanking you people around, depending upon your partisanship to blind you from seeing his incompetence.


----------



## Jackson

When Obama says to anyone successful that they didn't get there "on their own" he's merely reminiscing of his own rise to success.  He didn't get here on his own merits.  Just read...

Obama: The Affirmative Action President. WASHINGTON POST

Obama: The Affirmative Action President. WASHINGTON POST. Written by : Matt Patterson



> Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world&#8217;s largest economy, direct the world&#8217;s most powerful military, execute the world&#8217;s most consequential job?
> 
> 
> Imagine a future historian examining Obama&#8217;s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a &#8220;community organizer&#8221;; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote &#8220;present&#8221 ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.
> 
> 
> And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama&#8217;s &#8220;spiritual mentor&#8221;; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama&#8217;s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
> 
> 
> Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
> 
> 
> To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
> 
> 
> Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass &#8212; held to a lower standard &#8212; because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
> 
> 
> And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) &#8220;non-threatening,&#8221; all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
> 
> 
> Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon &#8212; affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are notqualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don&#8217;t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren&#8217;t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.
> 
> 
> Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin &#8212; that&#8217;s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn&#8217;t racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
> 
> 
> True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the nextstep, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
> 
> 
> In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama&#8217;s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people &#8212; conservatives included &#8212; ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that&#8217;s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth &#8212; it&#8217;s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
> 
> 
> And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
> 
> 
> In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.



Thank you to Black Dog for first bringing this to the board.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you use the term "FACTS".
> 
> Your statement about Social Security and Medicare are CONCLUSIONS....not facts.
> 
> You state them as articles of faith, but they are not.
> 
> A case can be made and a CONCLUSION drawn that Social Security and Medicare are self fullfilling prophecies.
> 
> I would never vote to end them because of the promises made to those who are now come to depend upon them.  However, I would revisit their goals and be more than willing to look at alternatives for those who are just coming into the workplace.
> 
> But, I will go back to my statement that what you call FACTS are not FACTS.
> 
> No wonder you think you bury people with your B.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ideology was presented above ?  You wonder to where you want to and only address what fits your narrative.  You don't get to set the rules.
> 
> My statements above still stand.  You present conclusions as facts and that is akin to misrepresentation.
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion and/or Conclusion.  You'd need to provide a standard for how we would determine this.
> 
> I happen to think it is a mess......and my opinion is just as useless as yours.
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> When was medicare passed ?
> 
> And no they don't.  Not everyone takes medicare.  I have posted the business about the Mayo in Phoenix enough to say look it up yourself.
> 
> But, it is true that once you pass a certain age, you have access to Medicare.  If you want to go on a supplemental plan (as in you choose), you can get access to more health care.
> 
> That is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> O.K. I am game.  How did Medicare bring down poverty rates ?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a poll.  The respondent percentage is a fact.  It says nothing else and does not support the conclusion that it is the greatest achievement in the history of the U.S.  It simply says that we've managed to get the elderly hooked on a government program.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are not "facts".
> 
> The first statement is probably very true.
> 
> The second statement needs some financials put behind it (and some good financials....not some government bull).
> 
> The third statement is not categorically true.  It is not a fact.  I would be willing to be that it makes the lives of most seniors "better" (given we can agree on what better means).
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the facts here.
> 
> Older people generally require more care than younger people.
> 
> Most seniors live on less income (and have less expenses outside of medical care).
> 
> Many live on S.S. only.
> 
> Let's add that the government has always told people that S.S. should not be seen as the only retirement income for the elderly.  That is a fact...just look at your statements.
> 
> In 1965 LBJ was swimming in money to dole out.  His S.S. increases (from what I recall) were simply based on getting the trust fund lowered...it was getting that large.
> 
> LBJ always liked giving away money.
> 
> You've quoted this before...BTW and did not answer the question as to why I we have to preserve homes and savings for seniors.  This is not a fact nor an objective of the program.
> 
> 
> And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
> 
> Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.
> 
> Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.
> 
> Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.
> 
> Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.
> 
> More
Click to expand...


O.K. the blathering in the website quote is more than I want to deal with.  Needless to say they can quote some facts, but then draw conclusions that I don't agree with and are not supported by their so called facts.

So, we identified a few facts.  We've weeded out a lot of bull (opinion called fact...).

What next ?

You certainly have not made the case for it being the greatest accomplishment of this country.[/QUOTE]

What next... how about seeing if you are open minded enough to listen to a 15 year executive VP at CIGNA who testified under oath before Congress and has tried to inform the American people the truth about private insurance cartels?

Are you up to it?






Wendell Potter, who retired last April from his job as head of communications for the CIGNA health insurance company, has been in the news since then as a whistle-blowing critic of the insurance industry. Today I belatedly read his June 24 testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (see here) watched his July 10 interview with Bill Moyers (see here).

Potter is especially clear about the way short term considerations drive the behavior of for-profit insurers:

The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the "medical-loss" ratio - the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.

To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting theyve failed to trim medical costs. I have seen an insurers stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous period. The smoking gun was the companys first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year later.

Health Care Organizational Ethics: Wendell Potter on For-Profit Health Insurance

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## barry1960

boedicca said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you might have read into what Obama said just a bit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 3 1/2 years of an Obama Administration, Barry...I think I've got a pretty good fix on what Obama's feelings are towards the Private Sector.  Between his comment that the Private Sector was doing "fine" and that we needed to spend more money on the Public Sector when the Private Sector is still down about 3 million jobs...and now this comment about how it wasn't individuals that built their businesses and that they owe much of it to the government...it's pretty obvious that our current President is not on your "side" if you're a business owner in this country.  Barack primarily sees the Private Sector as the means to fund Government...which he sees as the answer to all problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After 3+ years of the Obama Presidency, it's pretty clear we have a collectivist in the White House.
Click to expand...


A collectivist, you mean like communism, or what?

The truth is that Obama is a capitalist who believes in more government intervention than conservatives, who wish to decrease government intervention. Obama would tend towards Keynesian economics as opposed to the economic theories of Friedman. There are no communists or facists in the equation. 

Perhaps it would be better to advocate reasons for greater or lessor government regulation in business. lower of higher taxes on businesses and such rather than rant with such strawman arguments that Obama wishes for complete government control of business. 

Obama comments that you did not get here on your own and somehow it is extrapolated into a government takeover of private business. When posters state such, it seems to lesson their credibility.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

barry1960 said:


> The truth is that Obama is a capitalist.



OMG!!! TOO perfectly stupid!!! He had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer, and is beloved by the CPUSA.

Norman Thomas quotes:  
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935: 
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4] 

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium 


Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Obama is a capitalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! TOO perfectly stupid!!! He had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer, and is beloved by the CPUSA.
> 
> Norman Thomas quotes:
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
> 
> 
> This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
> "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4]
> 
> C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
> 
> 
> Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.
Click to expand...



Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

Washington Post


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Obama is a capitalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! TOO perfectly stupid!!! He had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer, and is beloved by the CPUSA.
> 
> Norman Thomas quotes:
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
> 
> 
> This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
> "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4]
> 
> C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
> 
> 
> Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent
Click to expand...



and???????????????????????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

edthecynic said:


> But just like wages were taxed only once after they were paid in wages, capital gains are taxed only once after they are realized by the stockholder.



too stupid you get wages by working and paying the tax;  you get capital gains when you invest wages on which you have already paid taxes.


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! TOO perfectly stupid!!! He had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer, and is beloved by the CPUSA.
> 
> Norman Thomas quotes:
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
> 
> 
> This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
> "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4]
> 
> C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
> 
> 
> Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and???????????????????????????
Click to expand...


Is THAT what communists do ed? Do communists make the centerpiece of a health care bill, the BIG Republican/Heritage Foundation idea, the individual mandate, based on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Is THAT what communists do ed?



what is "that" you fool????????????????





Bfgrn said:


> Do communists make the centerpiece of a health care bill, the BIG Republican/Heritage Foundation idea, the individual mandate, based on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY??




dear, BO is for single payer!! Its really way over your head isn't it??


----------



## Mac1958

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some improvement is not the opposite of no real improvement, thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so the discussion hinges on your personal interpretation of "some" vs. "real".
> 
> Good grief.
> 
> "Playing", indeed.  I'm not good at partisan games.  Another waste of my time.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question, did you not just post this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This economy is dead in the water right now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I say, some is not the opposite of real. It appears you agree, but you still want to argue,
Click to expand...



I also pointed out, as you know, improvements in unemployment data and intrabank lending as two examples of where improvements have been made, but somehow you "forgot" to notice that.  Must have been an oversight, huh?

The improvements were made, and we have since slipped back to "dead in the water" status.  Not sure why the two need to be mutually exclusive (okay, just kidding, I know why).  

Since Obama has a (D) after his name, it's all his fault, I know.  Personally, I think it's more a function of the nature of the disaster, but as I said, I'm not very good at partisan politics.

.


----------



## barry1960

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Obama is a capitalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! TOO perfectly stupid!!! He had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer, and is beloved by the CPUSA.
> 
> Norman Thomas quotes:
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
> 
> 
> This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
> "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4]
> 
> C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
> 
> 
> Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.
Click to expand...


Nice rant.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

barry1960 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Obama is a capitalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! TOO perfectly stupid!!! He had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer, and is beloved by the CPUSA.
> 
> Norman Thomas quotes:
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
> 
> 
> This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
> "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4]
> 
> C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
> 
> 
> Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice rant.
Click to expand...


as a liberal you will lack the IQ to say why you disagree with it. See why we are positive liberalism is based on ignorance?


----------



## Katzndogz

OODA_Loop said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same could be said for wages, there were taxes paid many times on the same dollar before it was paid in wages and taxed again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not by the earner.    Taxation upstream by my employer is not levied against or credited to me.
Click to expand...


No.  Those taxes go to someone else's employer.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insult?  Observation?  Take it as you will.  By process of elimination there's nothing left to conclude but that your stance is nothing more than the same class warfare political strategy that Barack Obama employs.
> 
> *Investment capital IS taxed twice.  It's taxed when the company earns income and it's taxed again when stocks are cashed in. * What's more, greedy leftists seem to forget that while it's true that the very wealthy are profiting in higher dollar amounts, they aren't the only ones investing these days.  Since the advent of 401ks, IRAs, and other retirement plans, middle America is invested as well with _"42 percent of all returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000. Seventy-two percent, or 6.4 million returns, were for households with incomes below $100,000"_.  The elderly, in particularly are _"two and a half times as likely to realize capital gains in a given year as are tax filers under the age of sixty-five"_.
> 
> 
> 
> The conpany and the investor are two separate entities. Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.
> 
> And as fat as that bullshit that the little guy is getting a big share of the capital gains, the top 20% own 90% of all the stock and the bottom 80% own 10%. So while a lot of little people have some stock through an mutual fund, etc., the amount is so miniscule they are not getting very much from their stock.
> 
> The rest of your post was just a desperate attempt to change the subject awayu from an argument you know you are wrong about. Even your MessiahRushie admits that wage earner income is what is taxed the most to keep the wage earner from becoming wealthy as the capital gains tycoon. And this little tidbit from your link proves it. Wage earners pay 33 times more in taxes than the capitol gains tycoons.
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> 
> *Capital gains tax	 $45*
> Corporate income tax	$132
> *Individual income tax	$794
> Social Security taxes	$713*
> Total revenues	$1,782
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
> 
> The Truth About Taxes
> August 6, 2007
> RUSH:    I've told you before:* the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! * There is no "wealth" tax.  So this is a big misnomer.  ...
> But there's no tax on wealth.  There is a tax on income, and *the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.*
> I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To begin with, ignoring the rest of my post as you did, is hardly a refutation of my argument that the current administration is UNWORTHY of any additional revenues to begin with.  They've proved conclusively over the past 3 and a half years that they can't be trusted to behave responsibly with it.
> 
> In response to your argument on capital gains... I would still disagree.  You say that two separate entities are being taxed, but the investors essentially ARE the corporation.  They provide the capital, and the money that they buy their stocks with is taxed as earned income before the stock is even bought, at the corporate level when profits are made, and again as capital gains taxes.
Click to expand...

I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.  You say punish Obama. 

The investors are essentially investors and corporations are essentially corporations, they are still two separate entities. But if you want to claim that investors are essentially the corporation because they provide the capital, then the workers essentially are the corporation because they produce the goods and services the corpotation markets. All the capital in the world won't generate a single profit if the corporation has nothing to sell and no workers to sell it. 

Elitist capital gains snobs think they are special and should be worshiped and everyone else is worthless and should pay the freight. They want a Feudal system with tycoons as the lords and masters and everyone else as peons. In reality it takes BOTH capital AND labor working together to make a successful economy. Either BOTH deserve special tax privilages or neither.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

edthecynic said:


> Elitist capital gains snobs think they are special and should be worshiped and everyone else is worthless and should pay the freight. .



Switzerland and Germany have no capital gains tax since it is a tax on economic growth.

The more capital you tax from venture capitalists the fewer new ventures like Apple, Google, Intel, Cisco etc can be funded.

It makes sense to much of the world which explains why low IQ liberals can't understand it.



Capital gains rate;

Moldova   10.00%  
Bosnia & H.   10.00%  
Macedonia   10.00%  
Serbia   10.00%  
Bulgaria   10.00%  
Slovenia   10.00%  
Greece   10.00%  
Montenegro   9.00%  
Netherlands   1.20%  
Ukraine   1.00%  
Romania   0.00%  
Switzerland   0.00%  
Turkey   0.00%  
Poland   0.00%  
Croatia   0.00%  
Belgium   0.00%  
Austria   0.00%  
Liechtenstein   0.00%  
Monaco   0.00%  
Germany   0.00%  
Italy   0.00%  
Andorra   0.00%


----------



## edthecynic

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just like wages were taxed only once after they were paid in wages, capital gains are taxed only once after they are realized by the stockholder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid you get wages by working and paying the tax;  you get capital gains when you invest wages on which you have already paid taxes.
Click to expand...

I love how the most ignorant know-it-alls think everyone else is more stupid then themselves.

you get capital GAINS when your investment GAINS value. That GAIN in value has never been taxed before and is taxed for the first time when it is realized. The original investment of your already taxed dollars is NOT taxed again when the capital asset is sold, and therefore only taxed once while in your possession.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

edthecynic said:


> you get capital GAINS when your investment GAINS value.




you get wages when your investment in a job pays off in the form of a paycheck. You don't pay taxes on your wages before you earn them and again after.

with capital gains you pay taxes to get the capital and then again when the investment pays off.

This is why the whole world taxes capital gains differently. Its really over your head isn't it?

Plus its pure 100% liberal ignorance to tax capital since its a tax on economic growth!!


----------



## kaz

Sallow said:


> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.



Oddly it's my car in the parking lot at night and it's my bank account that is on the line.   But I'm the one who's supposed to be "grateful."  Gotcha.  And you're welcome...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

kaz said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly it's my car in the parking lot at night and it's my bank account that is on the line.   But I'm the one who's supposed to be "grateful."  Gotcha.  And you're welcome...
Click to expand...


yes but the Romans invented the cement that holds your building together!! BO will accept payment on their behalf.


----------



## edthecynic

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> you get capital GAINS when your investment GAINS value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you get wages when your investment in a job pays off in the form of a paycheck. You don't pay taxes on your wages before you earn them and again after.
> 
> *with capital gains you pay taxes to get the capital and then again when the investment pays off.*
> 
> This is why the whole world taxes capital gains differently. Its really over your head isn't it?
> 
> Plus its pure 100% liberal ignorance to tax capital since its a tax on economic growth!!
Click to expand...

You get more ignorant with each post. That's why you are a CON$ervoFascist.


----------



## Cecilie1200

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elitist capital gains snobs think they are special and should be worshiped and everyone else is worthless and should pay the freight. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland and Germany have no capital gains tax since it is a tax on economic growth.
> 
> The more capital you tax from venture capitalists the fewer new ventures like Apple, Google, Intel, Cisco etc can be funded.
> 
> It makes sense to much of the world which explains why low IQ liberals can't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains rate;
> 
> Moldova   10.00%
> Bosnia & H.   10.00%
> Macedonia   10.00%
> Serbia   10.00%
> Bulgaria   10.00%
> Slovenia   10.00%
> Greece   10.00%
> Montenegro   9.00%
> Netherlands   1.20%
> Ukraine   1.00%
> Romania   0.00%
> Switzerland   0.00%
> Turkey   0.00%
> Poland   0.00%
> Croatia   0.00%
> Belgium   0.00%
> Austria   0.00%
> Liechtenstein   0.00%
> Monaco   0.00%
> Germany   0.00%
> Italy   0.00%
> Andorra   0.00%
Click to expand...


What's interesting is what big fans the leftists are of imitating the rest of the world in everything else.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> you get capital GAINS when your investment GAINS value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you get wages when your investment in a job pays off in the form of a paycheck. You don't pay taxes on your wages before you earn them and again after.
> 
> *with capital gains you pay taxes to get the capital and then again when the investment pays off.*
> 
> This is why the whole world taxes capital gains differently. Its really over your head isn't it?
> 
> Plus its pure 100% liberal ignorance to tax capital since its a tax on economic growth!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get more igfnorant with each post. That's why you are a CON$ervoFascist.
Click to expand...


translation: as a low IQ liberal I lost the debate and so have been reduced to personal attack in a vain attempt to change the subject.


----------



## kaz

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> translation: as a low IQ liberal I lost the debate and so have been reduced to personal attack in a vain attempt to change the subject.



That's Ed.  What do you want from a guy who calls himself a "cynic" because he's cynical of anyone who doesn't trust government?  We're not talking "brain surgeon" material...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Cecilie1200 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elitist capital gains snobs think they are special and should be worshiped and everyone else is worthless and should pay the freight. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland and Germany have no capital gains tax since it is a tax on economic growth.
> 
> The more capital you tax from venture capitalists the fewer new ventures like Apple, Google, Intel, Cisco etc can be funded.
> 
> It makes sense to much of the world which explains why low IQ liberals can't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains rate;
> 
> Moldova   10.00%
> Bosnia & H.   10.00%
> Macedonia   10.00%
> Serbia   10.00%
> Bulgaria   10.00%
> Slovenia   10.00%
> Greece   10.00%
> Montenegro   9.00%
> Netherlands   1.20%
> Ukraine   1.00%
> Romania   0.00%
> Switzerland   0.00%
> Turkey   0.00%
> Poland   0.00%
> Croatia   0.00%
> Belgium   0.00%
> Austria   0.00%
> Liechtenstein   0.00%
> Monaco   0.00%
> Germany   0.00%
> Italy   0.00%
> Andorra   0.00%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's interesting is what big fans the leftists are of imitating the rest of the world in everything else.
Click to expand...


yes but now that Europe is very obviously broke and about to fall apart they have lost their most treasured idle.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

kaz said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> translation: as a low IQ liberal I lost the debate and so have been reduced to personal attack in a vain attempt to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Ed.  What do you want from a guy who calls himself a "cynic" because he's cynical of anyone who doesn't trust government?  We're not talking "brain surgeon" material...
Click to expand...


as a liberal he has no idea our country was founded by folks who didn't trust government.


As an example, all of the founders were for free speech but many were against the Bill of Rights on the theory that free speech might be lost if the government was protecting it.


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is THAT what communists do ed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is "that" you fool????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do communists make the centerpiece of a health care bill, the BIG Republican/Heritage Foundation idea, the individual mandate, based on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dear, BO is for single payer!! Its really way over your head isn't it??
Click to expand...


Did we get single payer ed? Did we get even a public option ed? What we got is a carbon copy of the 1993 GOP/Heritage Foundation health care reform bill, including the BIG Republican/Heritage Foundation idea...the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

If Obama is a commie, then so is the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

Why do you keep avoiding the truth ed??

Maybe George W. Bush's speechwriter can explain it to you?

Waterloo - by David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obamas Waterloo  just as healthcare was Clintons in 1994.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romneys Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

David Frum is the former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush


----------



## HenryBHough

Do it right with taxation and regulation and you don't have to worry about "the rich".  Nobody will bother to do anything productive so all your hatreds will be without target.  It'll turn to self-loathing and suicide.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Don't get your knickers in a twist; there is NO specific "you".  "You" meaning only but all of those currently raging against those who have worked to make their lives better.


----------



## Cecilie1200

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> translation: as a low IQ liberal I lost the debate and so have been reduced to personal attack in a vain attempt to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Ed.  What do you want from a guy who calls himself a "cynic" because he's cynical of anyone who doesn't trust government?  We're not talking "brain surgeon" material...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as a liberal he has no idea our country was founded by folks who didn't trust government.
> 
> 
> As an example, all of the founders were for free speech but many were against the Bill of Rights on the theory that free speech might be lost if the government was protecting it.
Click to expand...


And they weren't entirely wrong, were they?


----------



## bripat9643

Katzndogz said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same could be said for wages, there were taxes paid many times on the same dollar before it was paid in wages and taxed again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not by the earner.    Taxation upstream by my employer is not levied against or credited to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Those taxes go to someone else's employer.
Click to expand...


Taxes all go to parasites sucking off the government.


----------



## edthecynic

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> you get wages when your investment in a job pays off in the form of a paycheck. You don't pay taxes on your wages before you earn them and again after.
> 
> *with capital gains you pay taxes to get the capital and then again when the investment pays off.*
> 
> This is why the whole world taxes capital gains differently. Its really over your head isn't it?
> 
> Plus its pure 100% liberal ignorance to tax capital since its a tax on economic growth!!
> 
> 
> 
> You get more igfnorant with each post. That's why you are a CON$ervoFascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> translation: as a low IQ liberal I lost the debate and so have been reduced to personal attack in a vain attempt to change the subject.
Click to expand...

That's rich! The person who likes to call people stupid whines like a little baby about personal attacks.


----------



## bripat9643

edthecynic said:


> I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.  You say punish Obama.



Your numbers are pure horseshit.  The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over.  He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.


----------



## bripat9643

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just like wages were taxed only once after they were paid in wages, capital gains are taxed only once after they are realized by the stockholder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid you get wages by working and paying the tax;  you get capital gains when you invest wages on which you have already paid taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love how the most ignorant know-it-alls think everyone else is more stupid then themselves.
> 
> you get capital GAINS when your investment GAINS value. That GAIN in value has never been taxed before and is taxed for the first time when it is realized. The original investment of your already taxed dollars is NOT taxed again when the capital asset is sold, and therefore only taxed once while in your possession.
Click to expand...


Capital gains are almost always reinvested unless they are taxed away.  A capital gains tax is a tax on economic growth.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not by the earner.    Taxation upstream by my employer is not levied against or credited to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Those taxes go to someone else's employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes all go to parasites sucking off the government.
Click to expand...


Like these people?

The government awards contracts to companies with histories of misconduct such as contract fraud and environmental, ethics, and labor violations.  In the absence of a centralized federal database listing instances of misconduct, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is providing such data.  We believe that it will lead to improved contracting decisions and public access to information about how the government spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer money each year on goods and services.


----------



## bripat9643

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly it's my car in the parking lot at night and it's my bank account that is on the line.   But I'm the one who's supposed to be "grateful."  Gotcha.  And you're welcome...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes but the Romans invented the cement that holds your building together!! BO will accept payment on their behalf.
Click to expand...


We benefit from the efforts of so many different people, but for some reason the government is the only entity that deserves to get paid.  

Why is that?


----------



## edthecynic

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion,* including interest,* of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.  You say punish Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are pure horseshit.  The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over.  He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
Click to expand...

Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.


----------



## GuyPinestra

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conpany and the investor are two separate entities. Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.
> 
> And as fat as that bullshit that the little guy is getting a big share of the capital gains, the top 20% own 90% of all the stock and the bottom 80% own 10%. So while a lot of little people have some stock through an mutual fund, etc., the amount is so miniscule they are not getting very much from their stock.
> 
> The rest of your post was just a desperate attempt to change the subject awayu from an argument you know you are wrong about. Even your MessiahRushie admits that wage earner income is what is taxed the most to keep the wage earner from becoming wealthy as the capital gains tycoon. And this little tidbit from your link proves it. Wage earners pay 33 times more in taxes than the capitol gains tycoons.
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> 
> *Capital gains tax	 $45*
> Corporate income tax	$132
> *Individual income tax	$794
> Social Security taxes	$713*
> Total revenues	$1,782
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
> 
> The Truth About Taxes
> August 6, 2007
> RUSH:    I've told you before:* the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! * There is no "wealth" tax.  So this is a big misnomer.  ...
> But there's no tax on wealth.  There is a tax on income, and *the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.*
> I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To begin with, ignoring the rest of my post as you did, is hardly a refutation of my argument that the current administration is UNWORTHY of any additional revenues to begin with.  They've proved conclusively over the past 3 and a half years that they can't be trusted to behave responsibly with it.
> 
> In response to your argument on capital gains... I would still disagree.  You say that two separate entities are being taxed, but the investors essentially ARE the corporation.  They provide the capital, and the money that they buy their stocks with is taxed as earned income before the stock is even bought, at the corporate level when profits are made, and again as capital gains taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.  You say punish Obama.
> 
> The investors are essentially investors and corporations are essentially corporations, they are still two separate entities. But if you want to claim that investors are essentially the corporation because they provide the capital, then the workers essentially are the corporation because they produce the goods and services the corpotation markets. All the capital in the world won't generate a single profit if the corporation has nothing to sell and no workers to sell it.
> 
> Elitist capital gains snobs think they are special and should be worshiped and everyone else is worthless and should pay the freight. They want a Feudal system with tycoons as the lords and masters and everyone else as peons. In reality it takes BOTH capital AND labor working together to make a successful economy. *Either BOTH deserve special tax privilages or neither.*
Click to expand...


Which is exactly why the Dems should stop trying to extend only SOME of the tax cuts...


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Those taxes go to someone else's employer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes all go to parasites sucking off the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like these people?
Click to expand...


ROFL!  

Parasites provide nothing to the government in exchange for the cash they recieve from the government.  The companies your story lists all provide the government with stuff the government wants.  The fact that some leftwing agitators file complaints against them doesn't make them parasites.

As usual, the lib attempts to rededine a term to mean what he wants it to mean rather than what people who speak English know it to mean.


----------



## bripat9643

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion,* including interest,* of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.  You say punish Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are pure horseshit.  The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over.  He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.
Click to expand...


Sure we can, since you hold Republicans responsible for all the interest payments incurred while they were in office.


----------



## Political Junky

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.  You say punish Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are pure horseshit.  The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over.  He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
Click to expand...

Like the two wars, Medicare D, and the tax cuts that that Bush "forgot" to inlude in the budget.


----------



## bripat9643

Political Junky said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.  You say punish Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are pure horseshit.  The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over.  He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the two wars, Medicare D, and the tax cuts that that Bush "forgot" to inlude in the budget.
Click to expand...


They were all included in the budget, turd brain.


----------



## saveliberty

Bfgrn said:


> We've been waiting over 30 years for 'trickle down' to happen. It never did, and it never will. The conservative era that began with Nixon and Reagan has brought us exactly WHAT? Skyrocketing prices on everything we consume. Reagan created as much debt in 8 years that ALL the presidents that preceded him accumulated...COMBINED.
> 
> Ronald Reagan was the WORST president for the small businessman/woman...The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
> 
> In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.
> 
> The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked.
> 
> Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
> 
> In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent.
> 
> For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.
> 
> A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.
> 
> Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagans policies? At least $3 trillion.



First question:  Why were you waiting for the trickle down?  Get out there and take the risks other have to further themselves.

I understand simpletons want simple graphs to show what they think are cause and effect.  It isn't reality.


----------



## saveliberty

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Those taxes go to someone else's employer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes all go to parasites sucking off the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like these people?
> 
> The government awards contracts to companies with histories of misconduct such as contract fraud and environmental, ethics, and labor violations.  In the absence of a centralized federal database listing instances of misconduct, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is providing such data.  We believe that it will lead to improved contracting decisions and public access to information about how the government spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer money each year on goods and services.
Click to expand...


Solyndra went bankrupt already, but Obama could always try again I guess.


----------



## saveliberty

For those of you who would like to free yourselves of government aid in college education, Hillsdale College doesn't accept any federal monies.  They have amassed a very large Freedom Fund to help students with loans.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes all go to parasites sucking off the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like these people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> Parasites provide nothing to the government in exchange for the cash they recieve from the government.  The companies your story lists all provide the government with stuff the government wants.  The fact that some leftwing agitators file complaints against them doesn't make them parasites.
> 
> As usual, the lib attempts to rededine a term to mean what he wants it to mean rather than what people who speak English know it to mean.
Click to expand...


Those corporations get PAID by the taxpayers for goods and services they provide. Are you saying my tax dollars should pay them for what they DON'T do? We should let them milk the taxpayers? WHY, because you want to suck their cocks Monica?


Hey grandma, you parasite ...get your lazy parasite ass out of that chair! Get a fucking job, go back to college, start a new career!!!






Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like these people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> Parasites provide nothing to the government in exchange for the cash they recieve from the government.  The companies your story lists all provide the government with stuff the government wants.  The fact that some leftwing agitators file complaints against them doesn't make them parasites.
> 
> As usual, the lib attempts to rededine a term to mean what he wants it to mean rather than what people who speak English know it to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those corporations get PAID by the taxpayers for goods and services they provide. Are you saying my tax dollars should pay them for what they DON'T do? We should let them milk the taxpayers? WHY, because you want to suck their cocks Monica?
Click to expand...


Your article only mentions "misconduct."   It doesn't specificy the nature of the misconduct.  For all we know it was some transgedered freak complaining that he/she wasn't allowed to use the women's restrooms.  

If the "misconduct" involved money, then the government was probably reimbursed for any funds it paid out without justification.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be a "miconduct" report on the record.  It would have been dismissed.




Bfgrn said:


> [Hey grandma, you parasite ...get your lazy parasite ass out of that chair! Get a fucking job, go back to college, start a new career!!!



Are you admitting that you wouldn't support your granny if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for it?


----------



## barry1960

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! TOO perfectly stupid!!! He had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer, and is beloved by the CPUSA.
> 
> Norman Thomas quotes:
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
> 
> 
> This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
> "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4]
> 
> C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
> 
> 
> Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice rant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as a liberal you will lack the IQ to say why you disagree with it. See why we are positive liberalism is based on ignorance?
Click to expand...


Actually I had to go out and buy groceries for my family so I just had time for a short, but accurate response.

You assume i am a liberal, but I am a moderate. I do not think that Democrats are communists nor republicans are fascists.

My original point was that conservatives are reading way into Obama's original statement and would rather brand him a communist than address specific issues. Liberals have that same problem.

You illustrated my point nicely when you addressed only one small portion of my post (the next statement placed it into better context), engaged in a ad hominem attack by calling me perfectly stupid, then posted a series of stale quotes you got from some conservative source to enforce your non-point. In other words, you typed nothing.

After my short response, you indicated as a liberal I had a low IQ who could not engage your so-called points. If liberals all have such low IQs and liberalism were based in ignorance, I doubt they would have any success at all getting elected to office over a long term of time. All conservatives would need to do is educate the populace and liberalism would dissappear. This would seem to be an over-generalization. And yet you never really addressed the points in my original post. Thus, by your own standard, one would have to conclude that you possess a low IQ.

Why not address the issues at hand rather than copy and paste old quotes you heard on a talk radio show or a conservative website? Why do partisans prefer to engage in hyperbole?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Mac1958 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so the discussion hinges on your personal interpretation of "some" vs. "real".
> 
> Good grief.
> 
> "Playing", indeed.  I'm not good at partisan games.  Another waste of my time.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question, did you not just post this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This economy is dead in the water right now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I say, some is not the opposite of real. It appears you agree, but you still want to argue,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I also pointed out, as you know, improvements in unemployment data and intrabank lending as two examples of where improvements have been made, but somehow you "forgot" to notice that.  Must have been an oversight, huh?
> 
> The improvements were made, and we have since slipped back to "dead in the water" status.  Not sure why the two need to be mutually exclusive (okay, just kidding, I know why).
> 
> Since Obama has a (D) after his name, it's all his fault, I know.  Personally, I think it's more a function of the nature of the disaster, but as I said, I'm not very good at partisan politics.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Personally, I think it is the fault of the constant meddling of the government in the free market. Obama wants to fix that by getting the government to meddle more, Bush wanted to fix that by getting the government to meddle more. 

Keep thinking I think the problem is Obama is a Democrat, it just makes you look stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conpany and the investor are two separate entities. Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.
> 
> And as fat as that bullshit that the little guy is getting a big share of the capital gains, the top 20% own 90% of all the stock and the bottom 80% own 10%. So while a lot of little people have some stock through an mutual fund, etc., the amount is so miniscule they are not getting very much from their stock.
> 
> The rest of your post was just a desperate attempt to change the subject awayu from an argument you know you are wrong about. Even your MessiahRushie admits that wage earner income is what is taxed the most to keep the wage earner from becoming wealthy as the capital gains tycoon. And this little tidbit from your link proves it. Wage earners pay 33 times more in taxes than the capitol gains tycoons.
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> 
> *Capital gains tax     $45*
> Corporate income tax    $132
> *Individual income tax    $794
> Social Security taxes    $713*
> Total revenues    $1,782
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
> 
> The Truth About Taxes
> August 6, 2007
> RUSH:    I've told you before:* the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! * There is no "wealth" tax.  So this is a big misnomer.  ...
> But there's no tax on wealth.  There is a tax on income, and *the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.*
> I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To begin with, ignoring the rest of my post as you did, is hardly a refutation of my argument that the current administration is UNWORTHY of any additional revenues to begin with.  They've proved conclusively over the past 3 and a half years that they can't be trusted to behave responsibly with it.
> 
> In response to your argument on capital gains... I would still disagree.  You say that two separate entities are being taxed, but the investors essentially ARE the corporation.  They provide the capital, and the money that they buy their stocks with is taxed as earned income before the stock is even bought, at the corporate level when profits are made, and again as capital gains taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.  You say punish Obama.
> 
> The investors are essentially investors and corporations are essentially corporations, they are still two separate entities. But if you want to claim that investors are essentially the corporation because they provide the capital, then the workers essentially are the corporation because they produce the goods and services the corpotation markets. All the capital in the world won't generate a single profit if the corporation has nothing to sell and no workers to sell it.
> 
> Elitist capital gains snobs think they are special and should be worshiped and everyone else is worthless and should pay the freight. They want a Feudal system with tycoons as the lords and masters and everyone else as peons. In reality it takes BOTH capital AND labor working together to make a successful economy. Either BOTH deserve special tax privilages or neither.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep lying?


----------



## boedicca

He's just an ignoramus who buys into "the narrative".

Public employee union pension funds are Huge Investors - although they are often run by corrupt political cronies who earn excessive fees and deliver subpar returns (CALPERS, anyone?).

A large portion of employees in the private sector are investors via their 401Ks.  But let's punish them for saving for their retirement.  That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion,* including interest,* of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.  You say punish Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are pure horseshit.  The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over.  He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.
Click to expand...


You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Political Junky said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.  You say punish Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are pure horseshit.  The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over.  He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the two wars, Medicare D, and the tax cuts that that Bush "forgot" to inlude in the budget.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you think Bush managed to spend all that money without getting Congress to approve it first.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> Parasites provide nothing to the government in exchange for the cash they recieve from the government.  The companies your story lists all provide the government with stuff the government wants.  The fact that some leftwing agitators file complaints against them doesn't make them parasites.
> 
> As usual, the lib attempts to rededine a term to mean what he wants it to mean rather than what people who speak English know it to mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those corporations get PAID by the taxpayers for goods and services they provide. Are you saying my tax dollars should pay them for what they DON'T do? We should let them milk the taxpayers? WHY, because you want to suck their cocks Monica?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your article only mentions "misconduct."   It doesn't specificy the nature of the misconduct.  For all we know it was some transgedered freak complaining that he/she wasn't allowed to use the women's restrooms.
> 
> If the "misconduct" involved money, then the government was probably reimbursed for any funds it paid out without justification.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be a "miconduct" report on the record.  It would have been dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Hey grandma, you parasite ...get your lazy parasite ass out of that chair! Get a fucking job, go back to college, start a new career!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that you wouldn't support your granny if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for it?
Click to expand...


That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?

Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that you wouldn't support your granny if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?
> 
> Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?
Click to expand...


I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it. 

If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that you wouldn't support your granny if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?
> 
> Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
> 
> If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?
Click to expand...


Obfuscation and deception. So, you don't have a problem with doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies ripping off the taxpayer. They are not parasites, just little old ladies who can no longer compete in the workplace. Did you ever consider what would happen to senior citizens if Medicare was ended? Or doesn't your social Darwinism, survival of the richest doctrinaire permit human thought?

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. 
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that you wouldn't support your granny if the taxpayers weren't on the hook for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?
> 
> Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
> 
> If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?
Click to expand...



Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.

Wow. You're a fucking super genius.


----------



## regent

barry1960 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice rant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as a liberal you will lack the IQ to say why you disagree with it. See why we are positive liberalism is based on ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I had to go out and buy groceries for my family so I just had time for a short, but accurate response.
> 
> You assume i am a liberal, but I am a moderate. I do not think that Democrats are communists nor republicans are fascists.
> 
> My original point was that conservatives are reading way into Obama's original statement and would rather brand him a communist than address specific issues. Liberals have that same problem.
> 
> You illustrated my point nicely when you addressed only one small portion of my post (the next statement placed it into better context), engaged in a ad hominem attack by calling me perfectly stupid, then posted a series of stale quotes you got from some conservative source to enforce your non-point. In other words, you typed nothing.
> 
> After my short response, you indicated as a liberal I had a low IQ who could not engage your so-called points. If liberals all have such low IQs and liberalism were based in ignorance, I doubt they would have any success at all getting elected to office over a long term of time. All conservatives would need to do is educate the populace and liberalism would dissappear. This would seem to be an over-generalization. And yet you never really addressed the points in my original post. Thus, by your own standard, one would have to conclude that you possess a low IQ.
> 
> Why not address the issues at hand rather than copy and paste old quotes you heard on a talk radio show or a conservative website? Why do partisans prefer to engage in hyperbole?
Click to expand...


Edward loves to throw in the IQ thing, in almost every post he/she mentions his opponent's low IQ, and that low IQ is a natural state with liberals. The implication being that his/her and conservative's IQ are quite high. The posts say different, however.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Vidi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?
> 
> Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
> 
> If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.
> 
> Wow. You're a fucking super genius.
Click to expand...


I think we should make it harder to fraud the system. Makes more sense as people seem to want the government to take care of them. Reforming the system is what we must do. 

Now should it be handled by the states or the federal government is a totally nother matter.


----------



## edthecynic

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are pure horseshit.  The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over.  He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure we can, since you hold Republicans responsible for all the interest payments incurred while they were in office.
Click to expand...

That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.


----------



## regent

Matthew said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
> 
> If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.
> 
> Wow. You're a fucking super genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we should make it harder to fraud the system. Makes more sense as people seem to want the government to take care of them. Reforming the system is what we must do.
> 
> Now should it be handled by the states or the federal government is a totally nother matter.
Click to expand...


In most programs that involve large numbers of people there are problems. Some that should not be recipients recieve, and some that should be recipients do not. It is that way with most large programs. Perhaps more people checking and stiffer penalties might help, but as most things, there is a cost effective program in play. Is it more cost effective to let some fraud slide by or hire more checkers to catch people that cannot pay the fine. Our income tax program loses how much each year from fraud to simple mistakes?


----------



## Foxfyre

Matthew said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
> 
> If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.
> 
> Wow. You're a fucking super genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we should make it harder to fraud the system. Makes more sense as people seem to want the government to take care of them. Reforming the system is what we must do.
> 
> Now should it be handled by the states or the federal government is a totally nother matter.
Click to expand...


Roll back a whole bunch of government programs and nonsense it  doesn't have to be doing and it won't be wasting mega millions and billions on inflated, poorly written, poorly managed contracts, all at union wages that artificially raise the cost rather than to the genuine lowest qualified bidder.

The less the government does the more there is for the private sector to do far more efficiently, effectively, and without putting the tax payer's money at risk from mismanagement, misconduct, and fraud.

But if we have a President who is convinced we in the private sector are just puppets created by somebody else, he isn't likely to promote smaller government much of anywhere, is he.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ideology was presented above ?  You wonder to where you want to and only address what fits your narrative.  You don't get to set the rules.
> 
> My statements above still stand.  You present conclusions as facts and that is akin to misrepresentation.
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion and/or Conclusion.  You'd need to provide a standard for how we would determine this.
> 
> I happen to think it is a mess......and my opinion is just as useless as yours.
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> When was medicare passed ?
> 
> And no they don't.  Not everyone takes medicare.  I have posted the business about the Mayo in Phoenix enough to say look it up yourself.
> 
> But, it is true that once you pass a certain age, you have access to Medicare.  If you want to go on a supplemental plan (as in you choose), you can get access to more health care.
> 
> That is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> O.K. I am game.  How did Medicare bring down poverty rates ?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a poll.  The respondent percentage is a fact.  It says nothing else and does not support the conclusion that it is the greatest achievement in the history of the U.S.  It simply says that we've managed to get the elderly hooked on a government program.
> 
> 
> 
> These are not "facts".
> 
> The first statement is probably very true.
> 
> The second statement needs some financials put behind it (and some good financials....not some government bull).
> 
> The third statement is not categorically true.  It is not a fact.  I would be willing to be that it makes the lives of most seniors "better" (given we can agree on what better means).
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the facts here.
> 
> Older people generally require more care than younger people.
> 
> Most seniors live on less income (and have less expenses outside of medical care).
> 
> Many live on S.S. only.
> 
> Let's add that the government has always told people that S.S. should not be seen as the only retirement income for the elderly.  That is a fact...just look at your statements.
> 
> In 1965 LBJ was swimming in money to dole out.  His S.S. increases (from what I recall) were simply based on getting the trust fund lowered...it was getting that large.
> 
> LBJ always liked giving away money.
> 
> You've quoted this before...BTW and did not answer the question as to why I we have to preserve homes and savings for seniors.  This is not a fact nor an objective of the program.
> 
> 
> And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
> 
> Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.
> 
> Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.
> 
> Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.
> 
> Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.
> 
> More
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O.K. the blathering in the website quote is more than I want to deal with.  Needless to say they can quote some facts, but then draw conclusions that I don't agree with and are not supported by their so called facts.
> 
> So, we identified a few facts.  We've weeded out a lot of bull (opinion called fact...).
> 
> What next ?
> 
> You certainly have not made the case for it being the greatest accomplishment of this country.
Click to expand...


What next... how about seeing if you are open minded enough to listen to a 15 year executive VP at CIGNA who testified under oath before Congress and has tried to inform the American people the truth about private insurance cartels?

Are you up to it?






Wendell Potter, who retired last April from his job as head of communications for the CIGNA health insurance company, has been in the news since then as a whistle-blowing critic of the insurance industry. Today I belatedly read his June 24 testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (see here) watched his July 10 interview with Bill Moyers (see here).

Potter is especially clear about the way short term considerations drive the behavior of for-profit insurers:

The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies&#8217; quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the "medical-loss" ratio - the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.

To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting they&#8217;ve failed to trim medical costs. I have seen an insurer&#8217;s stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous period. The smoking gun was the company&#8217;s first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year later.

Health Care Organizational Ethics: Wendell Potter on For-Profit Health Insurance

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame][/QUOTE]

Another deflection as you wonder to the next topic you want to discuss because you won't stay and slug it out when I challenge you on the others.

You said you'd bury me with facts and figures in a debate.

You spray facts like a cat sprays piss.

If you can't link it to a specific assertion and tie it up in a clean argument, then just admit you can't debate and be done with it.

This guy retires....then be blows the whistle ?

BTW: he firmly stands behind the Harvard study as if it were a FACT.

I rate him a 3 on the credibility scale.


----------



## P@triot

LMAO!!! Just when I thought Barack Hussein couldn't possibly get any dumber:

President Obama's campaign launched an ad claiming that he did not say "If you've got a business, you didn't build that"*even though the ad includes a clip of his saying that*.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to say something on video, then claim you didn't say it, then add the original video that proves you are lying?!?


----------



## Bfgrn

Matthew said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
> 
> If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.
> 
> Wow. You're a fucking super genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we should make it harder to fraud the system. Makes more sense as people seem to want the government to take care of them. Reforming the system is what we must do.
> 
> Now should it be handled by the states or the federal government is a totally nother matter.
Click to expand...


New measures gearing up to fight Medicare fraud
*
The Affordable Care Act aims to stop criminals from defrauding taxpayers billions of dollars every year *

Federal health officials announced new security measures to combat Medicare fraud, including tougher screenings for providers and the ability to withhold payments during investigations.

Authorities recovered $2.5 billion in health care fraud judgments last year -- a record high up 50 percent from 2009 -- according to a new report.

Authorities have long said the solution to solving the nation's estimated $60 billion to $90 billion a year Medicare fraud problem lies in vigorously screening providers and stopping payment to suspicious ones, ending the antiquated "pay and chase" system authorities say has kept them one step behind criminals.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius touted the Affordable Care Act as one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history.

More...


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ideology was presented above ?  You wonder to where you want to and only address what fits your narrative.  You don't get to set the rules.
> 
> My statements above still stand.  You present conclusions as facts and that is akin to misrepresentation.
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion and/or Conclusion.  You'd need to provide a standard for how we would determine this.
> 
> I happen to think it is a mess......and my opinion is just as useless as yours.
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> When was medicare passed ?
> 
> And no they don't.  Not everyone takes medicare.  I have posted the business about the Mayo in Phoenix enough to say look it up yourself.
> 
> But, it is true that once you pass a certain age, you have access to Medicare.  If you want to go on a supplemental plan (as in you choose), you can get access to more health care.
> 
> That is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> O.K. I am game.  How did Medicare bring down poverty rates ?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a poll.  The respondent percentage is a fact.  It says nothing else and does not support the conclusion that it is the greatest achievement in the history of the U.S.  It simply says that we've managed to get the elderly hooked on a government program.
> 
> 
> 
> These are not "facts".
> 
> The first statement is probably very true.
> 
> The second statement needs some financials put behind it (and some good financials....not some government bull).
> 
> The third statement is not categorically true.  It is not a fact.  I would be willing to be that it makes the lives of most seniors "better" (given we can agree on what better means).
> 
> 
> 
> What are the facts here.
> 
> Older people generally require more care than younger people.
> 
> Most seniors live on less income (and have less expenses outside of medical care).
> 
> Many live on S.S. only.
> 
> Let's add that the government has always told people that S.S. should not be seen as the only retirement income for the elderly.  That is a fact...just look at your statements.
> 
> In 1965 LBJ was swimming in money to dole out.  His S.S. increases (from what I recall) were simply based on getting the trust fund lowered...it was getting that large.
> 
> LBJ always liked giving away money.
> 
> You've quoted this before...BTW and did not answer the question as to why I we have to preserve homes and savings for seniors.  This is not a fact nor an objective of the program.
> 
> 
> And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
> 
> Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.
> 
> Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.
> 
> Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.
> 
> Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.
> 
> More
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O.K. the blathering in the website quote is more than I want to deal with.  Needless to say they can quote some facts, but then draw conclusions that I don't agree with and are not supported by their so called facts.
> 
> So, we identified a few facts.  We've weeded out a lot of bull (opinion called fact...).
> 
> What next ?
> 
> You certainly have not made the case for it being the greatest accomplishment of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What next... how about seeing if you are open minded enough to listen to a 15 year executive VP at CIGNA who testified under oath before Congress and has tried to inform the American people the truth about private insurance cartels?
> 
> Are you up to it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wendell Potter, who retired last April from his job as head of communications for the CIGNA health insurance company, has been in the news since then as a whistle-blowing critic of the insurance industry. Today I belatedly read his June 24 testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (see here) watched his July 10 interview with Bill Moyers (see here).
> 
> Potter is especially clear about the way short term considerations drive the behavior of for-profit insurers:
> 
> The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the "medical-loss" ratio - the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.
> 
> To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting theyve failed to trim medical costs. I have seen an insurers stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous period. The smoking gun was the companys first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year later.
> 
> Health Care Organizational Ethics: Wendell Potter on For-Profit Health Insurance
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Another deflection as you wonder to the next topic you want to discuss because you won't stay and slug it out when I challenge you on the others.

You said you'd bury me with facts and figures in a debate.

You spray facts like a cat sprays piss.

If you can't link it to a specific assertion and tie it up in a clean argument, then just admit you can't debate and be done with it.

This guy retires....then be blows the whistle ?

BTW: he firmly stands behind the Harvard study as if it were a FACT.

I rate him a 3 on the credibility scale.[/QUOTE]
*----------------------*
Of course, I expected nothing less from a dogma driven mind. The guy has 20 years as an executive in the insurance industry, but YOU know more than he does. I knew you would find a reason not to listen to what Potter has to say. I am overwhelming you with what you don't want to hear. As a matter of FACT, the right wing mind CAN'T hear these facts, because it would cause some self examination. That is strictly forbidden.

Let's do this... you said you have your own ideas on how a health care plan should work. Let's hear it?

BTW, I asked you politely not to chop up my posts. I expected you'd be butt hurt and belligerent. So, I added the line because of how badly your antics have fucked up the posts.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Bfgrn said:


> New measures gearing up to fight Medicare fraud
> *
> The Affordable Care Act aims to stop criminals from defrauding taxpayers billions of dollars every year *
> 
> Federal health officials announced new security measures to combat Medicare fraud, including tougher screenings for providers and the ability to withhold payments during investigations.
> 
> Authorities recovered $2.5 billion in health care fraud judgments last year -- a record high up 50 percent from 2009 -- according to a new report.
> 
> Authorities have long said the solution to solving the nation's estimated $60 billion to $90 billion a year Medicare fraud problem lies in vigorously screening providers and stopping payment to suspicious ones, ending the antiquated "pay and chase" system authorities say has kept them one step behind criminals.
> 
> Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius touted the Affordable Care Act as one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history.
> 
> More...



Great! I'm sure if it's really doing what you claim we can keep it when the rest of ACA gets repealed next year...


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a grandma, it's just a parasite, right bripat?
> 
> Let's talk about Medicare fraud. WHO is ripping off the taxpayers? Is it retired Americans, or is it doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
> 
> If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obfuscation and deception. So, you don't have a problem with doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies ripping off the taxpayer. They are not parasites, just little old ladies who can no longer compete in the workplace.
Click to expand...


No, they aren't parasites.  They're criminals.  When did you ever see me defending fraud?  How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?  



Bfgrn said:


> Did you ever consider what would happen to senior citizens if Medicare was ended? Or doesn't your social Darwinism, survival of the richest doctrinaire permit human thought?



I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme.  Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?



Bfgrn said:


> It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.  Thomas Jefferson



Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
> 
> If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.
> 
> Wow. You're a fucking super genius.
Click to expand...


Medicare itself is fraud on a colossal scale.  It's also theft.  That's why it should be ended.


----------



## Full-Auto

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we can, since you hold Republicans responsible for all the interest payments incurred while they were in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.
Click to expand...


Yes we understand why you want to give the crooks in congress a free pass.

Its why your side made sure all the recent green bankrupt company owners didnt lose a cent.


----------



## bripat9643

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we can, since you hold Republicans responsible for all the interest payments incurred while they were in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.
Click to expand...


Every spending bill originates in the House, which has been controlled by Democrats for 40 of the last 50 years.   Democrats in congress are responsible for almost every dime of Deficit spending.  3/4 of all the money was spent on Social Programs created by Democrats.  

The idea that Republicans are responsible for the deficit is too absurd for words.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> In most programs that involve large numbers of people there are problems. Some that should not be recipients recieve, and some that should be recipients do not. It is that way with most large programs. Perhaps more people checking and stiffer penalties might help, but as most things, there is a cost effective program in play. Is it more cost effective to let some fraud slide by or hire more checkers to catch people that cannot pay the fine. Our income tax program loses how much each year from fraud to simple mistakes?



Any program that involves taking money from one group of people by force and giving it to another is inherently a "problem."  It's organized plunder.  The idea that such an operation can be performed honestly is a contradiction in terms.


----------



## HUGGY

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
> 
> If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation and deception. So, you don't have a problem with doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies ripping off the taxpayer. They are not parasites, just little old ladies who can no longer compete in the workplace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they aren't parasites.  They're criminals.  When did you ever see me defending fraud?  How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever consider what would happen to senior citizens if Medicare was ended? Or doesn't your social Darwinism, survival of the richest doctrinaire permit human thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme.  Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.  Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.
Click to expand...


You are the worst kind of suffering moron.  In Jefferson's day over 90% of the population lived on small farms.  There was no such thing as a manufacturing or service base to speak of.  Although there WAS a merchant marine of sorts and one of the first acts of the congress was to pass a health care bill to pay for the medical expenses of U S seaman. 

You are so stupid it actually hurts the eyes to read the vile and nonsense you spew.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.
> 
> If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare.  Are you expecting me to defend it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation and deception. So, you don't have a problem with doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies ripping off the taxpayer. They are not parasites, just little old ladies who can no longer compete in the workplace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they aren't parasites.  They're criminals.  When did you ever see me defending fraud?  How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever consider what would happen to senior citizens if Medicare was ended? Or doesn't your social Darwinism, survival of the richest doctrinaire permit human thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme.  Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.  Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.
Click to expand...


Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program. And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.


----------



## bripat9643

HUGGY said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the worst kind of suffering moron.  In Jefferson's day over 90% of the population lived on small farms.  There was no such thing as a manufacturing or service base to speak of.
Click to expand...


So?  How does that alter the fact that Jefferson would have despised Social Security?



HUGGY said:


> Although there WAS a merchant marine of sorts and one of the first acts of the congress was to pass a health care bill to pay for the medical expenses of U S seaman. .



The Constitution does give Congress the authority to regulate commerce, and seamen are clearly involved in commerce.  My Aunt Gertrude who is just sitting on her porch isn't engaged in commerce.   

Furthermore, what does any of that have to do with Jefferson's attitude about social programs?



HUGGY said:


> You are so stupid it actually hurts the eyes to read the vile and nonsense you spew.



I certainly hope so.  I intend it to be painful for morons like you.  Education always involves pain.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation and deception. So, you don't have a problem with doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies ripping off the taxpayer. They are not parasites, just little old ladies who can no longer compete in the workplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't parasites.  They're criminals.  When did you ever see me defending fraud?  How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme.  Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.  Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.
Click to expand...


By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance."  It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."



Bfgrn said:


> And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.



Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved.  In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return.  The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't parasites.  They're criminals.  When did you ever see me defending fraud?  How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme.  Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance."  It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved.  In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return.  The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.
Click to expand...


Social Security is a social insurance program. It fits every criteria of an insurance program.

A Ponzi scheme is a short-term criminal enterprise. Social Security is a rock-solid social insurance program that protects millions of Americans.

Social Security is insurance. Contributors dont want to get rich quick; they want coverage when they retire and die, and in case they become disabled. Like other insurance, benefits are paid from premiums and returns on trust funds. By law, Social Security inflows and outflows are always balanced with adjustments to benefits and contributions. Social Security has never missed paying a monthly benefit in 71 years.

The only thing that could transform Social Security into a Ponzi scheme would be a scoundrel president and Congress ending the system.


----------



## edthecynic

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we can, since you hold Republicans responsible for all the interest payments incurred while they were in office.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every spending bill originates in the House, which has been controlled by Democrats for 40 of the last 50 years.   Democrats in congress are responsible for almost every dime of Deficit spending.  3/4 of all the money was spent on Social Programs created by Democrats.
> 
> The idea that Republicans are responsible for the deficit is too absurd for words.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is show these POWERLESS Republican presidents vetoing the spending bills and Congress passing them over the veto and you would have a case. Until that time it remains the GOP National Debt.


----------



## Bloodline

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't parasites.  They're criminals.  When did you ever see me defending fraud?  How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme.  Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance."  It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved.  In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return.  The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.
Click to expand...


Exactly!

Tell the government that though!!!

It LOVES spending all that money it's suppose to be banking.

Wonder how much of it is tied up in the military budget right now?


----------



## Foxfyre

Bloodline said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance."  It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved.  In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return.  The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Tell the government that though!!!
> 
> It LOVES spending all that money it's suppose to be banking.
> 
> Wonder how much of it is tied up in the military budget right now?
Click to expand...


Not as much as there would be because our Fearless Leader has been raiding the defense budget to offset some of his other schemes.   He doesn't have any intention of paying down the debt or even reducing the deficit obviously, but we would probably be amazed at where he is directing various departments to send our money.

But then he doesn't see it as our money does he?  He made that perfectly clear with his "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" line.  He sees it all as one big pool of money with him annointed our king charged to distribute and spend it.  And still his adorers and worshippers reject any notion that his doctrine has strong Marxist leanings with ever bigger and stronger government until the government has it all and  can then create utopia.

Unfortunately, in no instance EVER has a government that achieved that kind of power ever voluntarily given it up.


----------



## saveliberty

...unless it was at the point of a gun...


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance." It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."
> 
> 
> 
> Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved. In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return. The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Tell the government that though!!!
> 
> It LOVES spending all that money it's suppose to be banking.
> 
> Wonder how much of it is tied up in the military budget right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as much as there would be because our Fearless Leader has been raiding the defense budget to offset some of his other schemes. He doesn't have any intention of paying down the debt or even reducing the deficit obviously, but we would probably be amazed at where he is directing various departments to send our money.
> 
> But then he doesn't see it as our money does he? He made that perfectly clear with his "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" line. He sees it all as one big pool of money with him annointed our king charged to distribute and spend it. And still his adorers and worshippers reject any notion that his doctrine has strong Marxist leanings with ever bigger and stronger government until the government has it all and can then create utopia.
> 
> Unfortunately, in no instance EVER has a government that achieved that kind of power ever voluntarily given it up.
Click to expand...

 
Theyu never do. Remember? The Income tax was supposed to be temporary as are alot of laws crafted by Government unless it was met as saveliberty noted was met by force.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance."  It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."
> 
> 
> 
> Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved.  In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return.  The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Tell the government that though!!!
> 
> It LOVES spending all that money it's suppose to be banking.
> 
> Wonder how much of it is tied up in the military budget right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as much as there would be because our Fearless Leader has been raiding the defense budget to offset some of his other schemes.   He doesn't have any intention of paying down the debt or even reducing the deficit obviously, but we would probably be amazed at where he is directing various departments to send our money.
> 
> But then he doesn't see it as our money does he?  He made that perfectly clear with his "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" line.  He sees it all as one big pool of money with him annointed our king charged to distribute and spend it.  And still his adorers and worshippers reject any notion that his doctrine has strong Marxist leanings with ever bigger and stronger government until the government has it all and  can then create utopia.
> 
> Unfortunately, in no instance EVER has a government that achieved that kind of power ever voluntarily given it up.
Click to expand...


Of course, we can't cut the spending of taxpayers money used to kill and maim men, women and children to save people lives. That would not be 'Christian'.

Obama put the cost of the wars IN the budget, something Bush was too timid or dishonest to do.

Under Obama government outlays are rising at the slowest pace since 1950s. Obama has put a freeze on government salaries and pay.






Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

 In the 2009 fiscal year  the last of George W. Bushs presidency  federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

 In fiscal 2010  the first budget under Obama  spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

 In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

 In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Offices estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

 Finally in fiscal 2013  the final budget of Obamas term  spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBOs latest budget outlook.

Over Obamas four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? Its in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress  especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obamas legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is how the laws Democrats passed will affect the debt, and what will happen to the debt if Republicans are able to repeal the Affordable Health care Act and repeal the ending of the Bush tax cuts.

Here is the 'rub'...We are on *The Extended-Baseline Scenario* trajectory Obama and the Democrats put us on. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place. 

IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the AHA is not fully implemented or repealed the *The Alternative Fiscal Scenario* is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power. 

the *CBO* lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)





The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.


*The Extended-Baseline Scenario* adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

*The Alternative Fiscal Scenario*
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.


----------



## bripat9643

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every spending bill originates in the House, which has been controlled by Democrats for 40 of the last 50 years.   Democrats in congress are responsible for almost every dime of Deficit spending.  3/4 of all the money was spent on Social Programs created by Democrats.
> 
> The idea that Republicans are responsible for the deficit is too absurd for words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you have to do is show these POWERLESS Republican presidents vetoing the spending bills and Congress passing them over the veto and you would have a case. Until that time it remains the GOP National Debt.
Click to expand...


Nope.  It takes a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto.  That means a substantial number of Democrats would have to support it, and we know that you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Democrats who support spending cuts.

No matter how much turds like you lie and obfuscate, the Democrats own almost all the deficit spending.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
> (Percentage of gross domestic product)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.
> 
> 
> *The Extended-Baseline Scenario* adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.
> 
> *The Alternative Fiscal Scenario*
> The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.



You have just admitted that Democrats plan to take an every larger percentage of our gross pay with taxation.  Notice that one assuption neither scenareo makes is that spending on any program will be cut back.

Now we know who the big spenders are.


----------



## Pho_King

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance."  It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved.  In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return.  The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social Security is a social insurance program. It fits every criteria of an insurance program.
> 
> A Ponzi scheme is a short-term criminal enterprise. Social Security is a rock-solid social insurance program that protects millions of Americans.
> 
> Social Security is insurance. Contributors dont want to get rich quick; they want coverage when they retire and die, and in case they become disabled. Like other insurance, benefits are paid from premiums and returns on trust funds. By law, Social Security inflows and outflows are always balanced with adjustments to benefits and contributions. Social Security has never missed paying a monthly benefit in 71 years.
> 
> The only thing that could transform Social Security into a Ponzi scheme would be a scoundrel president and Congress ending the system.
Click to expand...


The only thing that keeps social security from being a true ponzi is the ability of government to confiscate cash from the citizenry to cover the inevitable losses.    Why doesn't fiscal viability ever into lefty heads?


----------



## bripat9643

Pho_King said:


> The only thing that keeps social security from being a true ponzi is the ability of government to confiscate cash from the citizenry to cover the inevitable losses.    Why doesn't fiscal viability ever into lefty heads?



If a private "insurance plan" was run the way Social Security is run, all the executives would be in prison for fraud.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance."  It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved.  In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return.  The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social Security is a social insurance program. It fits every criteria of an insurance program.
> 
> A Ponzi scheme is a short-term criminal enterprise. Social Security is a rock-solid social insurance program that protects millions of Americans.
> 
> Social Security is insurance. Contributors don&#8217;t want to get rich quick; they want coverage when they retire and die, and in case they become disabled. Like other insurance, benefits are paid from premiums and returns on trust funds. By law, Social Security inflows and outflows are always balanced with adjustments to benefits and contributions. Social Security has never missed paying a monthly benefit in 71 years.
> 
> *The only thing that could transform Social Security into a Ponzi scheme would be a scoundrel president and Congress ending the system*.
Click to expand...


Oh -- you mean like -----??? 



> I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.&#8221;
> 
> &#8212; President Obama, July 12, 2011



Both an admission that by BFgrn's standards --- he IS a scoundrel AND that there are no funds of ANY VALUE in the Trust Fund. New debt -- which adds to the debt ceiling must be added to pay current recipients today -- because OBAMA is stealing the FICA premiums to look like Robin Hood handing out $20 bills.. A photo-op completely devoid of economic impact, but DEVASTING to a SS Program hitting crisis 10 years early.. 

Good move to call him a scoundrel..


----------



## edthecynic

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every spending bill originates in the House, which has been controlled by Democrats for 40 of the last 50 years.   Democrats in congress are responsible for almost every dime of Deficit spending.  3/4 of all the money was spent on Social Programs created by Democrats.
> 
> The idea that Republicans are responsible for the deficit is too absurd for words.
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is show these POWERLESS Republican presidents vetoing the spending bills and Congress passing them over the veto and you would have a case. Until that time it remains the GOP National Debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.*  It takes a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto.  *That means a substantial number of Democrats would have to support it, and we know that you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Democrats who support spending cuts.
> 
> No matter how much turds like you lie and obfuscate, the Democrats own almost all the deficit spending.
Click to expand...

So you admit that a presidential veto could have stopped the spending, so therefore with no veto the GOP presidents OWN the GOP National Debt.


----------



## candycorn

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is show these POWERLESS Republican presidents vetoing the spending bills and Congress passing them over the veto and you would have a case. Until that time it remains the GOP National Debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.*  It takes a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto.  *That means a substantial number of Democrats would have to support it, and we know that you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Democrats who support spending cuts.
> 
> No matter how much turds like you lie and obfuscate, the Democrats own almost all the deficit spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that a presidential veto could have stopped the spending, so therefore with no veto the GOP presidents OWN the GOP National Debt.
Click to expand...


Bush fought 2 unfunded wars and Medicare Part D was not paid for.  Those are the facts.  It was all deficit spending.


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.*  It takes a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto.  *That means a substantial number of Democrats would have to support it, and we know that you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Democrats who support spending cuts.
> 
> No matter how much turds like you lie and obfuscate, the Democrats own almost all the deficit spending.
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that a presidential veto could have stopped the spending, so therefore with no veto the GOP presidents OWN the GOP National Debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush fought 2 unfunded wars and Medicare Part D was not paid for.  Those are the facts.  It was all deficit spending.
Click to expand...


Who says Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIF, and all the other Democrat boondoggles are paid for?


----------



## Foxfyre

candycorn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.*  It takes a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto.  *That means a substantial number of Democrats would have to support it, and we know that you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Democrats who support spending cuts.
> 
> No matter how much turds like you lie and obfuscate, the Democrats own almost all the deficit spending.
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that a presidential veto could have stopped the spending, so therefore with no veto the GOP presidents OWN the GOP National Debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush fought 2 unfunded wars and Medicare Part D was not paid for.  Those are the facts.  It was all deficit spending.
Click to expand...


President Bush cannot allocate a dime to the budget for the military nor spend a dime from the defense budget that Congress does not authorize.    For six years of his administration it was a GOP controlled Congress, for the last two years a Democratically controlled Congress.  Either Congress could have pulled or reduced the funding at any time.  Neither did.  Nor has Obama called for less spending on the war effort, and neither the Democratically controlled or the GOP controlled Congresses during his administration have pulled the funding.  So lets keep things in perspective and reasonably honest, okay?

Ditto Medicare Part D


----------



## The T

Yeah yeah I can just hear the scoffing that will follow...Received the following from Dick Morris...



 
​


----------



## regent

The T said:


> Yeah yeah I can just hear the scoffing that will follow...Received the following from Dick Morris...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​



A more accurate caption would be, "The pharoah didn't build these himself, the Egyptian people did."  
More evidence that what Obama said is correcct.


----------



## Zxereus




----------



## Full-Auto

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is show these POWERLESS Republican presidents vetoing the spending bills and Congress passing them over the veto and you would have a case. Until that time it remains the GOP National Debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.*  It takes a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto.  *That means a substantial number of Democrats would have to support it, and we know that you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Democrats who support spending cuts.
> 
> No matter how much turds like you lie and obfuscate, the Democrats own almost all the deficit spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that a presidential veto could have stopped the spending, so therefore with no veto the GOP presidents OWN the GOP National Debt.
Click to expand...


Hey dip shit with the shallow mind and corrupt soul.

GW threatened a veto so democrats had Obama sign the rest of the budget low life.


----------



## Murf76

candycorn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.*  It takes a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto.  *That means a substantial number of Democrats would have to support it, and we know that you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Democrats who support spending cuts.
> 
> No matter how much turds like you lie and obfuscate, the Democrats own almost all the deficit spending.
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that a presidential veto could have stopped the spending, so therefore with no veto the GOP presidents OWN the GOP National Debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush fought 2 unfunded wars and Medicare Part D was not paid for.  Those are the facts.  It was all deficit spending.
Click to expand...


Obama has fought 3 unfunded wars, hasn't bothered to repair any part of Medicare D or any other entitlement, but rather has ADDED a whole new one, also "not paid for".

So what's your point?... that Obama is better at being George Bush than Bush himself was?  
I think what some of you folks are forgetting is that G.W. left office with an approval rating of 29-30%.  You're not even carrying your own party with numbers that low.


----------



## The T

regent said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah I can just hear the scoffing that will follow...Received the following from Dick Morris...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more accurate caption would be, "The pharoah didn't build these himself, the Egyptian people did."
> More evidence that what Obama said is correcct.
Click to expand...

 
Who was the Pharoah...but an _Egytian_ who thought he was a GOD?

Gods don't DIE do they?

WE sure have enough of thier corpses, don't we to show that yeah...they're DEAD and human.


----------



## freedombecki

The T said:


> Yeah yeah I can just hear the scoffing that will follow...Received the following from Dick Morris...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​



I read the freakiest thing about the Egyptian pyramids the other day. The Muslim radicals taking over Egypt right now are talking about leveling the pyramids, as they removed the gigantic icons in Pakistan a few years back that were Pakistan's main tourist attraction because they were "against Allah." 

Anybody who wants to see the pyramids again had better have seen them last year. Just sayin'


----------



## The T

freedombecki said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah I can just hear the scoffing that will follow...Received the following from Dick Morris...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the freakiest thing about the Egyptian pyramids the other day. The Muslim radicals taking over Egypt right now are talking about leveling the pyramids, as they removed the gigantic icons in Pakistan a few years back that were Pakistan's main tourist attraction because they were "against Allah."
> 
> Anybody who wants to see the pyramids again had better have seen them last year. Just sayin'
Click to expand...

 

I went there twice in my life [Egypt].

And that IS the way of Muslims and Sharia [As proclaimed by the new Egyptian President]...that Sharia was thier way...

Get RID of anything that looks bigger than the flase prophet that is Muhammed.

It would be a tradgedy indeed to erase such history for political purposes.


----------



## Foxfyre

Yup, Islamic radicals are absolutely threatening to take the pyramids down, but haven't quite mustered the cajones to order it done yet:



> According to several reports in the Arabic media, prominent Muslim clerics have begun to call for the demolition of Egypt&#8217;s Great Pyramids&#8212;or, in the words of Saudi Sheikh Ali bin Said al-Rabi&#8216;i, those &#8220;symbols of paganism,&#8221; which Egypt&#8217;s Salafi party has long planned to cover with wax.    Most recently, Bahrain&#8217;s &#8220;Sheikh of Sunni Sheikhs&#8221; and President of National Unity, Abd al-Latif al-Mahmoud, called on Egypt&#8217;s new president, Muhammad, to &#8220;destroy the Pyramids and accomplish what the Sahabi Amr bin al-As could not.&#8221;http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/muslim-brotherhood-destroy-the-pyramids/Morsi



Here in the U.S., radicals, not necessarily Islamic ones, are more subtle about taking down the symbols and monuments of American culture.  It starts with attacks on patriotic traditions like the Pledge of Allegiance, moves to make it politically incorrect to teach protocol and respect for the flag while making it a social necessity to accommodate the culture and traditions that have been imported, and now our President is attacking entreprenourial efforts and American accomplishment.

I just wonder when we the people will get frustrated and angry enough to say 'enough!'


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> Yup, Islamic radicals are absolutely threatening to take the pyramids down, but haven't quite mustered the cajones to order it done yet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to several reports in the Arabic media, prominent Muslim clerics have begun to call for the demolition of Egypts Great Pyramidsor, in the words of Saudi Sheikh Ali bin Said al-Rabii, those symbols of paganism, which Egypts Salafi party has long planned to cover with wax.    Most recently, Bahrains Sheikh of Sunni Sheikhs and President of National Unity, Abd al-Latif al-Mahmoud, called on Egypts new president, Muhammad, to destroy the Pyramids and accomplish what the Sahabi Amr bin al-As could not.http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/muslim-brotherhood-destroy-the-pyramids/Morsi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here in the U.S., radicals, not necessarily Islamic ones, are more subtle about taking down the symbols and monuments of American culture.  It starts with attacks on patriotic traditions like the Pledge of Allegiance, moves to make it politically incorrect to teach protocol and respect for the flag while making it a social necessity to accommodate the culture and traditions that have been imported, and now our President is attacking entreprenourial efforts and American accomplishment.
> 
> I just wonder when we the people will get frustrated and angry enough to say 'enough!'
Click to expand...


Ouch, you're going for kicking some liberal butt today, foxfyre...


----------



## Foxfyre

regent said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah I can just hear the scoffing that will follow...Received the following from Dick Morris...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more accurate caption would be, "The pharoah didn't build these himself, the Egyptian people did."
> More evidence that what Obama said is correcct.
Click to expand...


An even more accurate caption would be, "Neither the Pharoah or any Egyptian entreprenour built these themselves.  Egyptian slaves did."


----------



## Mac1958

.

Amazing how many turns this thread has taken.  Back to the President's words:

*"I'm always struck by people who think, 'well, it must be because I was just so smart'".*

Wow, you're quite the mind reader, Mr. President.  You know what we think, very impressive.  Funny thing is, I've worked with hundreds, if not thousands, of business owners over the years, and I have never heard one of them say that, or anything like that.  I have never even thought to say it myself.  But since you can read minds, and because you have such an extensive background in starting and running businesses, I'm sure you're right.
*
"'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else.'"*

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "worked".  If "working" means putting everything on the line, countless sleepless nights, myriad disappointments and frustrations, dealing with the wide range of employee issues that never go away, regulations, making payroll, and getting used to 70-90 hour weeks, then yeah, I think that's a fair statement.  But again, funny thing, I've never heard a business owner say that, not once.  But since you can read minds, and because you have such an extensive background in starting and running businesses, I'm sure you're right.

But I'm sure those words were taken out of context, right?

.


----------



## freedombecki

The T said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah I can just hear the scoffing that will follow...Received the following from Dick Morris...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the freakiest thing about the Egyptian pyramids the other day. The Muslim radicals taking over Egypt right now are talking about leveling the pyramids, as they removed the gigantic icons in Pakistan a few years back that were Pakistan's main tourist attraction because they were "against Allah."
> 
> Anybody who wants to see the pyramids again had better have seen them last year. Just sayin'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I went there twice in my life [Egypt].
> 
> And that IS the way of Muslims and Sharia [As proclaimed by the new Egyptian President]...that Sharia was thier way...
> 
> Get RID of anything that looks bigger than the flase prophet that is Muhammed.
> 
> It would be a tradgedy indeed to erase such history for political purposes.
Click to expand...

The man who could've prevented defacement of these world treasures is ill and in jail, I understand. The trouble with Obama is he thinks like Carter--call for leadership removal, then the world has to live with the murderous sins of their jihadist replacements.


----------



## The T

freedombecki said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the freakiest thing about the Egyptian pyramids the other day. The Muslim radicals taking over Egypt right now are talking about leveling the pyramids, as they removed the gigantic icons in Pakistan a few years back that were Pakistan's main tourist attraction because they were "against Allah."
> 
> Anybody who wants to see the pyramids again had better have seen them last year. Just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went there twice in my life [Egypt].
> 
> And that IS the way of Muslims and Sharia [As proclaimed by the new Egyptian President]...that Sharia was thier way...
> 
> Get RID of anything that looks bigger than the flase prophet that is Muhammed.
> 
> It would be a tradgedy indeed to erase such history for political purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The man who could've prevented defacement of these world treasures is ill and in jail, I understand. The trouble with Obama is he thinks like Carter--_*call for leadership removal, then the world has to live with the murderous sins of their jihadist replacements*_.
Click to expand...

 
Indeed. obama has done it how many times now? Egypt? Libya? What will happen in Syria?

Obama has surpassed Jimmah Catah in failure.

History repeats to the negative...and the left is just okee-doakee with it.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Foxfyre said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah I can just hear the scoffing that will follow...Received the following from Dick Morris...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more accurate caption would be, "The pharoah didn't build these himself, the Egyptian people did."
> More evidence that what Obama said is correcct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An even more accurate caption would be, "Neither the Pharoah or any Egyptian entreprenour built these themselves.  Egyptian slaves did."
Click to expand...


Would those slaves have been Jews? The timing seems right...


----------



## The T

GuyPinestra said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> A more accurate caption would be, "The pharoah didn't build these himself, the Egyptian people did."
> More evidence that what Obama said is correcct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An even more accurate caption would be, "Neither the Pharoah or any Egyptian entreprenour built these themselves. Egyptian slaves did."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would those slaves have been Jews? The timing seems right...
Click to expand...

 
WOW...I didn't realize that we'd get so far off topic...but yes...that's about right from Accounts I've heard...Menachem Begin said they did in a visit in 1977...

Others say Jews didn't exist at the time...

Who knows but God himself?


----------



## regent

Foxfyre said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah I can just hear the scoffing that will follow...Received the following from Dick Morris...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more accurate caption would be, "The pharoah didn't build these himself, the Egyptian people did."
> More evidence that what Obama said is correcct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An even more accurate caption would be, "Neither the Pharoah or any Egyptian entreprenour built these themselves.  Egyptian slaves did."
Click to expand...


I think the slave thing has been pretty much discounted.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mac1958 said:


> .A partisan ideologue's biggest enemy is not another partisan ideologue. They're easy. A partisan ideologue's biggest enemy is someone who chooses to think for themselves



Jefferson, the first partisan Republican, did think for himself?????
If not please try to explain or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.




too stupid!! There is not an insurance commissioner in any state who would not prosecute a company run the way liberals run SS.

If if you get benefits they are 10% of what you'd get if you had saved 15% of your income in a private account. Capitalism made all Americans rich, but liberal stole the money. Liberals are so stupid they accept the dog food money from the government because they don't know any better.


----------



## boedicca

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!! There is not an insurance commissioner in any state who would not prosecute a company run the way liberal run SS.
> 
> If if you get benefits they are 10% of what you'd get if you had saved 15% of your income in a private account. Liberals are so stupid they accept dog food money from the government and don't know any better.
Click to expand...



Insurance companies are required to have reserves to cover future claims based on actuarial analysis.

All SS has is a "lock box" stuffed with IOUs from the Federal Government (i.e. promises that future tax payers will pay more taxes).  That's pretty much a Ponzi Scheme.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

boedicca said:


> All SS has is a "lock box" stuffed with IOUs from the Federal Government



The Feds are good for it. They are only $16 trillion in debt.


----------



## freedombecki

Mr. H. said:


> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?


I think you just exposed an Obama political lie spoken to make a power grab.


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance."  It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."
> 
> 
> 
> Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved.  In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return.  The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security is a social insurance program. It fits every criteria of an insurance program.
> 
> A Ponzi scheme is a short-term criminal enterprise. Social Security is a rock-solid social insurance program that protects millions of Americans.
> 
> Social Security is insurance. Contributors dont want to get rich quick; they want coverage when they retire and die, and in case they become disabled. Like other insurance, benefits are paid from premiums and returns on trust funds. By law, Social Security inflows and outflows are always balanced with adjustments to benefits and contributions. Social Security has never missed paying a monthly benefit in 71 years.
> 
> *The only thing that could transform Social Security into a Ponzi scheme would be a scoundrel president and Congress ending the system*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh -- you mean like -----???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.
> 
>  President Obama, July 12, 2011
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both an admission that by BFgrn's standards --- he IS a scoundrel AND that there are no funds of ANY VALUE in the Trust Fund. New debt -- which adds to the debt ceiling must be added to pay current recipients today -- because OBAMA is stealing the FICA premiums to look like Robin Hood handing out $20 bills.. A photo-op completely devoid of economic impact, but DEVASTING to a SS Program hitting crisis 10 years early..
> 
> Good move to call him a scoundrel..
Click to expand...


I will let the father of Reaganomics explain it to you...

Wall Street Targets the Elderly
Looting Social Security
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Streets approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as putting Social Security on a sound basis.

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the trust funds are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we cant afford, an unfunded liability. This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and unsustainable. They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulsons derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Had Social Security been privatized, I doubt that Wall Street would have been permitted to deregulate the financial system. Too much would have been at stake.

After the latest crisis brought on by Wall Streets dishonesty and greed, trusting Wall Street to manage anyones old age pension requires a leap of faith that no intelligent person can make.

Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderlys old age security.

Social Security, formerly an untouchable third rail of politics, is now unsustainable, while the real unsustainablesa pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terrorare the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

more


----------



## Listening

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance."  It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."
> 
> 
> 
> Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved.  In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return.  The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security is a social insurance program. It fits every criteria of an insurance program.
> 
> A Ponzi scheme is a short-term criminal enterprise. Social Security is a rock-solid social insurance program that protects millions of Americans.
> 
> Social Security is insurance. Contributors dont want to get rich quick; they want coverage when they retire and die, and in case they become disabled. Like other insurance, benefits are paid from premiums and returns on trust funds. By law, Social Security inflows and outflows are always balanced with adjustments to benefits and contributions. Social Security has never missed paying a monthly benefit in 71 years.
> 
> *The only thing that could transform Social Security into a Ponzi scheme would be a scoundrel president and Congress ending the system*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh -- you mean like -----???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.
> 
>  President Obama, July 12, 2011
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both an admission that by BFgrn's standards --- he IS a scoundrel AND that there are no funds of ANY VALUE in the Trust Fund. New debt -- which adds to the debt ceiling must be added to pay current recipients today -- because OBAMA is stealing the FICA premiums to look like Robin Hood handing out $20 bills.. A photo-op completely devoid of economic impact, but DEVASTING to a SS Program hitting crisis 10 years early..
> 
> Good move to call him a scoundrel..
Click to expand...


Isn't BFgrn's admission simply a good example of what the OP is about ?

Makers

Takers.

As Swallow would say: It's that simple.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mac1958 said:


> ."You didn't get there on your own"



and BO is generously standing by to accept payments on behalf of those, living and dead, who he decides have helped us get there. What a great man!!! His bold liberal meglomania is in the tradition of Hitler Stalin and Mao.


----------



## Mac1958

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .A partisan ideologue's biggest enemy is not another partisan ideologue. They're easy. A partisan ideologue's biggest enemy is someone who chooses to think for themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson, the first partisan Republican, did think for himself?????
> If not please try to explain or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so??
Click to expand...



Since I lack the IQ, and since you're clearly the vastly superior intellect, I won't ask you to lower yourself.  I just want to thank you for allowing me to even communicate with you.

What an honor.  Truly.

.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mac1958 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .A partisan ideologue's biggest enemy is not another partisan ideologue. They're easy. A partisan ideologue's biggest enemy is someone who chooses to think for themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson, the first partisan Republican, did think for himself?????
> If not please try to explain or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I lack the IQ, and since you're clearly the vastly superior intellect, I won't ask you to lower yourself.  I just want to thank you for allowing me to even communicate with you.
> 
> What an honor.  Truly.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Translation: as a liberal I lack the IQ for democratic debate, but still  sure I'm right,  so I'll change the subject and hope no one notices.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Tell the government that though!!!
> 
> It LOVES spending all that money it's suppose to be banking.
> 
> Wonder how much of it is tied up in the military budget right now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as much as there would be because our Fearless Leader has been raiding the defense budget to offset some of his other schemes.   He doesn't have any intention of paying down the debt or even reducing the deficit obviously, but we would probably be amazed at where he is directing various departments to send our money.
> 
> But then he doesn't see it as our money does he?  He made that perfectly clear with his "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" line.  He sees it all as one big pool of money with him annointed our king charged to distribute and spend it.  And still his adorers and worshippers reject any notion that his doctrine has strong Marxist leanings with ever bigger and stronger government until the government has it all and  can then create utopia.
> 
> Unfortunately, in no instance EVER has a government that achieved that kind of power ever voluntarily given it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, we can't cut the spending of taxpayers money used to kill and maim men, women and children to save people lives. That would not be 'Christian'.
> 
> Obama put the cost of the wars IN the budget, something Bush was too timid or dishonest to do.
> 
> Under Obama government outlays are rising at the slowest pace since 1950s. Obama has put a freeze on government salaries and pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
> 
>  In the 2009 fiscal year  the last of George W. Bushs presidency  federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
> 
>  In fiscal 2010  the first budget under Obama  spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
> 
>  In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
> 
>  In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Offices estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
> 
>  Finally in fiscal 2013  the final budget of Obamas term  spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBOs latest budget outlook.
> 
> Over Obamas four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
> 
> There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
> 
> Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? Its in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.
> 
> What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress  especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
> 
> The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obamas legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Here is how the laws Democrats passed will affect the debt, and what will happen to the debt if Republicans are able to repeal the Affordable Health care Act and repeal the ending of the Bush tax cuts.
> 
> Here is the 'rub'...We are on *The Extended-Baseline Scenario* trajectory Obama and the Democrats put us on. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place.
> 
> IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the AHA is not fully implemented or repealed the *The Alternative Fiscal Scenario* is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.
> 
> the *CBO* lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.
> 
> Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
> (Percentage of gross domestic product)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.
> 
> 
> *The Extended-Baseline Scenario* adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.
> 
> *The Alternative Fiscal Scenario*
> The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.
Click to expand...


Your facts are wrong.

FY 2009 included the $800 billion stimulus, that is all on Obama. In addition, Obama signed a $410 billon "massive. imperfect" spending bill on 11 March 2009. That, according to Obama's own words, makes him responsible for $1.2 trillion of the 2009FY. That would make Bush's last budget $2.32 trillion, and make Obama's first budget an increase of $1.2 trillion over Bush's budget.


----------



## boedicca

He's also neglecting the fact that the temporary TARP outlays were charged against the 2009 spending levels, even though these were mostly repaid in subsequent periods.   What the stimulus did was to take the temporary bulge of TARP spending, and make it permanent.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

boedicca said:


> He's also neglecting the fact that the temporary TARP outlays were charged against the 2009 spending levels, even though these were mostly repaid in subsequent periods.   What the stimulus did was to take the temporary bulge of TARP spending, and make it permanent.



Hence the $1.2 trillion increase in spending, which makes Obama look good to idiots when he cuts a couple of million off the top.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Islamic radicals are absolutely threatening to take the pyramids down, but haven't quite mustered the cajones to order it done yet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to several reports in the Arabic media, prominent Muslim clerics have begun to call for the demolition of Egypts Great Pyramidsor, in the words of Saudi Sheikh Ali bin Said al-Rabii, those symbols of paganism, which Egypts Salafi party has long planned to cover with wax.    Most recently, Bahrains Sheikh of Sunni Sheikhs and President of National Unity, Abd al-Latif al-Mahmoud, called on Egypts new president, Muhammad, to destroy the Pyramids and accomplish what the Sahabi Amr bin al-As could not.http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/muslim-brotherhood-destroy-the-pyramids/Morsi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here in the U.S., radicals, not necessarily Islamic ones, are more subtle about taking down the symbols and monuments of American culture.  It starts with attacks on patriotic traditions like the Pledge of Allegiance, moves to make it politically incorrect to teach protocol and respect for the flag while making it a social necessity to accommodate the culture and traditions that have been imported, and now our President is attacking entreprenourial efforts and American accomplishment.
> 
> I just wonder when we the people will get frustrated and angry enough to say 'enough!'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch, you're going for kicking some liberal butt today, foxfyre...
Click to expand...


Not just liberal butt, Kaz, but the whole disgusting, corrupt system.  Whether its pro-activeness on the part of the liberals or passiveness on the part of the conservatives, it is still destructive to our American culture, our economy, our quality of life, and our freedoms.  And if more of us don't start saying so and saying it loud and often, I think we'll soon be so screwed there will be no way out.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security is a social insurance program. It fits every criteria of an insurance program.
> 
> A Ponzi scheme is a short-term criminal enterprise. Social Security is a rock-solid social insurance program that protects millions of Americans.
> 
> Social Security is insurance. Contributors dont want to get rich quick; they want coverage when they retire and die, and in case they become disabled. Like other insurance, benefits are paid from premiums and returns on trust funds. By law, Social Security inflows and outflows are always balanced with adjustments to benefits and contributions. Social Security has never missed paying a monthly benefit in 71 years.
> 
> *The only thing that could transform Social Security into a Ponzi scheme would be a scoundrel president and Congress ending the system*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh -- you mean like -----???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.
> 
>  President Obama, July 12, 2011
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both an admission that by BFgrn's standards --- he IS a scoundrel AND that there are no funds of ANY VALUE in the Trust Fund. New debt -- which adds to the debt ceiling must be added to pay current recipients today -- because OBAMA is stealing the FICA premiums to look like Robin Hood handing out $20 bills.. A photo-op completely devoid of economic impact, but DEVASTING to a SS Program hitting crisis 10 years early..
> 
> Good move to call him a scoundrel..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't BFgrn's admission simply a good example of what the OP is about ?
> 
> Makers
> 
> Takers.
> 
> As Swallow would say: It's that simple.
Click to expand...


Please tell me who the 'takers' are?


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Please tell me who the 'takers' are?



Anyone getting more out of the system than they put into it.....if they put anything at all into the system.

Simple enough.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> and now our President is attacking entreprenourial efforts and American accomplishment.



He did no such thing....


----------



## boedicca

Yes he did.  His Roanoke comments demonstrate his contempt for the private sector.


----------



## Dr Grump

boedicca said:


> Yes he did.  His Roanoke comments demonstrate his contempt for the private sector.



Total utter crap. Context is everything.

If you want to be a partisan hack about it, have at it, but please don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining..

He was quite clear in what he said.


----------



## boedicca

The context is quite clear, as is his language.

But in this world of constant change and turmoil, it is comforting to see that you remain the same vapid and vacuous intellect.


----------



## saveliberty

A man who certainly did not accomplish anything in life without a lot of help from others, thinks all of us work that way.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh -- you mean like -----???
> 
> 
> 
> Both an admission that by BFgrn's standards --- he IS a scoundrel AND that there are no funds of ANY VALUE in the Trust Fund. New debt -- which adds to the debt ceiling must be added to pay current recipients today -- because OBAMA is stealing the FICA premiums to look like Robin Hood handing out $20 bills.. A photo-op completely devoid of economic impact, but DEVASTING to a SS Program hitting crisis 10 years early..
> 
> Good move to call him a scoundrel..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't BFgrn's admission simply a good example of what the OP is about ?
> 
> Makers
> 
> Takers.
> 
> As Swallow would say: It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me who the 'takers' are?
Click to expand...


You and all the other Obama fluffers are the takers.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me who the 'takers' are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone getting more out of the system than they put into it.....if they put anything at all into the system.
> 
> Simple enough.
Click to expand...


So what about someone on Medicare who lives to the age of 90? What about the worker who is injured on the job and permanently disabled? What about the child whose parents get food stamps. Are they all takers too?


----------



## Dr Grump

boedicca said:


> The context is quite clear, as is his language.



Please do explain Oh Intelligent One...if you have the balls (which I'm pretty sure you do - literally)...


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me who the 'takers' are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone getting more out of the system than they put into it.....if they put anything at all into the system.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what about someone on Medicare who lives to the age of 90? What about the worker who is injured on the job and permanently disabled? What about the child whose parents get food stamps. Are they all takers too?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't BFgrn's admission simply a good example of what the OP is about ?
> 
> Makers
> 
> Takers.
> 
> As Swallow would say: It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me who the 'takers' are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and all the other Obama fluffers are the takers.
Click to expand...


What have I taken?


----------



## saveliberty

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me who the 'takers' are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone getting more out of the system than they put into it.....if they put anything at all into the system.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what about someone on Medicare who lives to the age of 90? What about the worker who is injured on the job and permanently disabled? What about the child whose parents get food stamps. Are they all takers too?
Click to expand...


Did they take out more than they put in?  Its pretty straightforward.  I know you'd prefer to get all mushy and gushy about it, but that is how poor financial decisions get made.


----------



## saveliberty

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me who the 'takers' are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and all the other Obama fluffers are the takers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have I taken?
Click to expand...


Its called redistribution, read about it.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone getting more out of the system than they put into it.....if they put anything at all into the system.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what about someone on Medicare who lives to the age of 90? What about the worker who is injured on the job and permanently disabled? What about the child whose parents get food stamps. Are they all takers too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


You are the slimiest person on this board. There is nothing about you that says you are human. Were you forced to live under the house growing up?


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me who the 'takers' are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and all the other Obama fluffers are the takers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have I taken?
Click to expand...


For one thing, you're collecting Medicare and Social Security.  That money is taken directly from my pocket.


----------



## Bfgrn

saveliberty said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and all the other Obama fluffers are the takers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have I taken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its called redistribution, read about it.
Click to expand...


So we are not a civil society, it is simply survival of the fittest and the richest?


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about someone on Medicare who lives to the age of 90? What about the worker who is injured on the job and permanently disabled? What about the child whose parents get food stamps. Are they all takers too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the slimiest person on this board. There is nothing about you that says you are human. Were you forced to live under the house growing up?
Click to expand...


Why, because I stated a simple fact?  Where did the money to pay for the benefits you listed come from?

BTW, a worker who is injured on the job probably recieved a huge settlement from the company he worked for.  He doesn't rip off the taxpayers like you do.


----------



## saveliberty

Bfgrn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have I taken?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its called redistribution, read about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are not a civil society, it is simply survival of the fittest and the richest?
Click to expand...


A civil society breaks down when the takers take too much.  Keep pushing Bfgrn.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have I taken?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its called redistribution, read about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are not a civil society, it is simply survival of the fittest and the richest?
Click to expand...


Meaningless babble.  There's nothing in the term "civil society" that justifies Social Security, Medicare or welfare.  A society where A isn't allowed to plunder the income and assets of B isn't a society where everyone but the rich survive.  Somehow, no one starved to death before we had welfare and Social Security.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and all the other Obama fluffers are the takers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have I taken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one thing, you're collecting Medicare and Social Security.  That money is taken directly from my pocket.
Click to expand...


It was also taken out of the pocket of the people who are collecting Medicare and Social Security.

What about a child with cancer, is she a taker too? If her parent's private insurance pays out hundreds of thousands of dollars.


----------



## saveliberty

Totally laughable how Bfgrn wants us to view the child as the taker when it is the parents.  Makes a better sad little story though.  How about you stop meddling in the economy through government intervention and let the parents find better jobs and provide themselves?


----------



## Dr Grump

bripat9643 said:


> [Somehow, no one starved to death before we had welfare and Social Security.



Yeah, but life was so great back in 1935 wasn't it? Well, for the elite it was...


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called redistribution, read about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are not a civil society, it is simply survival of the fittest and the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless babble.  There's nothing in the term "civil society" that justifies Social Security, Medicare or welfare.  A society where A isn't allowed to plunder the income and assets of B isn't a society where everyone but the rich survive.  Somehow, no one starved to death before we had welfare and Social Security.
Click to expand...


Sure they did. And many lost everything that worked their whole lives for because of a catastrophic illness.

You right wingers are not conservatives, you are some mutant form of life.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## saveliberty

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are not a civil society, it is simply survival of the fittest and the richest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless babble.  There's nothing in the term "civil society" that justifies Social Security, Medicare or welfare.  A society where A isn't allowed to plunder the income and assets of B isn't a society where everyone but the rich survive.  Somehow, no one starved to death before we had welfare and Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they did. And many lost everything that worked their whole lives for because of a catastrophic illness.
> 
> You right wingers are not conservatives, you are some mutant form of life.
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Click to expand...


It is a great warning to Democrats.  By forcing more and more entitlements and paying for it through fewer and fewer citizens, they will soon destroy it all.


----------



## Vast LWC

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called redistribution, read about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are not a civil society, it is simply survival of the fittest and the richest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless babble.  There's nothing in the term "civil society" that justifies Social Security, Medicare or welfare.  A society where A isn't allowed to plunder the income and assets of B isn't a society where everyone but the rich survive.  Somehow, no one starved to death before we had welfare and Social Security.
Click to expand...


1.  Social Security was, and is, a retirement program, paid for by the same people who "take" from it.

You aren't paying for anyone else's Social Security.  

The very, very small segment of Social Security receivers that get their benefits early, due to disability, etc, make up a ridiculously tiny portion of the total.  

If that's what your complaining about, you should stop whining...

Because what you* are* paying for is the money that was taken from social security to pay for _other_ programs that you were the "beneficiary" of.  *Like our bloated military.*



2.  There were many, many people who starved in this country before Social Security and Medicare.

Pretty much every time there was a recession/depression, (which was about every twenty years, before the Roosevelt era protections were put in place) there was a large segment of the population that would starve.

Ask your grandfather.  I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you about the economic conditions at the beginning of the Great Depression.


----------



## Vast LWC

saveliberty said:


> It is a great warning to Democrats.  By forcing more and more entitlements and paying for it through fewer and fewer citizens, they will soon destroy it all.



When the game is rigged, so that all the nation's capital becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, the number of people who are able to pay for entitlements becomes smaller and smaller.

When the rich steal from the poor, the poor don't have any money to pay for the entitlements, which is when the richest of the rich start trying to convince everyone that they're all a bunch of "moochers".

And in this day and age, their media machine allows them to reach quite an audience of sheep.  Who are in turn willing to bleat whatever spurts from the mouths of their bought and paid-for talking heads..


----------



## saveliberty

Food stamps pay for the hungry VLWC.  Social Security is NOT a retirement plan, it is suppose to be a supplement.


----------



## saveliberty

Vast LWC said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a great warning to Democrats.  By forcing more and more entitlements and paying for it through fewer and fewer citizens, they will soon destroy it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the game is rigged, so that all the nation's capital becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, the number of people who are able to pay for entitlements becomes smaller and smaller.
> 
> *When the rich steal from the poor*, the poor don't have any money to pay for the entitlements, which is when the richest of the rich start trying to convince everyone that they're all a bunch of "moochers".
Click to expand...


The rich are not stealing, so you don't have a valid argument.


----------



## Vast LWC

saveliberty said:


> The rich are not stealing, so you don't have a valid argument.



I apologize, I edited that post after you quoted it.

There are no laws against what has been happening, but it is stealing.

When the same people doing the stealing get to write the laws, no-one gets arrested.


----------



## Vast LWC

saveliberty said:


> Food stamps pay for the hungry VLWC.  Social Security is NOT a retirement plan, it is suppose to be a supplement.



I agree, it is supposed to be a supplement.

But that doesn't change the fact that it was paid for.

The retirement age should in fact be raised.  That I will agree with.

But you aren't paying for anyone else's retirement money.  At least not yet.


And Food Stamps are "Welfare", which you had included in the post I was responding to.


----------



## GuyPinestra

saveliberty said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless babble.  There's nothing in the term "civil society" that justifies Social Security, Medicare or welfare.  A society where A isn't allowed to plunder the income and assets of B isn't a society where everyone but the rich survive.  Somehow, no one starved to death before we had welfare and Social Security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they did. And many lost everything that worked their whole lives for because of a catastrophic illness.
> 
> You right wingers are not conservatives, you are some mutant form of life.
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a great warning to Democrats.  By forcing more and more entitlements and paying for it through fewer and fewer citizens, they will soon destroy it all.
Click to expand...


^^^^ This ^^^^


----------



## Bfgrn

Vast LWC said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich are not stealing, so you don't have a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize, I edited that post after you quoted it.
> 
> There are no laws against what has been happening, but it is stealing.
> 
> When the same people doing the stealing get to write the laws, no-one gets arrested.
Click to expand...


You were right the fist time.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills.  The results were catastrophic.  Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.  By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later.  It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built.  Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didnt know much about economics.  Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared. 

Both Reagan and Greenspan saw big government as an evil, and they saw big business as a virtue.  They both had despised the progressive policies of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and they wanted to turn back the pages of time. They came up with the perfect strategy for the redistribution of income and wealth from the working class to the rich. Since we dont know the nature of the private conversations that took place between Reagan and Greenspan, as well as between their aides, we cannot be sure whether the events that would follow over the next three decades were specifically planned by Reagan and Greenspan, or whether they were just the natural result of the actions the two men played such a big role in.  Either way, both Reagan and Greenspan are revered by most conservatives and hated by most liberals.

If Reagan had campaigned for the presidency by promising big tax cuts for the rich and pledging to make up for the lost revenue by imposing substantial tax increases on the working class, he would probably not have been elected.  But that is exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan.  Consider the following sequence of events:   

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses. 

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything.  The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagans big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.  

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.  Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006.  (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspans role in initiating the Social Security surplus  revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York,  a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers.  Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike.  Moynihans view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike.  The read-my-lips-no-new-taxes president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

more


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security is a social insurance program. It fits every criteria of an insurance program.
> 
> A Ponzi scheme is a short-term criminal enterprise. Social Security is a rock-solid social insurance program that protects millions of Americans.
> 
> Social Security is insurance. Contributors dont want to get rich quick; they want coverage when they retire and die, and in case they become disabled. Like other insurance, benefits are paid from premiums and returns on trust funds. By law, Social Security inflows and outflows are always balanced with adjustments to benefits and contributions. Social Security has never missed paying a monthly benefit in 71 years.
> 
> *The only thing that could transform Social Security into a Ponzi scheme would be a scoundrel president and Congress ending the system*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh -- you mean like -----???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.
> 
>  President Obama, July 12, 2011
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both an admission that by BFgrn's standards --- he IS a scoundrel AND that there are no funds of ANY VALUE in the Trust Fund. New debt -- which adds to the debt ceiling must be added to pay current recipients today -- because OBAMA is stealing the FICA premiums to look like Robin Hood handing out $20 bills.. A photo-op completely devoid of economic impact, but DEVASTING to a SS Program hitting crisis 10 years early..
> 
> Good move to call him a scoundrel..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will let the father of Reaganomics explain it to you...
> 
> Wall Street Targets the Elderly
> Looting Social Security
> by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
> 
> Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.
> 
> Wall Streets approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.
> 
> As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.
> 
> Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as putting Social Security on a sound basis.
> 
> Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the trust funds are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.
> 
> We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we cant afford, an unfunded liability. This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.
> 
> Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.
> 
> Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.
> 
> Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and unsustainable. They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulsons derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.
> 
> Had Social Security been privatized, I doubt that Wall Street would have been permitted to deregulate the financial system. Too much would have been at stake.
> 
> After the latest crisis brought on by Wall Streets dishonesty and greed, trusting Wall Street to manage anyones old age pension requires a leap of faith that no intelligent person can make.
> 
> Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderlys old age security.
> 
> Social Security, formerly an untouchable third rail of politics, is now unsustainable, while the real unsustainablesa pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terrorare the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.
> 
> more
Click to expand...


Well THAT was extraordinarly WEAK.. As was the repair done to "save S.S" by the Carter Admin which generated little in terms of Surplus for Reagan to steal. 



> The Congressional Response to Social Security Surpluses, 1935-1994 | Hoover Institution
> 
> 
> The original Social Security Act of 1935 contained an explicit policy of building a large reserve. Within four years, the reserve policy collapsed under a firestorm of criticism from both conservatives and liberals. Its collapse led to the program's first liberalization, one that occurred even before the first benefits were paid.
> 
> Congress responded in 1977 with major increases in payroll taxes and, for the first time in the program's history, some reductions in benefits. On the benefits side, the major change was to correct the indexing flaw.
> 
> The 1977 amendments solved both the near-term and the long-term financial problem but only temporarily.34 In the ensuing four years, rapid inflation produced additional expenditures and rising unemployment generated little revenue growth. By early 1981, the reserve had fallen to two months' worth of benefits and was projected to be exhausted in two years. President Ronald Reagan and Congress created a bipartisan commission chaired by Alan Greenspan to recommend a solution to the financing problem. The commission issued its recommendations in January 1983, and Congress enacted most of them in March 1983.



The theft of the Surplus was GENUINELY bipartisian and when the Surplus completely dissapeared this time in 2010 -- YOUR heroes, the leftist revolutionary team of Reid, Pelosi and Obama invented the NEW tactic of stealing from the PREMIUMS. A practice which you smartly COMPLETELY ignored in my post. A practice designed to fit their Redistributional Fairness meme without regards for the fiscal condition of the programs. 

Blame it on Reagan -- yeah right... The DEMS are now bleeding the program at a time when it REQUIRES serious fiscal sanity.. And they are doing it solely to make a political statement about tax fairness. Having forgotten everything about the UNIVERSAL nature of the program and the concept of it being a self-funded insurance program..


----------



## Murf76

While I realize that the whole off-topic discussion regarding Medicare and Social Security is purely a deflection to take our minds of the  fact that Barack Obama has no more idea how business works in this country than your average 2nd grader, what our resident lefties have failed to note is..... that all those programs are UNSUSTAINABLE in their current form.

So.  If these entitlements and welfare programs were actually of any REAL importance to them, why the hell would they vote for a guy who has SAT ON HIS ASS for the last three and a half years without ONE competent idea about what we're gonna do about it? 

There's no budget.
There's no reform of entitlements, or even any _efforts_ at reform of entitlements.
They've given us a whole new LARGER entitlement that costs three times what they said it would.
And we're approaching 16 TRILLION in debt, which as I've pointed out repeatedly, will cost us a cool trillion in CASH annually by the end of the decade on our current path.

Face it libs, your guy is a disaster.  And here we are, at the brink of another recession and at a time when consumer confidence is shot.... and what's he doing?  He's out mind-fucking small business people.


----------



## Mr. H.

boilermaker55 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic  and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
Click to expand...


If I risk my own capital and bust my own ass you're goddamn right I'll have any fucking attitude I choose, narcissistic or otherwise. 

The truth?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrbjhKUB66E]You can&#39;t handle the truth - YouTube[/ame]

Have you owned and operated your own business? I have for 35 years. Government is in the way, it's not THE way.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me who the 'takers' are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone getting more out of the system than they put into it.....if they put anything at all into the system.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what about someone on Medicare who lives to the age of 90? What about the worker who is injured on the job and permanently disabled? What about the child whose parents get food stamps. Are they all takers too?
Click to expand...


By definition...yes.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich are not stealing, so you don't have a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize, I edited that post after you quoted it.
> 
> There are no laws against what has been happening, but it is stealing.
> 
> When the same people doing the stealing get to write the laws, no-one gets arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were right the fist time.
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills.  The results were catastrophic.  Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.  By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later.  It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built.  Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didnt know much about economics.  Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared.
> 
> Both Reagan and Greenspan saw big government as an evil, and they saw big business as a virtue.  They both had despised the progressive policies of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and they wanted to turn back the pages of time. They came up with the perfect strategy for the redistribution of income and wealth from the working class to the rich. Since we dont know the nature of the private conversations that took place between Reagan and Greenspan, as well as between their aides, we cannot be sure whether the events that would follow over the next three decades were specifically planned by Reagan and Greenspan, or whether they were just the natural result of the actions the two men played such a big role in.  Either way, both Reagan and Greenspan are revered by most conservatives and hated by most liberals.
> 
> If Reagan had campaigned for the presidency by promising big tax cuts for the rich and pledging to make up for the lost revenue by imposing substantial tax increases on the working class, he would probably not have been elected.  But that is exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan.  Consider the following sequence of events:
> 
> 1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)
> 
> 2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.
> 
> 3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.
> 
> 4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything.  The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagans big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.
> 
> 5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.  Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006.  (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspans role in initiating the Social Security surplus  revenue.)
> 
> 6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York,  a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers.  Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike.  Moynihans view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike.  The read-my-lips-no-new-taxes president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.
> 
> more
Click to expand...


Who were the majorities in the house and senate in 1984 ?  Did they help in Reagan's spending of S.S. ?


----------



## buckeye45_73

Will left wingers tell us the purpose of him saying this? Did he want us to thank everyone everytime we got credit for something? Are we supposed to pay these people? Or was it to try and reduce the effect of feeling good about acomplishing things?


----------



## Listening

The takers need to justify taking.....from the makers.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Listening said:


> The takers need to justify taking.....from the makers.


 

Dang it, I agree, but I want a liberal to tell us....come on libs what was the purpose of the statement, because he meant it, he didnt backtrack at all.....so why make that statement?


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. Obama just stepped in the *deep doodoo*.
2. This will doom him.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## bripat9643

Vast LWC said:


> 1.  Social Security was, and is, a retirement program, paid for by the same people who "take" from it..



Nope.  they paid for someone else's retirement, not their own.  Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, not a retirement program



Vast LWC said:


> You aren't paying for anyone else's Social Security.



I most certainly am.  Every dime I pay in FICA taxes immediately goes to a current retiree.




Vast LWC said:


> The very, very small segment of Social Security receivers that get their benefits early, due to disability, etc, make up a ridiculously tiny portion of the total.



that's just plain stupid.  Both my mother and my sister are currently collecting Social Security, and neither one of them ever paid a dime into it.

How do you explain that?

There are millions of widows who collect social security that never paid into it.  There are also millions collecting disability who never paid into it.



Vast LWC said:


> If that's what your complaining about, you should stop whining....



You should start whining that God cheated you in the brains department.



Vast LWC said:


> Because what you* are* paying for is the money that was taken from social security to pay for _other_ programs that you were the "beneficiary" of.  *Like our bloated military.*



You just got done claiming the money I pay goes to my retirement.  Now you're admitting that it doesn't.



Vast LWC said:


> 2.  There were many, many people who starved in this country before Social Security and Medicare.



Then you should have no trouble producing the proot to support your claim.



Vast LWC said:


> Pretty much every time there was a recession/depression, (which was about every twenty years, before the Roosevelt era protections were put in place) there was a large segment of the population that would starve.



Horseshit.



Vast LWC said:


> Ask your grandfather.  I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you about the economic conditions at the beginning of the Great Depression.



I spent countless hours at the dinner table listening to my parents talk about the depression.  Not once did they ever mention anyone starving to death.


----------



## Mr. H.

Our company was founded in 1947, at a time of fairly simple taxation procedures. We've still got returns on file dating back to those days and inclusive to the present. As the years progressed, government began to look closely at the practice of reducing taxable income by the amount of capital that was reinvested within business ventures for the purpose of growing a company and generating additional revenue. 

Let me repeat that- a business that spent its own money for the purpose of conducting normal operations as well as expending additional capital (more money)  in order to expand operations was allowed to reduce gross revenues by those dollar amounts in determining taxable income. Why? When money is spent within a business that in itself creates a taxable event. You buy something physical, you pay a sales tax. Then you take that same "something" and use it in your business toward generating revenue. You buy something non-physical, such as a service, and the money you pay that particular entity is declared as taxable income by that entity.  

And so over time the government saw an opportunity to generate for itself more revenue by allowing business to deduct only "portiions" of expenditures from their revenues in determining tax liability. 

And thus- depreciation was born. And depletion. And tax preference items. And alternative minimum taxes. 

Today we are led to believe that government "grants" reductions in the aforementioned taxes. Taxes that at one time didn't exist. In other words, government is now in a position to mete out favors by taking less of what is not theirs to begin with. 

Enter Obama- the Great Crucifier. The Judge, Jury, and Executioner of industry. He is here to kick some ass, take some numbers, and hammer out economic justice in the name of "fairness". For in His eyes and the eyes of His minions and the downtrodden masses,  that which belongeth to others by  the sweat of brow and burden of plow shall now becometh the domain of all. 

I've said it more than once, and I'll say it more than once again... fuck that little cockwipe excuse of a President. Fuck his liberal socialist agenda and fuck the lot of you who follow his lead like so many grovelling lickspittle minion ilk drek whores. 

The end.


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> While I realize that the whole off-topic discussion regarding Medicare and Social Security is purely a deflection to take our minds of the  fact that Barack Obama has no more idea how business works in this country than your average 2nd grader, what our resident lefties have failed to note is..... that all those programs are UNSUSTAINABLE in their current form.
> 
> So.  If these entitlements and welfare programs were actually of any REAL importance to them, why the hell would they vote for a guy who has SAT ON HIS ASS for the last three and a half years without ONE competent idea about what we're gonna do about it?
> 
> There's no budget.
> There's no reform of entitlements, or even any _efforts_ at reform of entitlements.
> They've given us a whole new LARGER entitlement that costs three times what they said it would.
> And we're approaching 16 TRILLION in debt, which as I've pointed out repeatedly, will cost us a cool trillion in CASH annually by the end of the decade on our current path.
> 
> Face it libs, your guy is a disaster.  And here we are, at the brink of another recession and at a time when consumer confidence is shot.... and what's he doing?  He's out mind-fucking small business people.



Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!







And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.

And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.

Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.'  O'Neill was speechless."

"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I realize that the whole off-topic discussion regarding Medicare and Social Security is purely a deflection to take our minds of the  fact that Barack Obama has no more idea how business works in this country than your average 2nd grader, what our resident lefties have failed to note is..... that all those programs are UNSUSTAINABLE in their current form.
> 
> So.  If these entitlements and welfare programs were actually of any REAL importance to them, why the hell would they vote for a guy who has SAT ON HIS ASS for the last three and a half years without ONE competent idea about what we're gonna do about it?
> 
> There's no budget.
> There's no reform of entitlements, or even any _efforts_ at reform of entitlements.
> They've given us a whole new LARGER entitlement that costs three times what they said it would.
> And we're approaching 16 TRILLION in debt, which as I've pointed out repeatedly, will cost us a cool trillion in CASH annually by the end of the decade on our current path.
> 
> Face it libs, your guy is a disaster.  And here we are, at the brink of another recession and at a time when consumer confidence is shot.... and what's he doing?  He's out mind-fucking small business people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.
> 
> Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> "Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' &#8230; O'Neill was speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
Click to expand...


There was a lot of angst from conservatives and it cost a lot of them their positions in political superstructures.  Why do you think the Tea Party became such a big deal ?  Because of Obama ?  It was already revving up when Obama was elected.

Bush was a disaster and many in the GOP were critical of both he and the federal GOP congress for taking a pretty good opportunity and squandering it on a couple of stupid wars.

If you didn't read any of that from 2002 to 2008, you really do live in a filtered, selective world.

All you need do is Google "conservatives hate/dislike Bush".

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0712.greenberg.html


----------



## Freewill

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I realize that the whole off-topic discussion regarding Medicare and Social Security is purely a deflection to take our minds of the  fact that Barack Obama has no more idea how business works in this country than your average 2nd grader, what our resident lefties have failed to note is..... that all those programs are UNSUSTAINABLE in their current form.
> 
> So.  If these entitlements and welfare programs were actually of any REAL importance to them, why the hell would they vote for a guy who has SAT ON HIS ASS for the last three and a half years without ONE competent idea about what we're gonna do about it?
> 
> There's no budget.
> There's no reform of entitlements, or even any _efforts_ at reform of entitlements.
> They've given us a whole new LARGER entitlement that costs three times what they said it would.
> And we're approaching 16 TRILLION in debt, which as I've pointed out repeatedly, will cost us a cool trillion in CASH annually by the end of the decade on our current path.
> 
> Face it libs, your guy is a disaster.  And here we are, at the brink of another recession and at a time when consumer confidence is shot.... and what's he doing?  He's out mind-fucking small business people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.
> 
> Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> "Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.'  O'Neill was speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot of angst from conservatives and it cost a lot of them their positions in political superstructures.  Why do you think the Tea Party became such a big deal ?  Because of Obama ?  It was already revving up when Obama was elected.
> 
> Bush was a disaster and many in the GOP were critical of both he and the federal GOP congress for taking a pretty good opportunity and squandering it on a couple of stupid wars.
> 
> If you didn't read any of that from 2002 to 2008, you really do live in a filtered, selective world.
> 
> All you need do is Google "conservatives hate/dislike Bush".
> 
> Why Conservatives Hate Bush - Greenberg
Click to expand...


I never really liked Bush's agenda, way to liberal for my taste.  Not sure why the left hated him so.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I realize that the whole off-topic discussion regarding Medicare and Social Security is purely a deflection to take our minds of the  fact that Barack Obama has no more idea how business works in this country than your average 2nd grader, what our resident lefties have failed to note is..... that all those programs are UNSUSTAINABLE in their current form.
> 
> So.  If these entitlements and welfare programs were actually of any REAL importance to them, why the hell would they vote for a guy who has SAT ON HIS ASS for the last three and a half years without ONE competent idea about what we're gonna do about it?
> 
> There's no budget.
> There's no reform of entitlements, or even any _efforts_ at reform of entitlements.
> They've given us a whole new LARGER entitlement that costs three times what they said it would.
> And we're approaching 16 TRILLION in debt, which as I've pointed out repeatedly, will cost us a cool trillion in CASH annually by the end of the decade on our current path.
> 
> Face it libs, your guy is a disaster.  And here we are, at the brink of another recession and at a time when consumer confidence is shot.... and what's he doing?  He's out mind-fucking small business people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.
> 
> Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> "Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.'  O'Neill was speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot of angst from conservatives and it cost a lot of them their positions in political superstructures.  Why do you think the Tea Party became such a big deal ?  Because of Obama ?  It was already revving up when Obama was elected.
> 
> Bush was a disaster and many in the GOP were critical of both he and the federal GOP congress for taking a pretty good opportunity and squandering it on a couple of stupid wars.
> 
> If you didn't read any of that from 2002 to 2008, you really do live in a filtered, selective world.
> 
> All you need do is Google "conservatives hate/dislike Bush".
> 
> Why Conservatives Hate Bush - Greenberg
Click to expand...


Thank you for the link!!! Next time, try READING it first...

Heartening as it is to hear the growing criticism of Bush from within the GOP ranks, the idea that he's veered from conservatism is hogwash. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president hasor ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.

Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.

So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.

One clue that right-wingers might be acting a bit opportunistically in turning on Bush is the sloppy nature of so many of their arguments that he's left conservatism. In seeking to salvage a pure doctrine from the flotsam of the Bush years, for example, his onetime boosters will often say that he forsook a core conservative principle such as "tradition," "humility," or "small government"or, more vapidly, "adherence to the Constitution," "the wisdom of the Founders," or "honesty in government." But general concepts like these are so elastic as to encompass any grounds for disowning a failed course of actionor so generic as to be useless as defining traits of conservatism. (Don't liberals preach adherence to the Constitution?) It may be fashionable now to deride Bush's Iraq policy as insufficiently humble, but on the eve of the invasion, when Bush flouted world opinion, how many conservatives warned that he was jettisoning principle? And, for that matter, how does the failure to prepare for and address Hurricane Katrina's damage stem from a dearth of humility? Even the oft-heard conceit that Bush has become a "big government" conservativebreaking from postwar conservatism's antistatist foundationsdoesn't withstand scrutiny. After all, practically everyone on the right backed his tax cuts, corporate giveaways, and military and security expenditures, which, along with health care cuts, have busted the budget. On inspection, buzzwords like "big government" and "humility" appear to be supple rhetorical tools, used inconsistently and opportunistically, for polemical force or political positioningnot as the basis of serious intellectual critiques.

The same tendentiousness marks the invidious comparisons of Bush to various heroes from the Republican past. Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel charged Bush with betraying Dwight Eisenhower's legacy. Texas Congressman and presidential aspirant Ron Paul has invoked the "true" conservatism of former Senator Robert Taft. For others, Barry Goldwater is the forsaken prophet. But here, once again, selective readings of history are at work. (Taftite isolationism, for example, hasn't been conservative doctrine since before the Eisenhower administration.) This abuse of history becomes clear from a comparison of Bush to the man beside whom virtually all conservatives claim he pales: Ronald Reagan.

For the last quarter century, Reagan's rhetoric and ideology have guided the conservative movement and the Republican Party, which were effectively fused during his presidency. The Reagan love-inwhich includes a project led by GOP operative Grover Norquist to name something in every county in America after Reaganhas been gathering steam since his retirement. It reached an absurd peak at a Republican presidential debate earlier this year, when every candidate outdid the last to seize the late president's mantle.

What few of the GOP candidates would admit, though, is that the purest heir to Reaganism is George W. Bush. In 2003, Bill Keller of the New York Times even wrote a definitive 8,000-word article in the Sunday magazine called "Reagan's Son," which detailed striking similarities in the two men's personal styles, policies, and even staffing. Speaking to Keller, Norquist blessed the analogy. And since then the key traits that Keller identified as shared by Reagan and Bushthe "enthusiastic assumption of the role of solo superpower," "tax cuts with a supply-side bias," "a shift of responsibilities from government to the private sector, and from the federal government to the states"have, if anything, intensified. Judging by those aspects of Reagan's record that his cheerleaders extol most ardently, Bush has actually proven more faithful to conservatism, not less, than his predecessor.

But Bush's new critics spare themselves the pain of finding fault with their hero through selective memory. They remember that Reagan was steadfast (most of the time) in his conservative rhetoric and ideologyjust as Bush has been. They forget, however, that in practice Reagan veered from his official line as politics dictated or when, as invariably happened, different conservative ideals clashed.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.
> 
> Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> "Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.'  O'Neill was speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a lot of angst from conservatives and it cost a lot of them their positions in political superstructures.  Why do you think the Tea Party became such a big deal ?  Because of Obama ?  It was already revving up when Obama was elected.
> 
> Bush was a disaster and many in the GOP were critical of both he and the federal GOP congress for taking a pretty good opportunity and squandering it on a couple of stupid wars.
> 
> If you didn't read any of that from 2002 to 2008, you really do live in a filtered, selective world.
> 
> All you need do is Google "conservatives hate/dislike Bush".
> 
> Why Conservatives Hate Bush - Greenberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for the link!!! Next time, try READING it first...
> 
> Heartening as it is to hear the growing criticism of Bush from within the GOP ranks, the idea that he's veered from conservatism is hogwash. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
> 
> It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president hasor ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.
> 
> Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.
> 
> So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.
> 
> One clue that right-wingers might be acting a bit opportunistically in turning on Bush is the sloppy nature of so many of their arguments that he's left conservatism. In seeking to salvage a pure doctrine from the flotsam of the Bush years, for example, his onetime boosters will often say that he forsook a core conservative principle such as "tradition," "humility," or "small government"or, more vapidly, "adherence to the Constitution," "the wisdom of the Founders," or "honesty in government." But general concepts like these are so elastic as to encompass any grounds for disowning a failed course of actionor so generic as to be useless as defining traits of conservatism. (Don't liberals preach adherence to the Constitution?) It may be fashionable now to deride Bush's Iraq policy as insufficiently humble, but on the eve of the invasion, when Bush flouted world opinion, how many conservatives warned that he was jettisoning principle? And, for that matter, how does the failure to prepare for and address Hurricane Katrina's damage stem from a dearth of humility? Even the oft-heard conceit that Bush has become a "big government" conservativebreaking from postwar conservatism's antistatist foundationsdoesn't withstand scrutiny. After all, practically everyone on the right backed his tax cuts, corporate giveaways, and military and security expenditures, which, along with health care cuts, have busted the budget. On inspection, buzzwords like "big government" and "humility" appear to be supple rhetorical tools, used inconsistently and opportunistically, for polemical force or political positioningnot as the basis of serious intellectual critiques.
> 
> The same tendentiousness marks the invidious comparisons of Bush to various heroes from the Republican past. Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel charged Bush with betraying Dwight Eisenhower's legacy. Texas Congressman and presidential aspirant Ron Paul has invoked the "true" conservatism of former Senator Robert Taft. For others, Barry Goldwater is the forsaken prophet. But here, once again, selective readings of history are at work. (Taftite isolationism, for example, hasn't been conservative doctrine since before the Eisenhower administration.) This abuse of history becomes clear from a comparison of Bush to the man beside whom virtually all conservatives claim he pales: Ronald Reagan.
> 
> For the last quarter century, Reagan's rhetoric and ideology have guided the conservative movement and the Republican Party, which were effectively fused during his presidency. The Reagan love-inwhich includes a project led by GOP operative Grover Norquist to name something in every county in America after Reaganhas been gathering steam since his retirement. It reached an absurd peak at a Republican presidential debate earlier this year, when every candidate outdid the last to seize the late president's mantle.
> 
> What few of the GOP candidates would admit, though, is that the purest heir to Reaganism is George W. Bush. In 2003, Bill Keller of the New York Times even wrote a definitive 8,000-word article in the Sunday magazine called "Reagan's Son," which detailed striking similarities in the two men's personal styles, policies, and even staffing. Speaking to Keller, Norquist blessed the analogy. And since then the key traits that Keller identified as shared by Reagan and Bushthe "enthusiastic assumption of the role of solo superpower," "tax cuts with a supply-side bias," "a shift of responsibilities from government to the private sector, and from the federal government to the states"have, if anything, intensified. Judging by those aspects of Reagan's record that his cheerleaders extol most ardently, Bush has actually proven more faithful to conservatism, not less, than his predecessor.
> 
> But Bush's new critics spare themselves the pain of finding fault with their hero through selective memory. They remember that Reagan was steadfast (most of the time) in his conservative rhetoric and ideologyjust as Bush has been. They forget, however, that in practice Reagan veered from his official line as politics dictated or when, as invariably happened, different conservative ideals clashed.
Click to expand...


You are a stupid jackass.

The first part of the link is nothing more than a recitation of those who were critical of Bush.

You asked where was the angst.....this article had some of the best summation out there.

That the author didn't like it does not matter.  He cited book and statements....those FACTS you seem to be so fond of.

Did my quote answer your question or didn't it ?


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a lot of angst from conservatives and it cost a lot of them their positions in political superstructures.  Why do you think the Tea Party became such a big deal ?  Because of Obama ?  It was already revving up when Obama was elected.
> 
> Bush was a disaster and many in the GOP were critical of both he and the federal GOP congress for taking a pretty good opportunity and squandering it on a couple of stupid wars.
> 
> If you didn't read any of that from 2002 to 2008, you really do live in a filtered, selective world.
> 
> All you need do is Google "conservatives hate/dislike Bush".
> 
> Why Conservatives Hate Bush - Greenberg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the link!!! Next time, try READING it first...
> 
> Heartening as it is to hear the growing criticism of Bush from within the GOP ranks, the idea that he's veered from conservatism is hogwash. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
> 
> It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president hasor ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.
> 
> Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.
> 
> So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.
> 
> One clue that right-wingers might be acting a bit opportunistically in turning on Bush is the sloppy nature of so many of their arguments that he's left conservatism. In seeking to salvage a pure doctrine from the flotsam of the Bush years, for example, his onetime boosters will often say that he forsook a core conservative principle such as "tradition," "humility," or "small government"or, more vapidly, "adherence to the Constitution," "the wisdom of the Founders," or "honesty in government." But general concepts like these are so elastic as to encompass any grounds for disowning a failed course of actionor so generic as to be useless as defining traits of conservatism. (Don't liberals preach adherence to the Constitution?) It may be fashionable now to deride Bush's Iraq policy as insufficiently humble, but on the eve of the invasion, when Bush flouted world opinion, how many conservatives warned that he was jettisoning principle? And, for that matter, how does the failure to prepare for and address Hurricane Katrina's damage stem from a dearth of humility? Even the oft-heard conceit that Bush has become a "big government" conservativebreaking from postwar conservatism's antistatist foundationsdoesn't withstand scrutiny. After all, practically everyone on the right backed his tax cuts, corporate giveaways, and military and security expenditures, which, along with health care cuts, have busted the budget. On inspection, buzzwords like "big government" and "humility" appear to be supple rhetorical tools, used inconsistently and opportunistically, for polemical force or political positioningnot as the basis of serious intellectual critiques.
> 
> The same tendentiousness marks the invidious comparisons of Bush to various heroes from the Republican past. Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel charged Bush with betraying Dwight Eisenhower's legacy. Texas Congressman and presidential aspirant Ron Paul has invoked the "true" conservatism of former Senator Robert Taft. For others, Barry Goldwater is the forsaken prophet. But here, once again, selective readings of history are at work. (Taftite isolationism, for example, hasn't been conservative doctrine since before the Eisenhower administration.) This abuse of history becomes clear from a comparison of Bush to the man beside whom virtually all conservatives claim he pales: Ronald Reagan.
> 
> For the last quarter century, Reagan's rhetoric and ideology have guided the conservative movement and the Republican Party, which were effectively fused during his presidency. The Reagan love-inwhich includes a project led by GOP operative Grover Norquist to name something in every county in America after Reaganhas been gathering steam since his retirement. It reached an absurd peak at a Republican presidential debate earlier this year, when every candidate outdid the last to seize the late president's mantle.
> 
> What few of the GOP candidates would admit, though, is that the purest heir to Reaganism is George W. Bush. In 2003, Bill Keller of the New York Times even wrote a definitive 8,000-word article in the Sunday magazine called "Reagan's Son," which detailed striking similarities in the two men's personal styles, policies, and even staffing. Speaking to Keller, Norquist blessed the analogy. And since then the key traits that Keller identified as shared by Reagan and Bushthe "enthusiastic assumption of the role of solo superpower," "tax cuts with a supply-side bias," "a shift of responsibilities from government to the private sector, and from the federal government to the states"have, if anything, intensified. Judging by those aspects of Reagan's record that his cheerleaders extol most ardently, Bush has actually proven more faithful to conservatism, not less, than his predecessor.
> 
> But Bush's new critics spare themselves the pain of finding fault with their hero through selective memory. They remember that Reagan was steadfast (most of the time) in his conservative rhetoric and ideologyjust as Bush has been. They forget, however, that in practice Reagan veered from his official line as politics dictated or when, as invariably happened, different conservative ideals clashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a stupid jackass.
> 
> The first part of the link is nothing more than a recitation of those who were critical of Bush.
> 
> You asked where was the angst.....this article had some of the best summation out there.
> 
> That the author didn't like it does not matter.  He cited book and statements....those FACTS you seem to be so fond of.
> 
> Did my quote answer your question or didn't it ?
Click to expand...


I bookmarked the article. It reinforces the facts I have presented numerous times on this board. Reagan was the worst and most destructive president in history. Bush is the manifestation of a failed ideology. The Reagan revolution is the American equivalent of the Bolshevik revolution. A radical dogma driven ideological movement that failed miserably.

AGAIN, Next time, try READING it first...

All the beginning of the article does is qualify what followed. That conservatives NOW insist Bush was not a conservative. The FACTS are. Bush was an ULTRA-conservative, Reagan on steroids. Bush didn't fail to be conservative. Conservatism FAILED!  

The opening of the article YOU posted:

If I were a Bush administration insider, I'd be scrambling right now to get my book contract. No path leads more surely to critical acclaim these days than the White House confessional. What the insiders are trafficking in, however, isn't the usual gossip about infighting or turf wars but a matter of considerably greater importance: the president's alleged ideological apostasy. President Bush, a fleet of his former enthusiasts now insist, is no conservative.

No complaint against Bush is more popular on the rightor gets a freer pass in the mainstream mediathan the notion that he somehow abandoned the philosophy that guides today's Republican Party. And the most recent insiders to turn on Bush for his impurities come from high stations. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who declined to contest Bush's disastrous tax cut plan back in 2001 when he might have derailed it, used his September memoir to blame Bush for failing to cut spendinga cardinal sin among conservatives. Weeks before, the law professor and Bush White House veteran Jack Goldsmith published a memoir disclosing his dismay with the administration's policies on torturing suspected terrorists, even though he could have denounced the president years ago. Before that, another ex-Bush aide, David Kuo of the euphemistically titled "faith-based" office, purported in his book to expose the hollowness of Bush's program for aiding religious institutions that do social work. Was he really expecting that the church-state wall would be demolished, not just eroded?

Greenspan, Goldsmith, and Kuo have, of course, merely joined a long train of right-wing officials, operatives, and journalists who once genuflected before Bush but are now charging him with abandoning the true path. Consider the comments of a few stars of the conservative firmament.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the link!!! Next time, try READING it first...
> 
> Heartening as it is to hear the growing criticism of Bush from within the GOP ranks, the idea that he's veered from conservatism is hogwash. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
> 
> It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president hasor ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.
> 
> Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.
> 
> So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.
> 
> One clue that right-wingers might be acting a bit opportunistically in turning on Bush is the sloppy nature of so many of their arguments that he's left conservatism. In seeking to salvage a pure doctrine from the flotsam of the Bush years, for example, his onetime boosters will often say that he forsook a core conservative principle such as "tradition," "humility," or "small government"or, more vapidly, "adherence to the Constitution," "the wisdom of the Founders," or "honesty in government." But general concepts like these are so elastic as to encompass any grounds for disowning a failed course of actionor so generic as to be useless as defining traits of conservatism. (Don't liberals preach adherence to the Constitution?) It may be fashionable now to deride Bush's Iraq policy as insufficiently humble, but on the eve of the invasion, when Bush flouted world opinion, how many conservatives warned that he was jettisoning principle? And, for that matter, how does the failure to prepare for and address Hurricane Katrina's damage stem from a dearth of humility? Even the oft-heard conceit that Bush has become a "big government" conservativebreaking from postwar conservatism's antistatist foundationsdoesn't withstand scrutiny. After all, practically everyone on the right backed his tax cuts, corporate giveaways, and military and security expenditures, which, along with health care cuts, have busted the budget. On inspection, buzzwords like "big government" and "humility" appear to be supple rhetorical tools, used inconsistently and opportunistically, for polemical force or political positioningnot as the basis of serious intellectual critiques.
> 
> The same tendentiousness marks the invidious comparisons of Bush to various heroes from the Republican past. Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel charged Bush with betraying Dwight Eisenhower's legacy. Texas Congressman and presidential aspirant Ron Paul has invoked the "true" conservatism of former Senator Robert Taft. For others, Barry Goldwater is the forsaken prophet. But here, once again, selective readings of history are at work. (Taftite isolationism, for example, hasn't been conservative doctrine since before the Eisenhower administration.) This abuse of history becomes clear from a comparison of Bush to the man beside whom virtually all conservatives claim he pales: Ronald Reagan.
> 
> For the last quarter century, Reagan's rhetoric and ideology have guided the conservative movement and the Republican Party, which were effectively fused during his presidency. The Reagan love-inwhich includes a project led by GOP operative Grover Norquist to name something in every county in America after Reaganhas been gathering steam since his retirement. It reached an absurd peak at a Republican presidential debate earlier this year, when every candidate outdid the last to seize the late president's mantle.
> 
> What few of the GOP candidates would admit, though, is that the purest heir to Reaganism is George W. Bush. In 2003, Bill Keller of the New York Times even wrote a definitive 8,000-word article in the Sunday magazine called "Reagan's Son," which detailed striking similarities in the two men's personal styles, policies, and even staffing. Speaking to Keller, Norquist blessed the analogy. And since then the key traits that Keller identified as shared by Reagan and Bushthe "enthusiastic assumption of the role of solo superpower," "tax cuts with a supply-side bias," "a shift of responsibilities from government to the private sector, and from the federal government to the states"have, if anything, intensified. Judging by those aspects of Reagan's record that his cheerleaders extol most ardently, Bush has actually proven more faithful to conservatism, not less, than his predecessor.
> 
> But Bush's new critics spare themselves the pain of finding fault with their hero through selective memory. They remember that Reagan was steadfast (most of the time) in his conservative rhetoric and ideologyjust as Bush has been. They forget, however, that in practice Reagan veered from his official line as politics dictated or when, as invariably happened, different conservative ideals clashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a stupid jackass.
> 
> The first part of the link is nothing more than a recitation of those who were critical of Bush.
> 
> You asked where was the angst.....this article had some of the best summation out there.
> 
> That the author didn't like it does not matter.  He cited book and statements....those FACTS you seem to be so fond of.
> 
> Did my quote answer your question or didn't it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bookmarked the article. It reinforces the facts I have presented numerous times on this board. Reagan was the worst and most destructive president in history. Bush is the manifestation of a failed ideology. The Reagan revolution is the American equivalent of the Bolshevik revolution. A radical dogma driven ideological movement that failed miserably.
> 
> AGAIN, Next time, try READING it first...
> 
> All the beginning of the article does is qualify what followed. That conservatives NOW insist Bush was not a conservative. The FACTS are. Bush was an ULTRA-conservative, Reagan on steroids. Bush didn't fail to be conservative. Conservatism FAILED!
> 
> The opening of the article YOU posted:
> 
> If I were a Bush administration insider, I'd be scrambling right now to get my book contract. No path leads more surely to critical acclaim these days than the White House confessional. What the insiders are trafficking in, however, isn't the usual gossip about infighting or turf wars but a matter of considerably greater importance: the president's alleged ideological apostasy. President Bush, a fleet of his former enthusiasts now insist, is no conservative.
> 
> No complaint against Bush is more popular on the rightor gets a freer pass in the mainstream mediathan the notion that he somehow abandoned the philosophy that guides today's Republican Party. And the most recent insiders to turn on Bush for his impurities come from high stations. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who declined to contest Bush's disastrous tax cut plan back in 2001 when he might have derailed it, used his September memoir to blame Bush for failing to cut spendinga cardinal sin among conservatives. Weeks before, the law professor and Bush White House veteran Jack Goldsmith published a memoir disclosing his dismay with the administration's policies on torturing suspected terrorists, even though he could have denounced the president years ago. Before that, another ex-Bush aide, David Kuo of the euphemistically titled "faith-based" office, purported in his book to expose the hollowness of Bush's program for aiding religious institutions that do social work. Was he really expecting that the church-state wall would be demolished, not just eroded?
> 
> Greenspan, Goldsmith, and Kuo have, of course, merely joined a long train of right-wing officials, operatives, and journalists who once genuflected before Bush but are now charging him with abandoning the true path. Consider the comments of a few stars of the conservative firmament.
Click to expand...


Did my quote answer your question or didn't it ?


----------



## Foxfyre

Freewill said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.
> 
> Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> "Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.'  O'Neill was speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a lot of angst from conservatives and it cost a lot of them their positions in political superstructures.  Why do you think the Tea Party became such a big deal ?  Because of Obama ?  It was already revving up when Obama was elected.
> 
> Bush was a disaster and many in the GOP were critical of both he and the federal GOP congress for taking a pretty good opportunity and squandering it on a couple of stupid wars.
> 
> If you didn't read any of that from 2002 to 2008, you really do live in a filtered, selective world.
> 
> All you need do is Google "conservatives hate/dislike Bush".
> 
> Why Conservatives Hate Bush - Greenberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never really liked Bush's agenda, way to liberal for my taste.  Not sure why the left hated him so.
Click to expand...


They hated him because he won and Gore didn't.  It is as simple as that.  They didn't hate him because he governed differently than he campaigned.  He didn't.  Just as they weren't paying attention or didn't care about the red flags re Obama, we ignored those re President Bush too.  He was pretty true to what he said he wanted to do, so we got a sensible tax policy that did some very good things and we got a decent guy who respected the office and respected us. 

But we also got NCLB, the Medicare Prescription bill, pushes for amnesty for illegals, unacceptable government meddling via spending, and an energy policy only a liberal could love, and that was what was getting the attention of those of us who would become part of the Tea Party movement.   Then it  was Obama's unconscionable signing of the bloated, pork laden, budget busting apportionment bill, the stimulus package,and Obamacare that provided the final impetus for a full blown Tea Party movement. 

Bush had no control over 9/11 or Katrina, major scale disasters few Presidents have to deal with.  So how he handled those, for better or worse, is not the fault of the policies he brought into the office.

Conversely President Obama is a very different man and has governed almost 180 from how he campaigned.  And his policies and what he has signed from Congress thus far has only increased the misery index, has included power many of us see is dangerous and inappropriate, and has done nothing to address the core problems that government could have addressed.

His war on private enterprise and the productive in this country is only the tip of the iceberg there.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a stupid jackass.
> 
> The first part of the link is nothing more than a recitation of those who were critical of Bush.
> 
> You asked where was the angst.....this article had some of the best summation out there.
> 
> That the author didn't like it does not matter.  He cited book and statements....those FACTS you seem to be so fond of.
> 
> Did my quote answer your question or didn't it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bookmarked the article. It reinforces the facts I have presented numerous times on this board. Reagan was the worst and most destructive president in history. Bush is the manifestation of a failed ideology. The Reagan revolution is the American equivalent of the Bolshevik revolution. A radical dogma driven ideological movement that failed miserably.
> 
> AGAIN, Next time, try READING it first...
> 
> All the beginning of the article does is qualify what followed. That conservatives NOW insist Bush was not a conservative. The FACTS are. Bush was an ULTRA-conservative, Reagan on steroids. Bush didn't fail to be conservative. Conservatism FAILED!
> 
> The opening of the article YOU posted:
> 
> If I were a Bush administration insider, I'd be scrambling right now to get my book contract. No path leads more surely to critical acclaim these days than the White House confessional. What the insiders are trafficking in, however, isn't the usual gossip about infighting or turf wars but a matter of considerably greater importance: the president's alleged ideological apostasy. President Bush, a fleet of his former enthusiasts now insist, is no conservative.
> 
> No complaint against Bush is more popular on the rightor gets a freer pass in the mainstream mediathan the notion that he somehow abandoned the philosophy that guides today's Republican Party. And the most recent insiders to turn on Bush for his impurities come from high stations. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who declined to contest Bush's disastrous tax cut plan back in 2001 when he might have derailed it, used his September memoir to blame Bush for failing to cut spendinga cardinal sin among conservatives. Weeks before, the law professor and Bush White House veteran Jack Goldsmith published a memoir disclosing his dismay with the administration's policies on torturing suspected terrorists, even though he could have denounced the president years ago. Before that, another ex-Bush aide, David Kuo of the euphemistically titled "faith-based" office, purported in his book to expose the hollowness of Bush's program for aiding religious institutions that do social work. Was he really expecting that the church-state wall would be demolished, not just eroded?
> 
> Greenspan, Goldsmith, and Kuo have, of course, merely joined a long train of right-wing officials, operatives, and journalists who once genuflected before Bush but are now charging him with abandoning the true path. Consider the comments of a few stars of the conservative firmament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did my quote answer your question or didn't it ?
Click to expand...


You didn't even READ the question, now did you?

"And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives *when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade*???"


----------



## Chris

The stock market has doubled since the stimulus. 
4.3 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.  
GDP has been growing since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $10 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up. Unemployment is down. 
Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
Obama has done a very good job.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bookmarked the article. It reinforces the facts I have presented numerous times on this board. Reagan was the worst and most destructive president in history. Bush is the manifestation of a failed ideology. The Reagan revolution is the American equivalent of the Bolshevik revolution. A radical dogma driven ideological movement that failed miserably.
> 
> AGAIN, Next time, try READING it first...
> 
> All the beginning of the article does is qualify what followed. That conservatives NOW insist Bush was not a conservative. The FACTS are. Bush was an ULTRA-conservative, Reagan on steroids. Bush didn't fail to be conservative. Conservatism FAILED!
> 
> The opening of the article YOU posted:
> 
> If I were a Bush administration insider, I'd be scrambling right now to get my book contract. No path leads more surely to critical acclaim these days than the White House confessional. What the insiders are trafficking in, however, isn't the usual gossip about infighting or turf wars but a matter of considerably greater importance: the president's alleged ideological apostasy. President Bush, a fleet of his former enthusiasts now insist, is no conservative.
> 
> No complaint against Bush is more popular on the rightor gets a freer pass in the mainstream mediathan the notion that he somehow abandoned the philosophy that guides today's Republican Party. And the most recent insiders to turn on Bush for his impurities come from high stations. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who declined to contest Bush's disastrous tax cut plan back in 2001 when he might have derailed it, used his September memoir to blame Bush for failing to cut spendinga cardinal sin among conservatives. Weeks before, the law professor and Bush White House veteran Jack Goldsmith published a memoir disclosing his dismay with the administration's policies on torturing suspected terrorists, even though he could have denounced the president years ago. Before that, another ex-Bush aide, David Kuo of the euphemistically titled "faith-based" office, purported in his book to expose the hollowness of Bush's program for aiding religious institutions that do social work. Was he really expecting that the church-state wall would be demolished, not just eroded?
> 
> Greenspan, Goldsmith, and Kuo have, of course, merely joined a long train of right-wing officials, operatives, and journalists who once genuflected before Bush but are now charging him with abandoning the true path. Consider the comments of a few stars of the conservative firmament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did my quote answer your question or didn't it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't even READ the question, now did you?
> 
> "And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives *when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade*???"
Click to expand...


Well, no...I guess not.  I only posted a link that tried to answer a question I didn't read.

A simple yes or no will do.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> a. bigot or racist?
> b. born that way or beaten up?



a. fuck off
b. go fuck yourself


----------



## Listening

Chris said:


> The stock market has doubled since the stimulus.
> 4.3 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
> GDP has been growing since 2009.
> Americans net worth is up $10 trillion dollars since 2009.
> Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up. Unemployment is down.
> Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
> Obama has done a very good job.



Your spam list is old jerkwad.

Some of this is no longer true.

Your last statement was never anything but a wet dream.

Obama  is a one-termer and you are still a spamming asshole.


----------



## HUGGY

Chris said:


> The stock market has doubled since the stimulus.
> 4.3 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
> GDP has been growing since 2009.
> Americans net worth is up $10 trillion dollars since 2009.
> Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up. Unemployment is down.
> Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
> Obama has done a very good job.



One would think that the so called "conservatives" would be out on thier lawns doing cartwheels with the dramatic down sizing of public sector jobs since Obama took office.

Isn't THAT thier main mantra..  SMALLER GOVERNMENT????

If all the teachers, firemen, cops and city, county state and federal  workers jobs cut thruout government in the last few years where immediately put back to work unemplyment would be down around 6 %.  

The whack right got just exactly what they were crying for.  Smaller government.  

People like Stefunny just can't be pleased.  


Molly's Middle America: Private & Government Jobs Gained & Lost Under Obama (May 2012 update)

Sunday, June 3, 2012Private & Government Jobs Gained & Lost Under Obama (May 2012 update) 
How Many Jobs Were Lost or Created Under Obama? (Latest June 2012 update)


June 2012 Summary and Links

ADP Jobs Report for June HERE!


All Jobs Obama Created Were Gov't Jobs?
Don't Put Money on This...Read below..


How many jobs (total, private, and government) have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?  
4,317,000 TOTAL jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST in from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010.  That's a decrease of 3.2%.  
3,765,000 jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until now, May 2012.  That's an increase of 2.91%. 
In total, 552,000  jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until now, May 2012.  That's a decrease of 0.41%. * 
We have experienced 20 months WITHOUT job losses since September 2010.  We have ADDED 3,124,000 jobs during those 19 months.  
We now have 133,009,000 TOTAL non-farm jobs.  


*  These are all net figures, meaning that they represent the total number of jobs at the end of a reporting period.  All losses have been subtracted from all gains and vice verse.
*  Though, as of April 2012, we still have fewer jobs (in adjusted numbers) than when President Obama took office, jobs are being added at a faster clip under Obama than under George Bush at the same time in his presidency.  At this point in Bush's presidency (April 2004), there were still 1,415,000 fewer jobs than when he was inaugurated in January 2001 (compared to 572,000 fewer for Obama).  The number of jobs didn't eclipse the number when Bush was first inaugurated until February 2005, in Bush's second term.   (These numbers will be updated for May in the coming days.)     


All jobs numbers & reports  (June 2012 & and all 2011 & 2012 Updates) indexed HERE!!


How many PRIVATE sector jobs have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?
4,213,000 PRIVATE-sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010.  That's a decrease of 3.8%. 
4,268,000 PRIVATE-sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were GAINED OR CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until now, May 2012.  That's an increase of 4.00%. 
In total, 55,000 private sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) have been GAINED from the time Obama took office until now, May 2012.  That's a net increase of 0.05%. * 
We have experienced 27 months of positive private-sector job GROWTH from February 2010 until May 2012.  We have added 4,268,000 private-sector jobs during those 26 months.     
We now have 111,040,000 PRIVATE sector non-farm jobs. 
*Though, as of April 2012, we still have fewer private-sector jobs (in adjusted numbers) than when President Obama took office, jobs are being added at a faster clip under Obama than under George Bush at the same time in his presidency.  At this point in Bush's presidency (April 2004), there were still 2,194,000 fewer private sector jobs than when he was inaugurated in January 2001 (compared to 35,000 MORE for Obama).  The number of private-sector jobs didn't eclipse the number when Bush was first inaugurated until June 2005, in Bush's second term.  (This number will be updated for May in the next few days.)     


How many GOVERNMENT jobs have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?
102,000 GOVERNMENT jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010.  That's a decrease of  .47%  (about half of a percent).  
Another 505,000 GOVERNMENT jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the "trough" of the recession until now, May 2012.  That's a decrease of 2.25%. 
In total, 607,000 government jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until now, May 2012.  That's a decrease of 2.69%.  
We have experienced decreases in the number of government jobs in 21 out of the last 24 months, starting in June 2010, when the layoff of 2010 Census workers began.   
We now have 21,969,000 GOVERNMENT non-farm jobs, not including people in the military.  (Civilians employed by the U.S. and working for the military are counted.) 
(Note:  Current numbers taken from the April Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Situation Report.  Historical numbers taken from various archived Employment Situation reports as indexed HERE. Specifics will be provided upon request; please email me or leave a comment.)


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my quote answer your question or didn't it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even READ the question, now did you?
> 
> "And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives *when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade*???"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no...I guess not.  I only posted a link that tried to answer a question I didn't read.
> 
> A simple yes or no will do.
Click to expand...


You just answered it for me, thanks.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even READ the question, now did you?
> 
> "And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives *when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade*???"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no...I guess not.  I only posted a link that tried to answer a question I didn't read.
> 
> A simple yes or no will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just answered it for me, thanks.
Click to expand...


Isn't it great that for someone who claims to be so clear with the facts and so on message that you are anything but that.

My apologies for taking you at your word.


----------



## clevergirl

We all knew in our hearts anything this revolutionary couldn't have been built by a government bureaucracy.


Gordon Crovitz: *Who Really Invented the Internet?*

Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war.

A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."

Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? - WSJ.com


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no...I guess not.  I only posted a link that tried to answer a question I didn't read.
> 
> A simple yes or no will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just answered it for me, thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it great that for someone who claims to be so clear with the facts and so on message that you are anything but that.
> 
> My apologies for taking you at your word.
Click to expand...


Do I have to explain it to you? REALLY???

I asked 'where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade???"

You provided angst and concern about debt from conservatives ONLY AFTER Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade were thrown out, and a Democrat won the White House.

The author of the article YOU posted sums it up perfectly:

The criticisms of Bush now coming from various quarters on the right have it precisely backward. They fault him for compromising too much when his failures have resulted from his refusal to compromise more.

So are conservatives unhappy with Bush because he let down their causes? No. They're miffed that Bush, in pursuing those very causes, alienated two-thirds of the voting public. Starting with Katrina in the fall of 2005, and proceeding through the worsening civil strife in Iraq, the revelations of the wiretapping and U.S. attorney scandals, and growing discontent with domestic problems like health care, Americans lost faith in Bush's agenda. Various right-wingers are now trying to salvage conservatism not simply to maintain their own reputations but because they worry that, having soured on Bush, voters may soon sour on the creed of conservatism itself. That would be a turn of events for the right so damaging that not even another Ronald Reagan could repair it.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## Jarhead

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just answered it for me, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it great that for someone who claims to be so clear with the facts and so on message that you are anything but that.
> 
> My apologies for taking you at your word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I have to explain it to you? REALLY???
> 
> I asked 'where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade???"
> 
> You provided angst and concern about debt from conservatives ONLY AFTER Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade were thrown out, and a Democrat won the White House.
> 
> The author of the article YOU posted sums it up perfectly:
> 
> The criticisms of Bush now coming from various quarters on the right have it precisely backward. They fault him for compromising too much when his failures have resulted from his refusal to compromise more.
> 
> So are conservatives unhappy with Bush because he let down their causes? No. They're miffed that Bush, in pursuing those very causes, alienated two-thirds of the voting public. Starting with Katrina in the fall of 2005, and proceeding through the worsening civil strife in Iraq, the revelations of the wiretapping and U.S. attorney scandals, and growing discontent with domestic problems like health care, Americans lost faith in Bush's agenda. Various right-wingers are now trying to salvage conservatism not simply to maintain their own reputations but because they worry that, having soured on Bush, voters may soon sour on the creed of conservatism itself. That would be a turn of events for the right so damaging that not even another Ronald Reagan could repair it.
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Click to expand...


Whereas what you say may be true...it is a diversion from the issue at hand...

True...conservastivces talk about the debt....but conservatives will crtiicize anything regarding this president just as liberals will criticize anything about Romney.

However.....

Bush did not run on a platform regarding decreasing the debt.

Obama did.

Bush is no longer president nor is he seeking office again.

Obama IS president and he IS seeking re-election.

Where is th outrage regarding Obama and his outright lie?


----------



## Foxfyre

clevergirl said:


> We all knew in our hearts anything this revolutionary couldn't have been built by a government bureaucracy.
> 
> 
> Gordon Crovitz: *Who Really Invented the Internet?*
> 
> Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war.
> 
> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."
> 
> Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? - WSJ.com



A little different twist on that CG:

Yes, the private sector has benefitted from some government research, most especially military research and from NASA. But the government usually doesn't have the private sector in mind when it does it. The rudimentary Internet, for instance, was originally created to facilitate defense-related research as well as to strengthen military command-and-control capabilities. It was most definitely not created &#8220;so that all the companies could make money." In fact it was initially intended to be denied to the private sector. In an early ARPANet handbook we find: "It is considered illegal to use the ARPANet for anything which is not in direct support of Government business&#8230;.Sending electronic mail over the ARPANet for commercial profit or political purposes is both anti-social and illegal." 

It was only after such information was declassified that PRIVATE enterprise used some of those concepts and further developed the technology to create the communications systems that we enjoy today. And they did it without any government money.

Which for Obama makes that one a big, fat "oops".


----------



## Freewill

Did anyone think that the biggest strongest economy was never going to recover?  But let us remember what was said when Obama and company started spending money we didn't have, it would not help it would hurt.  So what did we get, the longest weakest recovery in history and it looks like we may go back into a recession.  So the fact is that what Obama did is not working the evidence needed....the debt put on our grandchildren to avoid the pain now.  Sad what we have done.


----------



## kaz

clevergirl said:


> We all knew in our hearts anything this revolutionary couldn't have been built by a government bureaucracy.
> 
> 
> Gordon Crovitz: *Who Really Invented the Internet?*
> 
> Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war.
> 
> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."
> 
> Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? - WSJ.com



Good article.  My background is business/IT.  It's not realized the massive role that Xerox played in the advancement of PC/networking technology at all outside techie circles or how badly they bungled it by giving it all away.

On a side note, humorously, when I was in management consulting I worked for commercial companies, but I did do two government projects.  In both cases, government agencies wanted to bring a commercial perspective to their government organizations.

One was a web strategy ... for ARPA ...


----------



## Full-Auto

Freewill said:


> Did anyone think that the biggest strongest economy was never going to recover?  But let us remember what was said when Obama and company started spending money we didn't have, it would not help it would hurt.  So what did we get, the longest weakest recovery in history and it looks like we may go back into a recession.  So the fact is that what Obama did is not working the evidence needed....the debt put on our grandchildren to avoid the pain now.  Sad what we have done.



We did receive some good news today...Sort off.

The market tanked 200 points based upon European fears.  The Euro is now at a two year low against the dollar.  Taking some of the sting out of dem created inflation.

No worries though this will probably prompt democrats to print more money to give away.


----------



## Murf76

Bfgrn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I realize that the whole off-topic discussion regarding Medicare and Social Security is purely a deflection to take our minds of the  fact that Barack Obama has no more idea how business works in this country than your average 2nd grader, what our resident lefties have failed to note is..... that all those programs are UNSUSTAINABLE in their current form.
> 
> So.  If these entitlements and welfare programs were actually of any REAL importance to them, why the hell would they vote for a guy who has SAT ON HIS ASS for the last three and a half years without ONE competent idea about what we're gonna do about it?
> 
> There's no budget.
> There's no reform of entitlements, or even any _efforts_ at reform of entitlements.
> They've given us a whole new LARGER entitlement that costs three times what they said it would.
> And we're approaching 16 TRILLION in debt, which as I've pointed out repeatedly, will cost us a cool trillion in CASH annually by the end of the decade on our current path.
> 
> Face it libs, your guy is a disaster.  And here we are, at the brink of another recession and at a time when consumer confidence is shot.... and what's he doing?  He's out mind-fucking small business people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.
> 
> Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> "Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.'  O'Neill was speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
Click to expand...


Why is it that you people persist in trying to blame previous administrations for what's going on today, right now? 
You know, it's not working and nobody is fooled.   People aren't buying that Obama isn't culpable in the economic malaise we're seeing currently.  A poll out this morning from The Hill reflects an  _'it's the policies, stupid'_ belief that is absolutely correct.
The Hill Poll: Majority of voters blame president for bad economy - TheHill.com

It's not partisan cherry-picking to understand why Reagan was able to work Keynes but Obama is not.  There are common sense REASONS why Reagan was successful but Obama has failed.  It does no good to try to _stimulate_ growth with an influx of money if your policies are poised to stifle any growth that might occur.  Reagan exuded American optimism and his policies on taxes and regulations were likewise designed to create optimism in the business climate.  Obama is just the opposite.  He stood back and allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to treat our treasury like a Democrat candy store and then attached himself firmly to policies across the board which make the business environment less stable, all the while yammering on about _"shared sacrifice"_.  Higher taxes, more regulation, Obamacare, Card Check, Cap-n-Tax... all these things poison the well, and that's when he's not straight up demonizing Wall Street.

You wanna know when Obama sealed his fate with the American people?... it was the day he signed Porkulus, just three weeks in.  IF he had sent back that bill and told Nancy Pelosi not to bring him another such partisan piece of crap, he'd have kept the true mandate given him by the people.  Barack Obama promised a _post-partisan_, _post-racial_, _"new way of doing business in Washington"_.  He was sent there to clean up corruption and cronyism, not to give us a gargantuan new healthcare entitlement.  If people will bother themselves to remember, the only real difference between his platform and Hillary Clinton's was that he was against a healthcare mandate.

But he never understood the TRUE mandate of the people.  And that's because his high-blown rhetoric on the trail was just that... rhetoric; just crap one says to get elected before falling back on the socialist ideology he actually believes in.  You can't be a _leader_ if you aren't a man of your word.  You can't set a new tone of bipartisanship and healing in Washington if your attitude is _"I won"_.  Of course, those of us who were paying close attention already knew that he would fail, that he was lying about who he was.  But average voters who don't follow politics daily were quite taken in, because underneath it all, as a people, what we really want most is for  somebody to "drain the swamp".  Instead, Obama crowned himself Alligator King, and he's going to pay for that in November.

I know I pointed this out earlier, but once again... George Bush left office with an approval rating on only 29%-30%.  You're not even carrying your own party with numbers that low.  So, no... we didn't like the fact that he spent too much and grew government by too much, even though we liked him as a person.  He was who he said he was.  He didn't try to fool us into believing he was someone else.

So, your supposition that their was no "angst and concern" about Republicans expanding government and spending taxpayer money has no basis in fact.  You appear to be forgetting that Republicans were reprimanded for their misdeeds as late as 2006, when we stood aside and let them take their medicine at the polls.  Unlike Democrats, they don't receive slavish devotion for everything they do.  Conservatives don't roll like that, and while we might make a "lesser of two evils" vote, when we're LIED to, we see evil.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Barack Obama has doubled down on every behavior Bush received criticism for on the left.  Spending, making war, abrogating freedom... and his devoted followers make excuse after excuse.  Where's your "angst and concern"?  This guy is more George Bush than George himself was.


----------



## The T

Full-Auto said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone think that the biggest strongest economy was never going to recover? But let us remember what was said when Obama and company started spending money we didn't have, it would not help it would hurt. So what did we get, the longest weakest recovery in history and it looks like we may go back into a recession. So the fact is that what Obama did is not working the evidence needed....the debt put on our grandchildren to avoid the pain now. Sad what we have done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We did receive some good news today...Sort off.
> 
> The market tanked 200 points based upon European fears. The Euro is now at a two year low against the dollar. Taking some of the sting out of dem created inflation.
> 
> No worries though this will probably prompt democrats to print more money to give away.
Click to expand...

 
How long before QE III is announced?


----------



## Uncensored2008

clevergirl said:


> We all knew in our hearts anything this revolutionary couldn't have been built by a government bureaucracy.
> 
> 
> Gordon Crovitz: *Who Really Invented the Internet?*
> 
> Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war.
> 
> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."
> 
> Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? - WSJ.com



You know, I once had the pleasure of having lunch with Bob Metcalfe. He was the keynote at a technology seminar and I ended up at his table during the lunch service. Fascinating man and utterly brilliant. 

This is a long way of saying that while the Internet could not exist without Metcalfe's ethernet, the Internet is not ethernet alone. Darpa had a great deal to do with the development of the Internet, it was they who funded Cerf and Bob Kahn. TCP/IP is pretty important for packet switching without physical circuits. 

The reality is that the Internet was inevitable. While government funding had a lot to do with the infrastructure we all are using now, without it there was a revolution going on with BBS operators using relay chat and doors to route messages and email nation wide years before government could do the same.

Silicone Valley is where it is because that's where PARC was. PARC is the most important technological research facility in history. Everything from the mouse, to the GUI, to CD's and DVD's are the result of Xerox research.


----------



## Foxfyre

Full-Auto said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone think that the biggest strongest economy was never going to recover?  But let us remember what was said when Obama and company started spending money we didn't have, it would not help it would hurt.  So what did we get, the longest weakest recovery in history and it looks like we may go back into a recession.  So the fact is that what Obama did is not working the evidence needed....the debt put on our grandchildren to avoid the pain now.  Sad what we have done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We did receive some good news today...Sort off.
> 
> The market tanked 200 points based upon European fears.  The Euro is now at a two year low against the dollar.  Taking some of the sting out of dem created inflation.
> 
> No worries though this will probably prompt democrats to print more money to give away.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we've been watching the market all morning.  The Dow down almost 250 at one point but has recovered about half of that the last time I looked.

Isn't it funny how the President wants to take credit for the accomplishments of private enterprise, but doesn't want the government to take any credit for:
1.  The most lackluster market since the great depression.  (As of Saturday morning, the Dow was up only 5% this year.  That is utterly pathetic.)
2.  Runaway inflation which the government denies is occuring, but which is painfully obvious to those of us buying groceries every week.
3.  Continued weak private sector job growth with hundreds of thousands of new unemployment claims filed every week and most economists now suspecting the government is also fudging the unemployment percentage.
4.  Flat and declining wages with more people below the poverty line every week.
5.  More and more people going under water on their mortgages as home values continue to decline and banks still in trouble as millions more foreclosures are likely to happen.

So how about that Mr. President?   All that didn't happen all by itself.  If you are so convinced that I didn't build my business, and you want government to take all the credit for it, maybe government will also take the credit for an economy so bad that we closed the same business last year?


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I realize that the whole off-topic discussion regarding Medicare and Social Security is purely a deflection to take our minds of the  fact that Barack Obama has no more idea how business works in this country than your average 2nd grader, what our resident lefties have failed to note is..... that all those programs are UNSUSTAINABLE in their current form.
> 
> So.  If these entitlements and welfare programs were actually of any REAL importance to them, why the hell would they vote for a guy who has SAT ON HIS ASS for the last three and a half years without ONE competent idea about what we're gonna do about it?
> 
> There's no budget.
> There's no reform of entitlements, or even any _efforts_ at reform of entitlements.
> They've given us a whole new LARGER entitlement that costs three times what they said it would.
> And we're approaching 16 TRILLION in debt, which as I've pointed out repeatedly, will cost us a cool trillion in CASH annually by the end of the decade on our current path.
> 
> Face it libs, your guy is a disaster.  And here we are, at the brink of another recession and at a time when consumer confidence is shot.... and what's he doing?  He's out mind-fucking small business people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.
> 
> Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> "Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.'  O'Neill was speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you people persist in trying to blame previous administrations for what's going on today, right now?
> You know, it's not working and nobody is fooled.   People aren't buying that Obama isn't culpable in the economic malaise we're seeing currently.  A poll out this morning from The Hill reflects an  _'it's the policies, stupid'_ belief that is absolutely correct.
> The Hill Poll: Majority of voters blame president for bad economy - TheHill.com
> 
> It's not partisan cherry-picking to understand why Reagan was able to work Keynes but Obama is not.  There are common sense REASONS why Reagan was successful but Obama has failed.  It does no good to try to _stimulate_ growth with an influx of money if your policies are poised to stifle any growth that might occur.  Reagan exuded American optimism and his policies on taxes and regulations were likewise designed to create optimism in the business climate.  Obama is just the opposite.  He stood back and allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to treat our treasury like a Democrat candy store and then attached himself firmly to policies across the board which make the business environment less stable, all the while yammering on about _"shared sacrifice"_.  Higher taxes, more regulation, Obamacare, Card Check, Cap-n-Tax... all these things poison the well, and that's when he's not straight up demonizing Wall Street.
> 
> You wanna know when Obama sealed his fate with the American people?... it was the day he signed Porkulus, just three weeks in.  IF he had sent back that bill and told Nancy Pelosi not to bring him another such partisan piece of crap, he'd have kept the true mandate given him by the people.  Barack Obama promised a _post-partisan_, _post-racial_, _"new way of doing business in Washington"_.  He was sent there to clean up corruption and cronyism, not to give us a gargantuan new healthcare entitlement.  If people will bother themselves to remember, the only real difference between his platform and Hillary Clinton's was that he was against a healthcare mandate.
> 
> But he never understood the TRUE mandate of the people.  And that's because his high-blown rhetoric on the trail was just that... rhetoric; just crap one says to get elected before falling back on the socialist ideology he actually believes in.  You can't be a _leader_ if you aren't a man of your word.  You can't set a new tone of bipartisanship and healing in Washington if your attitude is _"I won"_.  Of course, those of us who were paying close attention already knew that he would fail, that he was lying about who he was.  But average voters who don't follow politics daily were quite taken in, because underneath it all, as a people, what we really want most is for  somebody to "drain the swamp".  Instead, Obama crowned himself Alligator King, and he's going to pay for that in November.
> 
> I know I pointed this out earlier, but once again... George Bush left office with an approval rating on only 29%-30%.  You're not even carrying your own party with numbers that low.  So, no... we didn't like the fact that he spent too much and grew government by too much, even though we liked him as a person.  He was who he said he was.  He didn't try to fool us into believing he was someone else.
> 
> So, your supposition that their was no "angst and concern" about Republicans expanding government and spending taxpayer money has no basis in fact.  You appear to be forgetting that Republicans were reprimanded for their misdeeds as late as 2006, when we stood aside and let them take their medicine at the polls.  Unlike Democrats, they don't receive slavish devotion for everything they do.  Conservatives don't roll like that, and while we might make a "lesser of two evils" vote, when we're LIED to, we see evil.
> 
> Meanwhile back at the ranch, Barack Obama has doubled down on every behavior Bush received criticism for on the left.  Spending, making war, abrogating freedom... and his devoted followers make excuse after excuse.  Where's your "angst and concern"?  This guy is more George Bush than George himself was.
Click to expand...


See, you folks are STILL defending Bush and Reagan...thank you for proving my points.


----------



## Murf76

Bfgrn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.
> 
> Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> "Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.'  O'Neill was speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you people persist in trying to blame previous administrations for what's going on today, right now?
> You know, it's not working and nobody is fooled.   People aren't buying that Obama isn't culpable in the economic malaise we're seeing currently.  A poll out this morning from The Hill reflects an  _'it's the policies, stupid'_ belief that is absolutely correct.
> The Hill Poll: Majority of voters blame president for bad economy - TheHill.com
> 
> It's not partisan cherry-picking to understand why Reagan was able to work Keynes but Obama is not.  There are common sense REASONS why Reagan was successful but Obama has failed.  It does no good to try to _stimulate_ growth with an influx of money if your policies are poised to stifle any growth that might occur.  Reagan exuded American optimism and his policies on taxes and regulations were likewise designed to create optimism in the business climate.  Obama is just the opposite.  He stood back and allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to treat our treasury like a Democrat candy store and then attached himself firmly to policies across the board which make the business environment less stable, all the while yammering on about _"shared sacrifice"_.  Higher taxes, more regulation, Obamacare, Card Check, Cap-n-Tax... all these things poison the well, and that's when he's not straight up demonizing Wall Street.
> 
> You wanna know when Obama sealed his fate with the American people?... it was the day he signed Porkulus, just three weeks in.  IF he had sent back that bill and told Nancy Pelosi not to bring him another such partisan piece of crap, he'd have kept the true mandate given him by the people.  Barack Obama promised a _post-partisan_, _post-racial_, _"new way of doing business in Washington"_.  He was sent there to clean up corruption and cronyism, not to give us a gargantuan new healthcare entitlement.  If people will bother themselves to remember, the only real difference between his platform and Hillary Clinton's was that he was against a healthcare mandate.
> 
> But he never understood the TRUE mandate of the people.  And that's because his high-blown rhetoric on the trail was just that... rhetoric; just crap one says to get elected before falling back on the socialist ideology he actually believes in.  You can't be a _leader_ if you aren't a man of your word.  You can't set a new tone of bipartisanship and healing in Washington if your attitude is _"I won"_.  Of course, those of us who were paying close attention already knew that he would fail, that he was lying about who he was.  But average voters who don't follow politics daily were quite taken in, because underneath it all, as a people, what we really want most is for  somebody to "drain the swamp".  Instead, Obama crowned himself Alligator King, and he's going to pay for that in November.
> 
> I know I pointed this out earlier, but once again... George Bush left office with an approval rating on only 29%-30%.  You're not even carrying your own party with numbers that low.  So, no... we didn't like the fact that he spent too much and grew government by too much, even though we liked him as a person.  He was who he said he was.  He didn't try to fool us into believing he was someone else.
> 
> So, your supposition that their was no "angst and concern" about Republicans expanding government and spending taxpayer money has no basis in fact.  You appear to be forgetting that Republicans were reprimanded for their misdeeds as late as 2006, when we stood aside and let them take their medicine at the polls.  Unlike Democrats, they don't receive slavish devotion for everything they do.  Conservatives don't roll like that, and while we might make a "lesser of two evils" vote, when we're LIED to, we see evil.
> 
> Meanwhile back at the ranch, Barack Obama has doubled down on every behavior Bush received criticism for on the left.  Spending, making war, abrogating freedom... and his devoted followers make excuse after excuse.  Where's your "angst and concern"?  This guy is more George Bush than George himself was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you folks are STILL defending Bush and Reagan...thank you for proving my points.
Click to expand...


Did you have one?  The only "point" you had as far as I could tell is that you're a true partisan who can't bring himself to recognize the faults of his candidate.  If you had a problem with George W. Bush... you _ought_ to be having a HUGE problem with Barack Obama.  If you have a problem with Iraq, at least Bush had Congressional approval (nearly unanimous come to that) and had worked through the UN for YEARS before he went in.  He didn't just strike out unilaterally the way we saw Obama do in Libya.

It's simply not credible that the left could excoriate Bush and then embrace Obama, ignoring that Obama has doubled down on everything they claimed to hated in his predecessor.


----------



## Full-Auto

The T said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone think that the biggest strongest economy was never going to recover? But let us remember what was said when Obama and company started spending money we didn't have, it would not help it would hurt. So what did we get, the longest weakest recovery in history and it looks like we may go back into a recession. So the fact is that what Obama did is not working the evidence needed....the debt put on our grandchildren to avoid the pain now. Sad what we have done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We did receive some good news today...Sort off.
> 
> The market tanked 200 points based upon European fears. The Euro is now at a two year low against the dollar. Taking some of the sting out of dem created inflation.
> 
> No worries though this will probably prompt democrats to print more money to give away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long before QE III is announced?
Click to expand...


We cant let our european allies suffer against the value of the dollar. Expect it soon.


----------



## The T

Full-Auto said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> We did receive some good news today...Sort off.
> 
> The market tanked 200 points based upon European fears. The Euro is now at a two year low against the dollar. Taking some of the sting out of dem created inflation.
> 
> No worries though this will probably prompt democrats to print more money to give away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long before QE III is announced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We cant let our european allies suffer against the value of the dollar. Expect it soon.
Click to expand...

 
They know that if the EU falls? WE are in that line of dominoes.


----------



## amrchaos

(Sarcasm)

You right wingers are driving me crazy.  OK--OK, Obama did not turn the economy around ok!!  

But remember--We blame Bush!!  Why you say?

Because if it was not for Bush, we would not have Obama!  Nahhhh!!


----------



## Full-Auto

amrchaos said:


> (Sarcasm)
> 
> You right wingers are driving me crazy.  OK--OK, Obama did not turn the economy around ok!!
> 
> But remember--We blame Bush!!  Why you say?
> 
> Because if it was not for Bush, we would not have Obama!  Nahhhh!!



If democrats hadnt nominated Kerry we wouldnt have had Bush a second term.


This is a fun game.  Your serve..........


----------



## edthecynic

clevergirl said:


> We all knew in our hearts anything this revolutionary couldn't have been built by a government bureaucracy.
> 
> 
> Gordon Crovitz: *Who Really Invented the Internet?*
> 
> Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war.
> 
> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."
> 
> Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? - WSJ.com


WSJ 
Just another Half Truth/Whole Lie from the FOX Street Journal!

Those dippy Hippies in the Free Speech Movement had more to do with the creation of the internet than Xerox!! Anyone who talks about the creation of the internet and doesn't include Bill Joy is just plain lying to you. It was Bill Joy who released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution) Without BSD UNIX there would still be no internet. And Joy, a hippie from UC Berkley, released BSD UNIX to the world for free!!!!!!! And Cerf and Joy acknowlege Gore for getting the government funding needed for the internet.

OLD-COMPUTERS.COM : HISTORY / detailed info

In March 1978, Bill Joy, who studied at the University of California at Berkeley, released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution)

The history of UNIX starts back in 1969, when Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and others started working on a Digital Equipment PDP-7 computer at Bell Labs. The first edition was launched in 1971 and was mainly used for text processing. It had a kernel, an assembler for the DEC PDP-11/20, a file system and some vital tools, including the 'ed' (editor for mortals) text editor written by Bill Joy.

Two years later, the Fourth Edition was totally rewritten in C language with multi-platform support in mind, allowing it to be used on a wide range of computers. In 1975, the Sixth Version, widely known as 'Version 6' was the first UNIX version really available outside the Bell Labs. The first BSD version was derived from this V6.

The second BSD version was launched a few months later with the full kernel source codes. This version became the backbone of the Internet and introduced the "open source" concept.
From this time, the various flavours of UNIX were divided in two different families, the BSD based types and those derived from the SYSTEM V.
The Berkeley version of UNIX became the standard in education and research and was notable for introducing using TCP/IP to UNIX (later* Bill Joy will be nicknamed the "Edison of the Internet"*). BSD was widely distributed in source form so that others could learn from it and improve it.

After having been involved in the BSD project, Bill Joy co-founded Sun Microsystems in 1982 and led technical strategy of the company. He designed Sun's Network File System (NFS), parts of the SPARC microprocessor architecture as well as basic pipeline used in all of Sun's SPARC microprocessors.
Later, he was the co-author of the specification for the Java programming language.
In 1998, Bill was appointed as Chief Scientist of the company.


----------



## amrchaos

Full-Auto said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Sarcasm)
> 
> You right wingers are driving me crazy.  OK--OK, Obama did not turn the economy around ok!!
> 
> But remember--We blame Bush!!  Why you say?
> 
> Because if it was not for Bush, we would not have Obama!  Nahhhh!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If democrats hadnt nominated Kerry we wouldnt have had Bush a second term.
> 
> 
> This is a fun game.  Your serve..........
Click to expand...


If Jeb did not steal florida, we would have had Al Gore!!

Oh wait--Let me do that again.

If Republicans did not force term limits on the president, we would have Clinton a third term!!


----------



## OODA_Loop

Not government funds, tax dollars funded the internets.


----------



## amrchaos

OODA_Loop said:


> Not government funds, tax dollars funded the internets.



The internet was really part of a military research and technology project.

Yep, the military kick ass in every field, huh?


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> Those dippy Hippies in the Free Speech Movement had more to do with the creation of the internet than Xerox!! Anyone who talks about the creation of the internet and doesn't include Bill Joy is just plain lying to you. It was Bill Joy who released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution) Without BSD UNIX there would still be no internet. And Joy, a hippie from UC Berkley, released BSD UNIX to the world for free!!!!!!! And Cerf and Joy acknowlege Gore for getting the government funding needed for the internet.




Ed, I know that you're a partisan hack with zero integrity, still, this is a very odd position.

BSD may be wonderful (I find it vastly inferior to Linux) but the foundation of the internet? Are you serious?



> In March 1978, Bill Joy, who studied at the University of California at Berkeley, released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution)
> 
> The history of UNIX starts back in 1969, when Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and others started working on a Digital Equipment PDP-7 computer at Bell Labs. The first edition was launched in 1971 and was mainly used for text processing. It had a kernel, an assembler for the DEC PDP-11/20, a file system and some vital tools, including the 'ed' (editor for mortals) text editor written by Bill Joy.



All very lovely - with nothing to do with the Internet.

Using TCP/IP was not particularly innovative - CREATING NCP, then TCP, was, but not using it. Everyone did that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

amrchaos said:


> The internet was really part of a military research and technology project.
> 
> Yep, the military kick ass in every field, huh?



DARPA funded research, but most of the work was done at Stanford, Berkley, Santa Monica City College (J.C. Licklider), UCLA, and UCSB.

The military did virtually none of the research and very little of the development. The contribution of ARPA and DARPA was that of funding.

Fun fact, Pacific Bell (AT&T) provided more funding in 1968 for ARPA than the defense department, one of the main reasons that the "D" was dropped was the partnership of telcos in the whole affair.


----------



## edthecynic

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those dippy Hippies in the Free Speech Movement had more to do with the creation of the internet than Xerox!! Anyone who talks about the creation of the internet and doesn't include Bill Joy is just plain lying to you. It was Bill Joy who released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as* BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution) *Without* BSD UNIX* there would still be no internet. And Joy, a hippie from UC Berkley, released* BSD UNIX* to the world for free!!!!!!! And Cerf and Joy acknowlege Gore for getting the government funding needed for the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed, I know that you're a partisan hack with zero integrity, still, this is a very odd position.
> 
> BSD may be wonderful (I find it vastly inferior to Linux) but the foundation of the internet? Are you serious?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In March 1978, Bill Joy, who studied at the University of California at Berkeley, released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as *BSD UNIX*. (Berkeley Software Distribution)
> 
> The history of UNIX starts back in 1969, when Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and others started working on a Digital Equipment PDP-7 computer at Bell Labs. The first edition was launched in 1971 and was mainly used for text processing. It had a kernel, an assembler for the DEC PDP-11/20, a file system and some vital tools, including the 'ed' (editor for mortals) text editor written by Bill Joy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All very lovely - with nothing to do with the Internet.
> 
> Using TCP/IP was not particularly innovative - CREATING NCP, then TCP, was, but not using it. Everyone did that.
Click to expand...

Notice how CON$ take a tangent, TCP/IP, to distract from the main subject of the post, BSD UNIX.

And Linux is based on BSD UNIX!!!!! No BSD UNIX, no Linux.


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> Notice how CON$ take a tangent, TCP/IP, to distract from the main subject of the post, BSD UNIX.



Ed, you're a hack and a troll, but this has nothing to do with right or left, this is technology you drooling moron.

Networking technologies interconnect various nodes, be they other networks, routers, switches, etc. One of the marvelous and innovative aspects of TCP/IP and Ethernet is both are agnostic in regard to OS. The network packets are not tied to proprietary stack as was the case with Big Blue and the 390 networks that banks and government used. The beauty of the system was the a Unix box could talk to OS32 which could talk to an Apple micro.  



> And Linux is based on BSD UNIX!!!!! No BSD UNIX, no Linux.



No moron, it is not. Torvalds wrote Linux as a Unix like operating system that could be ported to many different devices, including a Vic-20. It is not BSD based - as 3 lawsuits have proven. 

Linux is a superior OS to FreeBSD and it's bastard child, OSX. Much of the reason it's superior is that it is not constrained to Unix convention.


----------



## Foxfyre

OODA_Loop said:


> Not government funds, tax dollars funded the internets.



Yup.  And as previously posted, it was initially the intention of the federal government that ONLY the government would have it and, for at least a brief while,  it was illegal for any use other than government use.   So much for Obama's grand proclamation that government research is to make it possible for us to build our businesses that we apparently didn't build.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?


thought so


----------



## Full-Auto

ConzHateUSA said:


> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so



How does the payback feel bitch?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Full-Auto said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the payback feel bitch?
Click to expand...


payback of what, you lied, you always lie, what is the payback?


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so


 
He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?

s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.


----------



## Full-Auto

ConzHateUSA said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the payback feel bitch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> payback of what, you lied, you always lie, what is the payback?
Click to expand...


Name one issue democrats have been honest about.  The problem is you cant..........


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Full-Auto said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the payback feel bitch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> payback of what, you lied, you always lie, what is the payback?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one issue democrats have been honest about.  The problem is you cant..........
Click to expand...


with the level of brain damage you have, son, you might want to seriously check into a brain scan

I am not kidding, putting aside the obvious problem with both parties, that you support the republiklans and arent a rich person, means by definition you are a complete moron and racist 

sorry, but those are the simple facts

dont make me show you what the rest of the planet thinks of you


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.
Click to expand...


Yup.  Here's the WHOLE context.  And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q]Obama: If you&#39;ve been successful you didn&#39;t get there on your own - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Here's the WHOLE context. And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q"]Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

 
Indeed. What Obama did was take off another mask. He's _telling us who he is and what he belives._ Government...Control.

No other way to interpret it.


----------



## Full-Auto

ConzHateUSA said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> payback of what, you lied, you always lie, what is the payback?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one issue democrats have been honest about.  The problem is you cant..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> with the level of brain damage you have, son, you might want to seriously check into a brain scan
> 
> I am not kidding, putting aside the obvious problem with both parties, that you support the republiklans and arent a rich person, means by definition you are a complete moron and racist
> 
> sorry, but those are the simple facts
> 
> dont make me show you what the rest of the planet thinks of you
Click to expand...


You are getting dumber by the post...........


Well the board doesnt seem to have enough parrots, you will do well.


----------



## The T

Full-Auto said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one issue democrats have been honest about. The problem is you cant..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with the level of brain damage you have, son, you might want to seriously check into a brain scan
> 
> I am not kidding, putting aside the obvious problem with both parties, that you support the republiklans and arent a rich person, means by definition you are a complete moron and racist
> 
> sorry, but those are the simple facts
> 
> dont make me show you what the rest of the planet thinks of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are getting dumber by the post...........
> 
> 
> Well the board doesnt seem to have enough parrots, you will do well.
Click to expand...

 
Some of them have left. Oddly the newer ones that showed up the same time as him oddly have disappeared. Puppets?


----------



## kaz

ConzHateUSA said:


> look, i know, we know you are dumb racists who hate Obama only because he is Black, we have known that since the day you said you wanted your country back
> 
> but do you not see what is happening when only billionaires can fund politicians?  tell me for krist sake you get the problem with that, at least that
> 
> 
> *nothing?  thought so...god help us*



So you can't think of a single reason anyone would oppose the Obama presidency other then "racism?"  Seriously?


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.



He's a troll, he's nothing but a troll.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> with the level of brain damage you have, son, you might want to seriously check into a brain scan
> 
> I am not kidding, putting aside the obvious problem with both parties, that you support the republiklans and arent a rich person, means by definition you are a complete moron and racist
> 
> sorry, but those are the simple facts
> 
> dont make me show you what the rest of the planet thinks of you



Fuck off troll.


----------



## Uncensored2008

kaz said:


> So you can't think of a single reason anyone would oppose the Obama presidency other then "racism?"  Seriously?



Don't feed the troll.


----------



## deaddogseye

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Here's the WHOLE context.  And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q]Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...



 even if you accept what he says he meant he still has a problem and its this -- ok who did build it - all that infrastructure? That would be the taxpayer (not really the govt, but the taxpayer) and who pays most of the taxes (and therefore is in the group that paid the most for this stuff?) The very people he wants to tax more - and the people who is tone clearly suggests he feels is getting some sort of unfair enrichment from all of this. 

The big irony that he and the elizabeth Warrens of the world ignore is that if you accept his agrument --ok what about all the people who pay no income taxes despite having income (and who are largely supporters of the Democrats?). They get the benefit of the roads etc (they dont use them as effectively but they get the benefit ) but they are paying nothing for them -- not a dime. Thats is ironic and under Obamas argument they are getting the free ride.

But at the end of the day this is just more of what we already know -- the guy has a deep seeded resentment of personal wealth and a hostility to individual success and this is just another manifestation of that. Thats all.

and its also a reminder why none of these problems will EVER be resolved with him in the white house. its good politics for him to be this divisive -- very good -- but he will never be able to get compromise with his approach. Never.


----------



## Foxfyre

Repeating what I just posted on the "Justification by Romney" thread:

The Left won't admit or acknowledge something like this from their annointed one so they twist and dodge and do their damndest to change it into something more acceptable.  And they think if they repeat the (assigned talking point) that our interpretation is a lie--if they repeat that lie often enough--then people will finally give up and accept that as the truth.

They've been doing this now for years.

And when it isn't working for them, they used to derail the discussion by evoking Godwin's Law.  Now they do it by throwing out accusations of racism.

Well I am of the opinion that if we repeat the truth often enough, that eventually it will sink in with all but the most clueless or most brainwashed.

So don't let them derail it this time folks.  The President has shown his true colors and if we don't take full advantage of that, we are all idiots.  Keep posting the video.  Keep telling the truth.  And maybe it will finally get legs as effectively as the liberal lies do.


----------



## The T

deaddogseye said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Here's the WHOLE context. And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q"]Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> even if you accept what he says he meant he still has a problem and its this -- ok who did build it - all that infrastructure? That would be the taxpayer (not really the govt, but the taxpayer) and who pays most of the taxes (and therefore is in the group that paid the most for this stuff?) The very people he wants to tax more - and the people who is tone clearly suggests he feels is getting some sort of unfair enrichment from all of this.
> 
> The big irony that he and the elizabeth Warrens of the world ignore is that if you accept his agrument --ok what about all the people who pay no income taxes despite having income (and who are largely supporters of the Democrats?). They get the benefit of the roads etc (they dont use them as effectively but they get the benefit ) but they are paying nothing for them -- not a dime. Thats is ironic and under Obamas argument they are getting the free ride.
> 
> But at the end of the day this is just more of what we already know -- the guy has a deep seeded resentment of personal wealth and a hostility to individual success and this is just another manifestation of that. Thats all.
> 
> and its also a reminder why none of these problems will EVER be resolved with him in the white house. its good politics for him to be this divisive -- very good -- but he will never be able to get compromise with his approach. Never.
Click to expand...

 
What Obama is against is personal property, and the right of the individual to keep it, as they have worked, and improved, and even created property. That only happens by private individuals persuing thier individual liberty. Obama won't defend it. He is of the belief that all property belongs to Government and only government is the final arbitor of what you are allowed to keep BY the good graces of government.

Property, is the essence of Liberty. Obama...is the antithesis. He's for redistribution.

Obama would do well to read John Locke.

So goes property? So goes Liberty. And it's under assault by government.


----------



## saveliberty

You didn't get there on your own.  That leads to we won't let you stay there either.


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so



Not out of context at all.

Is this one your "mature" posts ?


----------



## Jarhead

One of the keys to success for a new business owner is going into the venture with an attitude of "the cup is half full".

Sadly, it seems that Obama wants us all to believe that if your cup is half full, then you should dole out a substantial amount of it to those that want it.

Which means that a new business owner will enter the new venture with a cup that is only 1/3 full.

And that person will fail.

Obamanomics 101.


----------



## The T

saveliberty said:


> You didn't get there on your own. That leads to we won't let you stay there either.


 
Exactly what wealth redistribution with Obama's Class warfare/envy rhetoric.

He told us who he was...the ones here defending what he said are usually recipients of ill-gotten gains.


----------



## Jarhead

ConzHateUSA said:


> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so



when Obama said it was taken out of context he was counting on the numerous amount of morons that are too lazy to listen and watch the video who will, instead say "yeah, they took it ouyt of context."

Watch the video man. It was not taken out of context....not AT ALL.

He sees you as a lazy moron who will believe anything he says.

Need to ask you...

What is it like to adamantly support a man who views you as a lazy moron?


----------



## Foxfyre

deaddogseye said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Here's the WHOLE context.  And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q]Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> even if you accept what he says he meant he still has a problem and its this -- ok who did build it - all that infrastructure? That would be the taxpayer (not really the govt, but the taxpayer) and who pays most of the taxes (and therefore is in the group that paid the most for this stuff?) The very people he wants to tax more - and the people who is tone clearly suggests he feels is getting some sort of unfair enrichment from all of this.
> 
> The big irony that he and the elizabeth Warrens of the world ignore is that if you accept his agrument --ok what about all the people who pay no income taxes despite having income (and who are largely supporters of the Democrats?). They get the benefit of the roads etc (they dont use them as effectively but they get the benefit ) but they are paying nothing for them -- not a dime. Thats is ironic and under Obamas argument they are getting the free ride.
> 
> But at the end of the day this is just more of what we already know -- the guy has a deep seeded resentment of personal wealth and a hostility to individual success and this is just another manifestation of that. Thats all.
> 
> and its also a reminder why none of these problems will EVER be resolved with him in the white house. its good politics for him to be this divisive -- very good -- but he will never be able to get compromise with his approach. Never.
Click to expand...


I think you've reintroduced some critical points.  Why are the producers, the job creators, those who have become wealthy via productivity--those who are already paying  70% to 90% of all the taxes paid at the federal level--more obligated to pay more than are those who benefit from the same infrastructure but are paying little or nothing in taxes?  That would include roughly 50% of all Americans including those who are well above the poverty line but who still have enough exemptions and tax credits so they don't pay federal income taxes.

If we're all in this together, and if the President's opinion is valid that those who benefit should be who pay more, shouldn't everybody with an income be obligated to pay a little more?

A gentle correction to your last point.  The President does seem to have a "deep seeded resentment of personal wealth and a hostility to individual success", but I would amend that to be only pesronal wealth and a hostility to individual success that is not accomplished through the 'system'.  In other words it is okay for those in government to prosper and become insanely wealthy, but not as okay for those on the outside.   That has been the mentality of all those who adopted Marxism in the past and present.

The President also cites the agreement of wealthy Americans who share his stated point of view.  People like Warren Buffet.  But he never gets around to admitting that Buffet shelters most of his income and that he is currently in heavy negotiations with the federal government to reduce the taxes that the IRS says he owes on his business.  Or that if Buffet's vaunted secretary made her income the same way he makes his, she would pay at the same rate he does.

Etc.  Etc. Etc.

There are all sorts of ways to perpetuate a lie and the President is a master of them. 

The rest of us have to just keep hammering home the truth.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Full-Auto said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one issue democrats have been honest about.  The problem is you cant..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with the level of brain damage you have, son, you might want to seriously check into a brain scan
> 
> I am not kidding, putting aside the obvious problem with both parties, that you support the republiklans and arent a rich person, means by definition you are a complete moron and racist
> 
> sorry, but those are the simple facts
> 
> dont make me show you what the rest of the planet thinks of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are getting dumber by the post...........
> 
> 
> Well the board doesnt seem to have enough parrots, you will do well.
Click to expand...


We needed a certified idiot to take Truthmatters' place...


----------



## saveliberty

Jarhead said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when Obama said it was taken out of context he was counting on the numerous amount of morons that are too lazy to listen and watch the video who will, instead say "yeah, they took it ouyt of context."
> 
> Watch the video man. It was not taken out of context....not AT ALL.
> 
> He sees you as a lazy moron who will believe anything he says.
> 
> Need to ask you...
> 
> What is it like to adamantly support a man who views you as a lazy moron?
Click to expand...


To be fair, I consider ConzHateUSA to be a lazy moron...

...so its completely understandable why he supports the Entitler in Chief.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> deaddogseye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Here's the WHOLE context. And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even if you accept what he says he meant he still has a problem and its this -- ok who did build it - all that infrastructure? That would be the taxpayer (not really the govt, but the taxpayer) and who pays most of the taxes (and therefore is in the group that paid the most for this stuff?) The very people he wants to tax more - and the people who is tone clearly suggests he feels is getting some sort of unfair enrichment from all of this.
> 
> The big irony that he and the elizabeth Warrens of the world ignore is that if you accept his agrument --ok what about all the people who pay no income taxes despite having income (and who are largely supporters of the Democrats?). They get the benefit of the roads etc (they dont use them as effectively but they get the benefit ) but they are paying nothing for them -- not a dime. Thats is ironic and under Obamas argument they are getting the free ride.
> 
> But at the end of the day this is just more of what we already know -- the guy has a deep seeded resentment of personal wealth and a hostility to individual success and this is just another manifestation of that. Thats all.
> 
> and its also a reminder why none of these problems will EVER be resolved with him in the white house. its good politics for him to be this divisive -- very good -- but he will never be able to get compromise with his approach. Never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you've reintroduced some critical points. Why are the producers, the job creators, those who have become wealthy via productivity--those who are already paying 70% to 90% of all the taxes paid at the federal level--more obligated to pay more than are those who benefit from the same infrastructure but are paying little or nothing in taxes? That would include roughly 50% of all Americans including those who are well above the poverty line but who still have enough exemptions and tax credits so they don't pay federal income taxes.
> 
> If we're all in this together, and if the President's opinion is valid that those who benefit should be who pay more, shouldn't everybody with an income be obligated to pay a little more?
> 
> A gentle correction to your last point. The President does seem to have a "deep seeded resentment of personal wealth and a hostility to individual success", but I would amend that to be only pesronal wealth and a hostility to individual success that is not accomplished through the 'system'. In other words it is okay for those in government to prosper and become insanely wealthy, but not as okay for those on the outside. That has been the mentality of all those who adopted Marxism in the past and present.
> 
> The President also cites the agreement of wealthy Americans who share his stated point of view. People like Warren Buffet. But he never gets around to admitting that Buffet shelters most of his income and that he is currently in heavy negotiations with the federal government to reduce the taxes that the IRS says he owes on his business. Or that if Buffet's vaunted secretary made her income the same way he makes his, she would pay at the same rate he does.
> 
> Etc. Etc. Etc.
> 
> There are all sorts of ways to perpetuate a lie and the President is a master of them.
> 
> The rest of us have to just keep hammering home the truth.
Click to expand...

 
Indeed. I addressed this point too regarding personal property and liberty and the inexorable link made by John Locke.


----------



## saveliberty

Why shouldn't the middle class pay more?  Because it is harder to demonize them, can't claim they accumulated their economic level through stealing or some such lie and only the most rabid liberal could believe it.


----------



## Lakhota

Romney To Olympians: 'You Didn't Get Here Solely On Your Own' | ThinkProgress


----------



## Jarhead

Lakhota said:


> Romney To Olympians: 'You Didn't Get Here Solely On Your Own' | ThinkProgress



yo......mindless...

Watch the video of Obama...he did not just say "you did not get there on your own"

He said "you didnt do that"

Now....did Romney say to the athletes "you didnt do that"?

Nice try....love how the left is now saying..."our guy is no worse a candidate than your guy"

Makes me laugh.


----------



## Foxfyre

The reason we need to keep hammering home the truth is that Obama's Freudian slip has finally given us some honest and useful ammunition to use in driving home the truth.

I don't know whether it was this thread or the "Justification by Romney" thread that Misty mentioned 72% of Americans believe that business owners did do it on their own.  So thanks to her for reminding me to check Rasmussen's site today, and there we find this:



> Monday, July 23, 2012
> 
> Most Americans believe entrepreneurs who start businesses do more to create jobs and economic growth than big businesses or government. They also believe overwhelmingly that small business owners work harder than other Americans and are primarily responsible for the success or failure of their businesses.
> 
> Seventy-two percent (72%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe that people who start small businesses are primarily responsible for their success or failure. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 13% disagree. (To see survey question . . . .)
> 72% Believe Small Business Owners Primarily Responsible for Their Own Success - Rasmussen Reports



So most of the country has it right and if we aren't able to utilize that to get some critical and necessary changes made come November, we're all hopeless.


----------



## saveliberty

Lakhota said:


> Romney To Olympians: 'You Didn't Get Here Solely On Your Own' | ThinkProgress



Why don't you spam this around to a few more threads, where it is unrelated as well.


----------



## The T

saveliberty said:


> Why shouldn't the middle class pay more? Because it is harder to demonize them, can't claim they accumulated their economic level through stealing or some such lie and only the most rabid liberal could believe it.


 
What i want to know is that the left champions the 'middle class', but thier progressive policies are killing it to get them on the dole...


----------



## saveliberty

The left is too gulible and can't comprehend their master's intent.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> I don't know whether it was this thread or the "Justification by Romney" thread that Misty mentioned 72% of Americans believe that business owners did do it on their own



The other 28% are stupid.  I can tell you as a business owner that government does nothing but try to make me fail.  They could give a crap if I shut down and fired every employee as long as they squeezed every drop of blood from me they can get.  Some examples:

1)  I bought the assets of a company who didn't pay their business property taxes.  My business is in Durham, NC.  Even though I gave them the contact information of the owner who is in Durham, they said they weren't going to bother to contact him.  If I didn't pay it for him, they would padlock my doors.

2)  I had 3 days of vacation last year other then between Xmas and New Years.  I spent the first half day of one of them on the phone with the IRS disputing a $400 fine.  It was in their own records they were wrong.  They removed the fine, but I still lost a half day vacation.

3) I can't change the sign in front of my building because Durham changed the signage rules and we are grandfathered in under the old ones.  But we can't change the sign without submitting a plan to the town and getting it approved.  The plan has to be for the whole property, which means I'd have to fund the whole property owned by by landlord.  My landlord doesn't want to do it.  The town gives me no out.

4)  I made a mistake in March submitting a withholding payment to North Carolina.  March, 2012.  It was my mistake, I expect to pay something.  So what did North Carolina think was reasonable for a payment three months late?  Twenty five percent.

5)  My employee is being garnished for not paying her property tax.  My choice was to spend several hours learning about how to handle and account for it or pay my accountant to do it.  And if I don't do it and do it right, they informed me that they'll just take the money from me. 

6)  I spent an hour on the phone with the IRS because they put a tax payment in the wrong quarter.  So let me ask you, if there is an overpayment in one quarter of $5K and an underpayment in the next quarter of exactly the same amount, should they be able to figure it out on their own?

7)  If I hire people and they don't work out, they raise my unemployment taxes across my whole payroll.  So what is the incentive to give anyone a shot?

These are just a few off the top of my head.  I own three corporations and I cringe with every letter from the government.  The message from all three levels is the same.  They could give a crap about me, they could give a crap about jobs, they want to squeeze blood from me and they will use their dictatorial powers to do it.

If the left really cared about jobs, they'd be going after government for trying to destroy them.  Government creates jobs?  Yeah ... you just believe that ... sheep ...


----------



## The T

saveliberty said:


> The left is too gulible and can't comprehend their master's intent.


 
They're guilded and have to be led by the nose BY thier masters. No thought process involved.


----------



## saveliberty

Every shepherd eventually leads the sheep to slaughter.


----------



## Lakhota

Romney 2002 NBC Olympic Video: Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own'


----------



## The T

saveliberty said:


> Every shepherd eventually leads the sheep to slaughter.


 
True...especially when they don't respect the flock and are hungry.


----------



## Uncensored2008

GuyPinestra said:


> We needed a certified idiot to take Truthmatters' place...



I thought that was why Jake Starkey is here?


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> Romney 2002 NBC Olympic Video: Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own'



Ouch!  That must have hurt.  Liberals, don't try logic at home.

Romney was talking about Olympians appreciating the support they got.  Obama is talking about that business owners don't deserve the most credit for what they did.

Seriously, you didn't get that?  You heard some of the same words and just assume it was the same?


----------



## Listening

Lakhota said:


> Romney 2002 NBC Olympic Video: Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own'



Earth To Lakhota.

STFU


----------



## kaz

saveliberty said:


> Every shepherd eventually leads the sheep to slaughter.



True, though liberals don't need much patience with their shepherd Obama.  He's in it for himself from the get go and the liberals are fighting over each other to be the first to jump into the knife.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> The reason we need to keep hammering home the truth is that Obama's Freudian slip has finally given us some honest and useful ammunition to use in driving home the truth.
> 
> I don't know whether it was this thread or the "Justification by Romney" thread that Misty mentioned* 72% of Americans believe that business owners did do it on their own.*  So thanks to her for reminding me to check Rasmussen's site today, and there we find this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monday, July 23, 2012
> 
> Most Americans believe entrepreneurs who start businesses do more to create jobs and economic growth than big businesses or government. They also believe overwhelmingly that small business owners work harder than other Americans and are primarily responsible for the success or failure of their businesses.
> 
> Seventy-two percent (72%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe that people who start small businesses are* primarily *responsible for their success or failure. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 13% disagree. (To see survey question . . . .)
> 72% Believe Small Business Owners Primarily Responsible for Their Own Success - Rasmussen Reports&#8482;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So most of the country has it right and if we aren't able to utilize that to get some critical and necessary changes made come November, we're all hopeless.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of how easily the gullible are manipulated by dishonest pollsters like Ratmuffin. "Primarily" means mostly, but not completely. So 85% of Americans agree with Obama that business is not 100% responsible for their success, they had help!!!

ROMNEY: I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the bank, the investors. There is no question your mom and dad, your school teachers. The people who provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know whether it was this thread or the "Justification by Romney" thread that Misty mentioned 72% of Americans believe that business owners did do it on their own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The other 28% are stupid.  I can tell you as a business owner that government does nothing but try to make me fail.  They could give a crap if I shut down and fired every employee as long as they squeezed every drop of blood from me they can get.  Some examples:
> 
> 1)  I bought the assets of a company who didn't pay their business property taxes.  My business is in Durham, NC.  Even though I gave them the contact information of the owner who is in Durham, they said they weren't going to bother to contact him.  If I didn't pay it for him, they would padlock my doors.
> 
> 2)  I had 3 days of vacation last year other then between Xmas and New Years.  I spent the first half day of one of them on the phone with the IRS disputing a $400 fine.  It was in their own records they were wrong.  They removed the fine, but I still lost a half day vacation.
> 
> 3) I can't change the sign in front of my building because Durham changed the signage rules and we are grandfathered in under the old ones.  But we can't change the sign without submitting a plan to the town and getting it approved.  The plan has to be for the whole property, which means I'd have to fund the whole property owned by by landlord.  My landlord doesn't want to do it.  The town gives me no out.
> 
> 4)  I made a mistake in March submitting a withholding payment to North Carolina.  March, 2012.  It was my mistake, I expect to pay something.  So what did North Carolina think was reasonable for a payment three months late?  Twenty five percent.
> 
> 5)  My employee is being garnished for not paying her property tax.  My choice was to spend several hours learning about how to handle and account for it or pay my accountant to do it.  And if I don't do it and do it right, they informed me that they'll just take the money from me.
> 
> 6)  I spent an hour on the phone with the IRS because they put a tax payment in the wrong quarter.  So let me ask you, if there is an overpayment in one quarter of $5K and an underpayment in the next quarter of exactly the same amount, should they be able to figure it out on their own?
> 
> 7)  If I hire people and they don't work out, they raise my unemployment taxes across my whole payroll.  So what is the incentive to give anyone a shot?
> 
> These are just a few off the top of my head.  I own three corporations and I cringe with every letter from the government.  The message from all three levels is the same.  They could give a crap about me, they could give a crap about jobs, they want to squeeze blood from me and they will use their dictatorial powers to do it.
> 
> If the left really cared about jobs, they'd be going after government for trying to destroy them.  Government creates jobs?  Yeah ... you just believe that ... sheep ...
Click to expand...


Well it was only 12 or 13% I believe who disagreed with it and the rest fell in the "I don't know" category.  But maybe that does make all of them stupid or at least totally out of touch with what goes into a successful business.

So yeah, starting up my business, and being of limited means, I will certainly choose a location with existing infrastructure.  It might be infrastructure that I previously voted to allow bonds to build (and thereby was assessed to my property taxes either directly or indirectly or sometimes the gross receipts (sales) taxes I pay), or it might be infrastructure somebody else built before I got there.    Nevertheless I pay taxes year in and year out to maintain and expand that same infrastructure in addition to that which I helped build, and which is enjoyed by everybody, some who help pay for it and some who don't.

Which again begs the question, why should the buisness owner feel obligated and blessed to have that infrastructure and therefore is more obligated to pay more than anybody else is?

Also, why would I build a business in a location that had no infrastructure that a bunch of other people also need so that I don't have to pay for all of it?  Still they aren't taking the risk to make the investment to start up a business that helps pay for it all with its own taxes as well as provide jobs to other people so they can also pay taxes to help.

This is what the President doesn't seem to understand.  You don't owe more; I don't owe more than anybody else just because we own busineses.  We'll give back much more to the community than those who don't own businesses, but the infrastructure sure as hell wasn't built for our benefit or anybody else's benefit.  It was built for the mutual benefit of everybody.  If that was not the case, it never would have been built.

What runs the economy and what creates and funds the government is the individual business owner doing his own thing to put bread on the table.


----------



## saveliberty

kaz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney 2002 NBC Olympic Video: Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch!  That must have hurt.  Liberals, don't try logic at home.
> 
> Romney was talking about Olympians appreciating the support they got.  Obama is talking about that business owners don't deserve the most credit for what they did.
> 
> Seriously, you didn't get that?  You heard some of the same words and just assume it was the same?
Click to expand...


Doubtful Lakhota even read the source.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> why should the buisness owner feel obligated and blessed to have that infrastructure and therefore is more obligated to pay more than anybody else is?



Like the people who use the infrastructure to get to their jobs you mean?  I agree with that.  As you said, we pay more then anyone else.  And realistically, is it really that impressive that with what we're charged we get roads, bridges and the police?  Providing roads for me to go to work and coming if I get robbed, is what they do all that impressive?  I'm having a hard time seeing that they really enable me all that much.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Which again begs the question, why should the buisness owner feel obligated and blessed to have that infrastructure and therefore is more obligated to pay more than anybody else is?


Which begs the question, what makes you think the business owner pays more than everybody else???? 

Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)

Corporate income tax	$132
Individual income tax	$794
Social Security taxes	$713


----------



## kaz

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which again begs the question, why should the buisness owner feel obligated and blessed to have that infrastructure and therefore is more obligated to pay more than anybody else is?
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question, what makes you think the business owner pays more than everybody else????
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> 
> Corporate income tax	$132
> Individual income tax	$794
> Social Security taxes	$713
Click to expand...


The reference was that we not only pay the corporate income tax but the majority of individual income taxes.  The top 5% of earners pay 60% of Federal taxes, and the top 5% of earners are dominated by business owners.  But that's only if you care about facts and stuff like that, it wouldn't interest you.  It doesn't serve the interest of government, so you'd be cynical about that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> So what about someone on Medicare who lives to the age of 90?



yes!!! You see that because liberal goveernment has usurped health care it costs about 10 times what it ought to cost; to the point of bankrupting the entire nation. 

We need to install a capitalist system where costs would be reduced 90% and people and their familes and insurance companies could afford their own health care.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about someone on Medicare who lives to the age of 90?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes!!! You see that because liberal goveernment has usurped health care it costs about 10 times what it ought to cost; to the point of bankrupting the entire nation.
> 
> We need to install a capitalist system where costs would be reduced 90% and people and their familes and insurance companies could afford their own health care.
Click to expand...


so the problem with health care in america is not enough capitalism?  

dear god


----------



## kaz

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about someone on Medicare who lives to the age of 90?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes!!! You see that because liberal goveernment has usurped health care it costs about 10 times what it ought to cost; to the point of bankrupting the entire nation.
> 
> We need to install a capitalist system where costs would be reduced 90% and people and their familes and insurance companies could afford their own health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so the problem with health care in america is not enough capitalism?
> 
> dear god
Click to expand...


So endlessly increasing government control hasn't solved the problem with healthcare, so the problem is we need MORE government.

You think that's a good argument?  Seriously?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> so the problem with health care in america is not enough capitalism?




yes, if you disagree please say why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the problem with health care in america is not enough capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, if you disagree please say why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.
Click to expand...


edward, your position is so ludicrous, so completely insane, that it cannot be discussed without laughing

a. i am in the business and know more about it than you ever will
b. as i am in the business, it is the profit motive that is ruining it
c. the rest of the planet seems to do fine without the profit motive

d. jesus, could you be any more of a complete idiot  

(now, there needs to be a profit motive in the RX field, to a degree, but there is NO good reason AT ALL for _health insurance_)

oh, and I dont disagree, there is no debate here, i am educating you


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

kaz said:


> So endlessly increasing government control hasn't solved the problem with healthcare, so the problem is we need MORE government.
> 
> You think that's a good argument?  Seriously?




sure!!! When Stalin's first 5 year plan failed he just tired another more aggressive 5 year plan.

Capitalism is never the plan for liberals because they lack the IQ to understand it. For all a liberal knows our current health care system is capitalist. Conhate just proved it!!


----------



## ConzHateUSA

the stupid just gets deeper and deeper, i liked it before Obama was elected and you rabid moronic dumbshits were in the closet


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> as i am in the business, it is the profit motive that is ruining it




America is more profit oriented or capitalist oriented than any other country on earth and has the highest standard of living in human history. Its about 30% higher than Europe which is about to collapse anyway.

So if you idiotically think profit hurts then you must explain why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so and have no business being here.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> as i am in the business, it is the profit motive that is ruining it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is more profit oriented or capitalist oriented than any other country on earth and has the highest standard of living in human history. Its about 30% higher than Europe which is about to collapse anyway.
> 
> So if profit hurts then you must explain why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.
Click to expand...


i thought we were talking about health care, right?

universal health care, give it to the people before the people get so desperate and pissed that they start burning down the whole ballgame

and again, i am not debating you, i am educating you...we know what you think and why, who told you to think it and what fears you live with they can rely on to get you to keep thinking it

I am the teacher, you are the student


----------



## OODA_Loop

edthecynic said:


> Which begs the question, what makes you think the business owner pays more than everybody else????
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> 
> Corporate income tax	$132
> Individual income tax	$794
> Social Security taxes	$713



No shit the group with by far the most contributors pays the most ?


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> the stupid just gets deeper and deeper, i liked it before Obama was elected and you rabid moronic dumbshits were in the closet


 
WE were right upfront Your abject _ignorence_ kept you from seeing it.

The EXIT is that way asshole===>


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> the stupid just gets deeper and deeper, i liked it before Obama was elected and you rabid moronic dumbshits were in the closet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE were right upfront Your abject _ignorence_ kept you from seeing it.
> 
> The EXIT is that way asshole===>
Click to expand...


If you mean racist shitbags like you have always been racist shitbags, probably right

which war did you serve in?


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> the stupid just gets deeper and deeper, i liked it before Obama was elected and you rabid moronic dumbshits were in the closet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE were right upfront Your abject _ignorence_ kept you from seeing it.
> 
> The EXIT is that way asshole===>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you mean racist shitbags like you have always been racist shitbags, probably right
> 
> which war did you serve in?
Click to expand...

 
My Family? Every ONE since DAY ONE of the FOUNDING...


and YOU?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE were right upfront Your abject _ignorence_ kept you from seeing it.
> 
> The EXIT is that way asshole===>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean racist shitbags like you have always been racist shitbags, probably right
> 
> which war did you serve in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Family? Every ONE since DAY ONE of the FOUNDING...
> 
> 
> and YOU?
Click to expand...


oh, your FAMILY, i asked about YOU

we arent allowed to discuss family here, how about YOU


----------



## GuyPinestra

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which again begs the question, why should the buisness owner feel obligated and blessed to have that infrastructure and therefore is more obligated to pay more than anybody else is?
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question, what makes you think the business owner pays more than everybody else????
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> 
> Corporate income tax	$132
> Individual income tax	$794
> Social Security taxes	$713
Click to expand...


The vast majority of business owners pay their income taxes as individuals. Their businesses ALSO pay taxes that OTHER individuals are not saddled with.

Another fail, ED.

Hey, you're getting pretty good at this...


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean racist shitbags like you have always been racist shitbags, probably right
> 
> which war did you serve in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Family? Every ONE since DAY ONE of the FOUNDING...
> 
> 
> and YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh, your FAMILY, i asked about YOU
> 
> we arent allowed to discuss family here, how about YOU
Click to expand...

 
I was in under Carter and Renauldus Magnus. Served in Special OPS.

And ALL YOU need to know s0n.  I don't give details.


----------



## edthecynic

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which again begs the question, why should the buisness owner feel obligated and blessed to have that infrastructure and therefore is more obligated to pay more than anybody else is?
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question, what makes you think the business owner pays more than everybody else????
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> 
> Corporate income tax	$132
> Individual income tax	$794
> Social Security taxes	$713
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reference was that we not only pay the corporate income tax but the majority of individual income taxes.  The top 5% of earners pay 60% of Federal taxes, and *the top 5% of earners are dominated by business owners.*  But that's only if you care about facts and stuff like that, it wouldn't interest you.  It doesn't serve the interest of government, so you'd be cynical about that.
Click to expand...

First of all those "earners" are wage earners and most businessmen do not work for the common wage. In fact CON$ are claiming that 23% of businessmen take no salary. So it is the wage earner that pays the income taxes and the payroll taxes, and the top wage earners are doctors, lawyers, actors and sports players.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Family? Every ONE since DAY ONE of the FOUNDING...
> 
> 
> and YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh, your FAMILY, i asked about YOU
> 
> we arent allowed to discuss family here, how about YOU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was in under Carter and Renauldus Magnus. Served in Special OPS.
> 
> And ALL YOU need to know s0n.  I don't give details.
Click to expand...



what bullshit

jesus, this place is hysterical


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> i thought we were talking about health care, right?



right, you said the profit motive was evil but lack the IQ to say why so have been trying to change the subject and hope  no one would  notice.

Now do you see why we say stupid?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which again begs the question, why should the buisness owner feel obligated and blessed to have that infrastructure and therefore is more obligated to pay more than anybody else is?
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question, what makes you think the business owner pays more than everybody else????
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> 
> Corporate income tax	$132
> Individual income tax	$794
> Social Security taxes	$713
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reference was that we not only pay the corporate income tax but the majority of individual income taxes.  The top 5% of earners pay 60% of Federal taxes, and the top 5% of earners are dominated by business owners.  But that's only if you care about facts and stuff like that, it wouldn't interest you.  It doesn't serve the interest of government, so you'd be cynical about that.
Click to expand...


Most businesses are owned by people in the lower 95%.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought we were talking about health care, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right, you said the profit motive was evil but lack the IQ to say why so have been trying to change the subject and hope  no one would  notice.
> 
> Now do you see why we say stupid?
Click to expand...


i didnt say evil, listen, your brain has ONLY the talkiing points you have been told to puke

i know about this issue, you know nothing

again, not here to debate you, that would be like debating gravity with my 5 yr old grandson


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Most businesses are owned by people in the lower 95%.



BO doesn't care; all he knows is that whoever has money did not earn it on their own. They had help. So, he is standing by to collect money on behalf of all those who helped whether living or dead. What a guy!!


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> the stupid just gets deeper and deeper, i liked it before Obama was elected and you rabid moronic dumbshits were in the closet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE were right upfront Your abject _ignorence_ kept you from seeing it.
> 
> The EXIT is that way asshole===>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you mean racist shitbags like you have always been racist shitbags, probably right
> 
> which war did you serve in?
Click to expand...


Is this your more mature, professional side coming out ?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Listening said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE were right upfront Your abject _ignorence_ kept you from seeing it.
> 
> The EXIT is that way asshole===>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean racist shitbags like you have always been racist shitbags, probably right
> 
> which war did you serve in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this your more mature, professional side coming out ?
Click to expand...


nah, just trying to identify the fake, bullshit, chickenshit chickenhawks, you know the type, like rove and cheney and W and limbaugh, the first to send my son to die in a war but would NEVER for one SECOND fight in one themselves


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> i know about this issue, you know nothing



if so why be so afraid to present your best example? What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know about this issue, you know nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to present your best example? What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character?
Click to expand...


ok, here is my best example

I wear a $13,400 Rolex, I stay at Four Seasons hotels, I drive a BMW and I do almost nothing

now guess what i do for a living, dumbshit


----------



## edthecynic

OohPooPahDoo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question, what makes you think the business owner pays more than everybody else????
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> 
> Corporate income tax	$132
> Individual income tax	$794
> Social Security taxes	$713
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reference was that we not only pay the corporate income tax but the majority of individual income taxes.  *The top 5% of earners pay 60% of Federal taxes*, and the top 5% of earners are dominated by business owners.  But that's only if you care about facts and stuff like that, it wouldn't interest you.  It doesn't serve the interest of government, so you'd be cynical about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Most businesses are owned by people in the lower 95%*.
Click to expand...

Then by your own admission business owners are not paying 60% of federal taxes.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know about this issue, you know nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to present your best example? What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, here is my best example
Click to expand...


dear, we are looking for your best example of knowing something about the health care industry, not your best example of changing the subject and hoping no one will notice.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to present your best example? What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, here is my best example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, we are looking for your best example of knowing something about the health care industry, not your best example of changing the subject and hoping no one will notice.
Click to expand...

game set match, dear

let me tell you how i live like that, by owning a company that among other things sells health insurance, we make that money by turning you down when you get sick, we tell you to fuck off and die, just wait

stupid shit


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, here is my best example
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, we are looking for your best example of knowing something about the health care industry, not your best example of changing the subject and hoping no one will notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game set match, dear
> 
> let me tell you how i live like that, by owning a company that among other things sells health insurance, we make that money by turning you down when you get sick, we tell you to fuck off and die, just wait
> 
> stupid shit
Click to expand...


dear, if a company does not serve its customers better than any other company in the world it goes bankrupt. Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!

It does not work that way in health care but only because liberals made competition illegal. Over your head still?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, we are looking for your best example of knowing something about the health care industry, not your best example of changing the subject and hoping no one will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> game set match, dear
> 
> let me tell you how i live like that, by owning a company that among other things sells health insurance, we make that money by turning you down when you get sick, we tell you to fuck off and die, just wait
> 
> stupid shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, if a company does not serve its customers better than any other company in the world it goes bankrupt. Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!
> 
> It does not work that way in health care but only because liberals made competition illegal. Over your head still?
Click to expand...


you really are dumb, there is no competition in health care, dumbshit, why do you think we make so much off of your death?

wow, you really are dumb...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> why do you think we make so much off of your death?



health insurance companies don't make a lot of money. They are not among the most profitable industries. Want to bet?? or again admit that as a liberal you lack the IQ to know what you are talking about?


----------



## ABikerSailor

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, we are looking for your best example of knowing something about the health care industry, not your best example of changing the subject and hoping no one will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> game set match, dear
> 
> let me tell you how i live like that, by owning a company that among other things sells health insurance, we make that money by turning you down when you get sick, we tell you to fuck off and die, just wait
> 
> stupid shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, if a company does not serve its customers better than any other company in the world it goes bankrupt. Welcome to Econ 101 class one day one!!
> 
> It does not work that way in health care but only because liberals made competition illegal. Over your head still?
Click to expand...


Okay.........wanna tell us exactly how Bain served it's customers better than any other country?

That's right.......made a lot of money for stockholders by outsourcing jobs from America to India and China.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think we make so much off of your death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> health insurance companies don't make a lot of money. They are not among the most profitable industries. Want to bet?? or again admit that as a liberal you lack the IQ to know what you are talking about?
Click to expand...


yeah, tell that to this guy

McGuire's payday is a shame, if not a crime | StarTribune.com

you are an idiot, like i said





> "Dollar Bill" has made lots of news with cash-and-stock paydays that have topped $100 million in recent years -- and he's still sitting atop stock options valued at $1.6 billion. McGuire's admiring outside board members -- 10 of whom have become millionaires through the sale of their own appreciated stock in recent years -- have defended his league-leading compensation on grounds that the giant health insurer's stock price has been a superb performer.



you have no idea what we make, the insurance industry, as profit, because we literally invented the "loss" factor as a major part of our math, moron


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> ok, here is my best example
> 
> I wear a $13,400 Rolex, I stay at Four Seasons hotels, I drive a BMW and I do almost nothing
> 
> now guess what i do for a living, dumbshit



Fuck off, troll.


----------



## saveliberty

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, here is my best example
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, we are looking for your best example of knowing something about the health care industry, not your best example of changing the subject and hoping no one will notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> game set match, dear
> 
> let me tell you how i live like that, by owning a company that among other things sells health insurance, we make that money by turning you down when you get sick, we tell you to fuck off and die, just wait
> 
> stupid shit
Click to expand...


I doubt you own the computer you type on.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ABikerSailor said:


> Okay.........wanna tell us exactly how Bain served it's customers better than any other company?



Bain bought companies with the hope of making them very very profitable. The way you are profitable in a capitalist system is to have better price and quality for your customers than all of your world wide competition. Not so hard grasp is it????




ABikerSailor said:


> That's right.......made a lot of money for stockholders by outsourcing jobs from America to India and China.



would you rather they source jobs to the most expensive place in the world so they have the highest prices in the world and then go bankrupt with 100% of the jobs gone?

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow and not have the IQ to understand capitalism? Is any other conclusion possible?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> you have no idea what we make, the insurance industry, as profit, because we literally invented the "loss" factor as a major part of our math, moron




Health Insurance Industry's Profit Margins Rank #86 - Seeking Alphaseekingalpha.com/.../155858-health-insurance-industry-s-profit-marg...Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Aug 13, 2009  Health Care for America Now: Simply put, the private insurance companies have secured monopolies or tight oligopolies and exercised that ...


----------



## ABikerSailor

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.........wanna tell us exactly how Bain served it's customers better than any other company?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bain bought companies with the hope of making them very very profitable. The way you are profitable in a capitalist system is to have better price and quality for your customers than all of your world wide competition. Not so hard grasp is it????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.......made a lot of money for stockholders by outsourcing jobs from America to India and China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> would you rather they source jobs to the most expensive place in the world so they have the highest prices in the world and then go bankrupt with 100% of the jobs gone?
> 
> See why we are positive a liberal will be slow and not have the IQ to understand capitalism? Is any other conclusion possible?
Click to expand...


Got news for you............it's the demand for a product that drives capitalism, not some vulture capitalist who makes money only for the shareholders.

Quick question chumpsteak..................do you think Romney is going to treat ALL Americans as "shareholders" in this country, or do you think he's only gonna take care of the 16 or so people who have contributed to his super PAC?

I'll give you a hint...............it's the second.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ABikerSailor said:


> Got news for you............it's the demand for a product that drives capitalism, not some vulture capitalist who makes money only for the shareholders.



you said Bain didn't serve its customers??? You learned you were wrong so you switched the subject to "demand"????? hoping no one would notice??  Slow???




ABikerSailor said:


> Quick question chumpsteak..................do you think Romney is going to treat ALL Americans as "shareholders" in this country, or do you think he's only gonna take care of the 16 or so people who have contributed to his super PAC?
> 
> I'll give you a hint...............it's the second.



both sides have super pacs?????????? Do you think you're intelligent to be here? Do you want to be a liberal all your llife?


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should the buisness owner feel obligated and blessed to have that infrastructure and therefore is more obligated to pay more than anybody else is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the people who use the infrastructure to get to their jobs you mean?  I agree with that.  As you said, we pay more then anyone else.  And realistically, is it really that impressive that with what we're charged we get roads, bridges and the police?  Providing roads for me to go to work and coming if I get robbed, is what they do all that impressive?  I'm having a hard time seeing that they really enable me all that much.
Click to expand...


What I meant though is do I, the entreprenour, benefit from the infrastructure more than anybody does?  The people who work for me use the same roads, same utilities, same fire department, same police services that I do.  So does the retiree and so does the welfare family. 

Further my business is providing jobs, products, and services that are benefitting the larger community as well as paying taxes to support the infrastructure.  If I had not taken the risk to to start up a new business, there would be no business to pay taxes, nobody working for me who pay taxes, and no products/serviuces produced by my business that helps other businesses make profits to pay taxes.

The President seems clueless about how an economy really works.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> What I meant though is do I, the entreprenour, benefit from the infrastructure more than anybody does?




you may use it more but then you pay more tolls and fuel taxes. What BO has done is to make an idiotic argument to steal even more of your money. Is he now going to reduce bridge tolls on those who didn't make it big to be consistent?

Suppose someone got a ton of help to be middle class and someone else got 1/2 ton of help to be rich? Does the middle class person pay more to be consistent with BO's idiotic argument about paying those who helped? Why did BO anoint himself to collect and distribute the money?


"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute." Thomas Jefferson

-


----------



## saveliberty

Solyndra must owe about two billion by now.  Seems like Obama used our tax dollars to fund that...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Here's the WHOLE context.  And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q]Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I love it when the left screams, "Out of context!  You have to hear the WHOLE QUOTE!" and then it turns out to be even more putrid than the clip was.


----------



## Cecilie1200

GuyPinestra said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> with the level of brain damage you have, son, you might want to seriously check into a brain scan
> 
> I am not kidding, putting aside the obvious problem with both parties, that you support the republiklans and arent a rich person, means by definition you are a complete moron and racist
> 
> sorry, but those are the simple facts
> 
> dont make me show you what the rest of the planet thinks of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting dumber by the post...........
> 
> 
> Well the board doesnt seem to have enough parrots, you will do well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We needed a certified idiot to take Truthmatters' place...
Click to expand...


We did?!

I never thought we needed TruthDoesn'tMatter, so I find it hard to believe we needed to replace her.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Quote: Originally Posted by *ConzHateUSA* 

 
_
with the level of brain damage you have, son, you might want to seriously check into a brain scan

I am not kidding, putting aside the obvious problem with both parties, that you support the republiklans and arent a rich person, means by definition you are a complete moron and racist 

sorry, but those are the simple facts

dont make me show you what the rest of the planet thinks of you _

Well conz if you're a white male and a liberal you must be a dick sucking homo? See how this works?


----------



## Foxfyre

Cecilie1200 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Here's the WHOLE context.  And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q]Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when the left screams, "Out of context!  You have to hear the WHOLE QUOTE!" and then it turns out to be even more putrid than the clip was.
Click to expand...


Yup.  It was right out of the Communist Manifesto with the emphasis on the class warfare concept that the President has been pushing for some time now.

We have an infrastructure because it was more practical to share one than for each person to build their own.  And yes, that is a kind of cooperative effort.  But it doesn't make business owners somehow more obligated because we have one than it makes the teacher or the county clerk or the janitor or the housewife or retired factory worker.  All need and benefit from  the same infrastructure, and in a fair world, all would contribute to the building and maintenance of it.   In an honest world Obama would admit that without the businessman,  very little infrastructure would be needed.

Again it isn't all of us working together that creates a strong economy.  It is everybody doing their own thng, looking to their own inerest, that creates a strong economy.  This is the concept on which I believe President Obama is totally clueless.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Here's the WHOLE context.  And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q]Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


You are right. And anybody who thinks he was dissing small business owners, IN THIS CONTEXT, would be wrong. Am more than happy to break it down by sentence if you like....


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> I love it when the left screams, "Out of context!  You have to hear the WHOLE QUOTE!" and then it turns out to be even more putrid than the clip was.



Only if you're a partisan hack with the inability to understand what nuance is, or what context really means..

Oh, that's right...forget it....


----------



## Foxfyre

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Here's the WHOLE context.  And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q]Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right. And anybody who thinks he was dissing small business owners, IN THIS CONTEXT, would be wrong. Am more than happy to break it down by sentence if you like....
Click to expand...


Of course he was.  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said it verbatim. Obama is trying to backpeddle from his words...and if words mean things? WHY is he backpeddling as YOU with the context argument?
> 
> s0n? YOU are the stupid one here. Enjoy wallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Here's the WHOLE context. And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q"]Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right. And anybody who thinks he was dissing small business owners, IN THIS CONTEXT, would be wrong. Am more than happy to break it down by sentence if you like....
Click to expand...

 

Ok, so why did he make the statement, and it wasnt context, he has never taken the statement back or tried to clarifiy, so why did he say it?


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> [
> 
> Of course he was.  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.



C'mon Foxy, he wasn't even close to suggesting that. He started out by stating that people LIKE HIM should pay more taxes. There is nothing new in the liberal/Democrat mantra in that.

Then in order to intercept the usual cattle cry from the right "I made it on my own, I deserve everything I get, fuck the rest", he made it clear that no person/business is an island and other people helped. Hell, he even qualified it by saying at the end of his speech at 2.00 "The point is, when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." He is praising the business man and the individual who helped.

Nowhere does he suggest that small business owners don't deserve the credit.  
Nowhere does he suggest small business owners don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else (nor did he say workers do either).
Nowhere does he say that they owe their success to society and all us working together.
He absolutely did say that people in his salary bracket (and there would be a lot more small business owners who are NOT in that bracket than are) should pay more taxes.

You are mostly wrong in what you have said. That isn't an opinion either. It's there in his words. If I see a cow and call it a giraffe it doesn't mean it is one....


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Here's the WHOLE context.  And there is no way to interpret what he said as anything other than what he said:
> 
> Obama: If you've been successful you didn't get there on your own - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. And anybody who thinks he was dissing small business owners, IN THIS CONTEXT, would be wrong. Am more than happy to break it down by sentence if you like....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he was.*  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.*  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.
Click to expand...

you are a pathological liar. I hasve corrected you in this and other threads and here you are STILL lying.

OBAMA: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but also because we do things together."


----------



## Mac1958

.

Obama said this:


"I'm always struck by people who think, 'well, it must be because I was just so smart...it must be because I worked harder than anybody else.'"

So, let's break that down.

First, "I'm always struck...".  Sounds like this happens often.

Next, "...people who think...".  Precisely how do you know what other people are thinking?

Next, "...well, it must be because I was just so smart...it  must be because I worked harder than anybody else...".   Again, having worked with hundreds of business owners over the years, I have yet to hear *ONE* of them say *ANYTHING* like that.

So with whom do you hang out, Mr. President?  Precisely which business owners have told you - oh wait, they didn't tell you this, they just *THOUGHT* it - precisely which business owners *THINK* this?  With your history of being around business owners (I started to type OTHER business owners, but that would have been factually incorrect), how did you manage to obtain such an insight into our thought processes?

*I'm always struck by people who think, "well, it must be because I was just so smart...it must be because I worked harder than anybody else."*

The President tossed out a straw man based on pure ignorance, then ran with it, while insulting business owners at the same time.  He said what he said.

Go ahead, spin that.  And the "roads and bridges" dodge/deflection/diversion does not apply here.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

Jarhead said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when Obama said it was taken out of context he was counting on the numerous amount of morons that are too lazy to listen and watch the video who will, instead say "yeah, they took it ouyt of context."
> 
> Watch the video man. It was not taken out of context....not AT ALL.
> 
> He sees you as a lazy moron who will believe anything he says.
> 
> Need to ask you...
> 
> What is it like to adamantly support a man who views you as a lazy moron?
Click to expand...


WOW! You are taking what the President said, and applying what YOU want it to mean, not what the President said.

His message is clear. 

The point is  that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when Obama said it was taken out of context he was counting on the numerous amount of morons that are too lazy to listen and watch the video who will, instead say "yeah, they took it ouyt of context."
> 
> Watch the video man. It was not taken out of context....not AT ALL.
> 
> He sees you as a lazy moron who will believe anything he says.
> 
> Need to ask you...
> 
> What is it like to adamantly support a man who views you as a lazy moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW! You are taking what the President said, and applying what YOU want it to mean, not what the President said.
> 
> His message is clear.
> 
> The point is  that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
Click to expand...


Pure undadulterated garbage.

His message is clear.

You didn't earn your money without some help and so we are going to help ourselves to more of your money.

Have a nice day.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. And anybody who thinks he was dissing small business owners, IN THIS CONTEXT, would be wrong. Am more than happy to break it down by sentence if you like....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was.*  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.*  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are a pathological liar. I hasve corrected you in this and other threads and here you are STILL lying.
> 
> OBAMA: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but also because we do things together."
Click to expand...


No, Foxfyre has it right.  Note the word *but*.  It is important, because in speech, it denotes a shift in the subject.  From this point on Obama discusses the importance of government in the success of businesses.  That is the true subject of the speech and only a partisan would try to interpret it any other way.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. And anybody who thinks he was dissing small business owners, IN THIS CONTEXT, would be wrong. Am more than happy to break it down by sentence if you like....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was.*  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.*  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are a pathological liar. I hasve corrected you in this and other threads and here you are STILL lying.
> 
> OBAMA: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but also because we do things together."
Click to expand...


The whole speech was to drive home the point that being smart and working hard take a lowly back seat to the concept of collective effort, and he was quite clear that the collective effort was through the government.  Or at least he made no reference to anything accomplished by the private sector; only that 'help' we got from government.  There was no praise for the entreprenour or small business or large business owner.  Only contempt for thinking he or she had anything to do with his/her own success.  Yes he acknowledged that individual initiative figured into the mix, but there was zero recognition of the necessity of  private business owners for a healthy economy or that the business owners contributed to the 'help' anybody has gotten along the way.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> when Obama said it was taken out of context he was counting on the numerous amount of morons that are too lazy to listen and watch the video who will, instead say "yeah, they took it ouyt of context."
> 
> Watch the video man. It was not taken out of context....not AT ALL.
> 
> He sees you as a lazy moron who will believe anything he says.
> 
> Need to ask you...
> 
> What is it like to adamantly support a man who views you as a lazy moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW! You are taking what the President said, and applying what YOU want it to mean, not what the President said.
> 
> His message is clear.
> 
> The point is  that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure undadulterated garbage.
> 
> His message is clear.
> 
> You didn't earn your money without some help and so we are going to help ourselves to more of your money.
> 
> Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


That is not what he said or what what he meant. If you watched the video or read the transcript and came away with: 'You didn't earn your money without some help and so we are going to help ourselves to more of your money', you are applying what YOU want it to mean, not what the President said.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW! You are taking what the President said, and applying what YOU want it to mean, not what the President said.
> 
> His message is clear.
> 
> The point is  that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure undadulterated garbage.
> 
> His message is clear.
> 
> You didn't earn your money without some help and so we are going to help ourselves to more of your money.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what he said or what what he meant. If you watched the video or read the transcript and came away with: 'You didn't earn your money without some help and so we are going to help ourselves to more of your money', you are applying what YOU want it to mean, not what the President said.
Click to expand...


Sorry Charlie,

That is just what the president said.


----------



## Listening

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was.*  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.*  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> you are a pathological liar. I hasve corrected you in this and other threads and here you are STILL lying.
> 
> OBAMA: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but also because we do things together."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Foxfyre has it right.  Note the word *but*.  It is important, because in speech, it denotes a shift in the subject.  From this point on Obama discusses the importance of government in the success of businesses.  That is the true subject of the speech and only a partisan would try to interpret it any other way.
Click to expand...


Anyone who does not look at his constant cry for more taxes on the rich (and the upper middle class....recall how the limit kept shifting....but then he just hit us in our HSA's...so everyone), and thinks his words meant anything different is full of crap.


----------



## saveliberty

First Obama came for your well-to-to neighbor's money, then he came for yours.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was.*  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.*  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> you are a pathological liar. I hasve corrected you in this and other threads and here you are STILL lying.
> 
> OBAMA: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, *but also* because we do things together."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Foxfyre has it right.  Note the word *but*.  It is important, because in speech, it denotes a shift in the subject.  From this point on Obama discusses the importance of government in the success of businesses.  That is the true subject of the speech and only a partisan would try to interpret it any other way.
Click to expand...

Again we see how professional liars take things out of context to weave their web of deceit. The word "BUT does not stand alone, it is "but ALSO" which indicates a connection rather than a shift in the subject, as you well know.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was.*  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.*  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> you are a pathological liar. I hasve corrected you in this and other threads and here you are STILL lying.
> 
> OBAMA: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but also because we do things together."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole speech was to drive home the point that being smart and working hard take a lowly back seat to the concept of collective effort, and he was quite clear that the collective effort was through the government.  Or at least* he made no reference to anything accomplished by the private sector; only that 'help' we got from government.*  There was no praise for the entreprenour or small business or large business owner.  Only contempt for thinking he or she had anything to do with his/her own success.  Yes he acknowledged that individual initiative figured into the mix, but there was zero recognition of the necessity of  private business owners for a healthy economy or that the business owners contributed to the 'help' anybody has gotten along the way.
Click to expand...

Even after highlighting the fact that Obama clearly referred to the involvement of private sector initiative, pathological liars cannot stop themselves from lying some more.


----------



## saveliberty

The Ed-Obama camp must be scared to death about this gaffe by the President.  Their mutual contempt for hard working American business owners is out.  Might want to find a better way of dealing with it.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> Even after highlighting the fact that Obama clearly referred to the involvement of private sector initiative, pathological liars cannot stop themselves from lying some more.



Initiative?  That all a business owner brings?  Being one myself, I know better.  Too bad you and the President don't have a clue.


----------



## saveliberty

BTW Ed, thanks for continuing to insult us business owners.  I'm sure Obama is doing the same.


----------



## freedombecki

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. And anybody who thinks he was dissing small business owners, IN THIS CONTEXT, would be wrong. Am more than happy to break it down by sentence if you like....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was.*  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.*  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are a pathological liar. I hasve corrected you in this and other threads and here you are STILL lying.
> 
> OBAMA: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but also because we do things together."
Click to expand...

Foxfyre does not lie, edthecynic. She's one of the finest members on this board, an experienced, honest business community member, and a prolific helper with seniors in her community. Badmouthing her makes you look like a creature from the gloom lagoon. I recommend a new hobby for you other than trying to spin a smear on an innocent person like Foxfyre.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> BTW Ed, thanks for continuing to insult us business owners.  I'm sure Obama is doing the same.


You're no business owner. Get a job you lazy f***ing leech.


----------



## clevergirl

Once again Krauthammer nails it~

Charles Krauthammer: Did the state make you great in business?

WASHINGTON  If you've got a business  you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen.

 Barack Obama, Roanoke, Va., July 13

"And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It created the Internet. It represents the embodiment of were in this together social solidarity that, in Obamas view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.

To say all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.

Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective."

read more

http://www.baxterbulletin.com/artic...ate-make-you-great-business-?odyssey=nav|head


----------



## edthecynic

freedombecki said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was.*  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.*  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> you are a pathological liar. I hasve corrected you in this and other threads and here you are STILL lying.
> 
> OBAMA: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but also because we do things together."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foxfyre does not lie, edthecynic. She's one of the finest members on this board, an experienced, honest business community member, and a prolific helper with seniors in her community. Badmouthing her makes you look like a creature from the gloom lagoon. I recommend a new hobby for you other than trying to spin a smear on an innocent person like Foxfyre.
Click to expand...

Her lies in this thread are obvious and I have highlighted them.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Ed, thanks for continuing to insult us business owners.  I'm sure Obama is doing the same.
> 
> 
> 
> You're no business owner. Get a job you lazy f***ing leech.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point.  Foxfyre is a "retired" business owner and I own one currently.  That is at least two owners you have insulted.  Keep it up!


----------



## Foxfyre

I don't usually even read Ed's posts any more, Becki, but thanks. (Also to Save.)   I suspect Ed is an assigned or even paid troll instructed to derail threads by insulting members and trying to start a food fight.  I won't take the bait.

But thanks to Clevergirl for the Krauthammer piece. I hadn't seen that but I am pleased the Charles sees it like I do.  Obama's entire speech was to dininish private initiative and entrepreneurial effort and to throw the key to success to the government which is the ONLY way he sees us as 'all working together."

But Obama talks about that teacher who may have helped me along the way.  That is true.  I had some really good ones way back when.  But I estimate that Mr. Foxfyre and I have now paid a total of at least somewhere around $80,000 in school taxes over the years.   So when we made the investment and took the plunge to start up our business, don't we also get credit for the collective effort for the education system?

We have also paid several hundred thousand in income and sales taxes over the years.   I think we have contributed our share to all that infrastructure including the internet which Obama said was to help everybody but in fact was not intended for any private sector use at the time the government was doing that research and came up with ARPANET.  It was initially illegal to use it for any private sector purpose.  Nevertheless, Mr. Foxfyre and I have paid our fair share of the "all working together" part of the social contract.   The infrastructure and social services he holds up as 'government effort' were funded by all of us who paid taxes and everybody benefits from it whether they contributed or not.  So don't try to tell me that anybody "gave" me anything or "made anything possible" that I wasn't part of.

Then when Fearless Leader suggests that it is no big deal that we stuck our necks out to invest our life savings in our own business, went through the process to get the licenses, insurance, and do the marketing necessary to get it going, and then spent the long, LONG hours necessary to make it profitable, and suggests we can't take any credit for that?   That it was everybody else who made that happen?  That is the height of disrespect and insult to all the entreprenours of the world and everybody who has taken the risk to open and run a business.   Nor does he seem to realize that those businesses are the lifeblood of the community because they are the source of jobs and also provide the products and services needed or wanted by others in the community.

The President is so out of touch with reality on this one, I wouldn't know where to start to try to explain it to him.  Not that he is interested anyway.


----------



## saveliberty

Yep, Ed appears to be part of the Obama camp's attempt to silence business owners on the subject.  Denial and insults are a really stupid way of accomplishing that goal.


----------



## freedombecki

edthecynic said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a pathological liar. I hasve corrected you in this and other threads and here you are STILL lying.
> 
> OBAMA: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but also because we do things together."
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre does not lie, edthecynic. She's one of the finest members on this board, an experienced, honest business community member, and a prolific helper with seniors in her community. Badmouthing her makes you look like a creature from the gloom lagoon. I recommend a new hobby for you other than trying to spin a smear on an innocent person like Foxfyre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her lies in this thread are obvious and I have highlighted them.
Click to expand...

You, sir are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.


----------



## Foxfyre

I should add that if it were not for the businesses of America, there would be no jobs and no income for most.  And there would be no funding for government at any level.  Government did not precede property or private initiative.  So how about seeing us 'all working together' that way Mr. President instead of trying to give government the credit for everybody else's success?


----------



## Mac1958

.

This isn't about taxes or roads or bridges for me.  It's about a President tossing out a straw man argument to the delight of people who have no idea what it takes to run a business.

.


----------



## saveliberty

Nice sentiment Foxfyre.  Unfortunately when Obama says work together, he means doing it his way.  A proven fact over and over again in this adminstration.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> This isn't about taxes or roads or bridges for me.  It's about a President tossing out a straw man argument to the delight of people who have no idea what it takes to run a business.
> 
> .



That is exactly what he did.  Built a backhanded kind of straw man to try to justify socking more taxes on the income producers.

And while we're talking about lies, his line that he was using a balanced approach to deficit reduction and had already cut a trillion from the budget?   Talk about a whopper when his own CBO projects trillion plus deficits as far as the eye can see.  And Congress hasn't even passed a budget in three years and has no intention of doing so this year.  President Obama and Harry Reid see the debt ceiling limit as their 'budget' and then will again declare national emergency if we don't keep raising it.  If ANY other President had attempted that, the country would be calling for their resignation on grounds of incompetence and recklessness.

Any imaginary 'cuts' are projected over ten or more years into the future, most occurring long after Obama will be out of office and will have no control over that.

And he will accomplish deficit reduction by the 'wealthy' paying more even as he is pushing for another enormous stimulus package.  In Obama-speak, deficit reduction means offsetting huge increases in spending by just a smidgeon.

And he has the nerve to say that I can't take credit for the success of my business?  And I'm not supposed to be insulted by that?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Only if you're a partisan hack with the inability to understand what nuance is, or what context really means..
> 
> Oh, that's right...forget it....



It all depends on the meaning of "is," eh Gump?

You know, for a sheep shagger, you sure are invested in far left American politics...


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> Again we see how professional liars take things out of context to weave their web of deceit. The word "BUT does not stand alone, it is "but ALSO" which indicates a connection rather than a shift in the subject, as you well know.



The irony of you calling others "liars" is beyond the pale, edtheliar.

Seriously.


----------



## Uncensored2008

saveliberty said:


> The Ed-Obama camp must be scared to death about this gaffe by the President.  Their mutual contempt for hard working American business owners is out.  Might want to find a better way of dealing with it.



Yes, they are in a full panic. Obama let the mask slip. His speech could have easily been made by Hugo Chavez or Fancois Hollande.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama Fluffers are trying to cover up Obama exiting the Marxist closet dressed all in anti-Capitalist drag before the reelection. We weren't supposed to see that!

Oopsies!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wait a second, so that means that Obama build the very bank ATM's and airport kiosks that are killing off economic recovery!


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> The President seems clueless about how an economy really works.



Yes, wouldn't it be nice to have a President who had a clue?  Who was the last who had a real, non-government career?  Ronald Reagan.  And it shows.  One after another hack politician.  W had non government jobs, but his death of knowledge of business showed the source of those jobs was his daddy and not his accomplishments.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The President seems clueless about how an economy really works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, wouldn't it be nice to have a President who had a clue?  Who was the last who had a real, non-government career?  Ronald Reagan.  And it shows.  One after another hack politician.  W had non government jobs, but his death of knowledge of business showed the source of those jobs was his daddy and not his accomplishments.
Click to expand...


That is one reason I am finally mustering up some enthusiasm for Mitt, and Obama is helping me a whole bunch with that.  Mitt will be the first President we have had in a very long time who came into politics after a successful business career.  Reagan really didn't qualify as a knowledgeable businessman, but he did have an uncanny aptitude to see things as they were and to the cut through the crap to get at the core of a problem.  Obama has never had a private sector job or non government funded job and the only serious government experience he has is as a stooge of the Chicago machine.  He didn't spend enough time actually being a Senator during his brief tenure as U.S. Senator to claim any substantive experience there.

After this last blatant and unimaginable graphic public account of Obama's disrespect and contempt for the American business owner, the idea of a President who will have a clue is becoming very attractive.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The President seems clueless about how an economy really works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, wouldn't it be nice to have a President who had a clue?  Who was the last who had a real, non-government career?  Ronald Reagan.  And it shows.  One after another hack politician.  W had non government jobs, but his death of knowledge of business showed the source of those jobs was his daddy and not his accomplishments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is one reason I am finally mustering up some enthusiasm for Mitt, and Obama is helping me a whole bunch with that.  Mitt will be the first President we have had in a very long time who came into politics after a successful business career.  Reagan really didn't qualify as a knowledgeable businessman, but he did have an uncanny aptitude to see things as they were and to the cut through the crap to get at the core of a problem.  Obama has never had a private sector job or non government funded job and the only serious government experience he has is as a stooge of the Chicago machine.  He didn't spend enough time actually being a Senator during his brief tenure as U.S. Senator to claim any substantive experience there.
> 
> After this last blatant and unimaginable graphic public account of Obama's disrespect and contempt for the American business owner, the idea of a President who will have a clue is becoming very attractive.
Click to expand...


I'd like to see Romney take some of his corporate raider mentality to some government agencies.   Now that ... would be sweet ...

And I agree on Romney.  I haven't voted Republican for President since 1988.  That string will unflinchingly end this year.  That the Democrats stopped dabbling with Marxism and went for the real thing finally did it for me and brought me back.  I think we need third parties and got sick of voting for the lesser evil.  But Obama isn't just a "greater" evil, he's "evil" regarding our liberty.


----------



## saveliberty

Everyone is tiring of Obama's all talk adminstration.  Even Sunday's Aurora speech only garnered NBC live.  My guess is the phone calls about program interuption will make them think twice about that the next time Obama asks for air time.


----------



## Murf76

saveliberty said:


> The Ed-Obama camp must be scared to death about this gaffe by the President.  Their mutual contempt for hard working American business owners is out.  Might want to find a better way of dealing with it.



They are.  This tops every Obama gaffe ever made by its sheer magnitude.  And there's no escaping it.  Small businesses create about 70% of jobs.  And Obama just let them know that he thinks they owe him something more than what they're already paying.

Small business owners are ubiquitous.  Their influence is wide-ranging.  We all know somebody or other who's out there busting their ass to make it.  And we LIKE that enterprising American spirit.  We respect it the way we respect "the troops" and "the middle class".


----------



## Full-Auto

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh, your FAMILY, i asked about YOU
> 
> we arent allowed to discuss family here, how about YOU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in under Carter and Renauldus Magnus. Served in Special OPS.
> 
> And ALL YOU need to know s0n.  I don't give details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what bullshit
> 
> jesus, this place is hysterical
Click to expand...


Hey blowhard.  How about you tell us of yours ass lips..........

We can own you at will.


----------



## Uncensored2008

kaz said:


> I'd like to see Romney take some of his corporate raider mentality to some government agencies.   Now that ... would be sweet ...
> 
> And I agree on Romney.  I haven't voted Republican for President since 1988.  That string will unflinchingly end this year.  That the Democrats stopped dabbling with Marxism and went for the real thing finally did it for me and brought me back.  I think we need third parties and got sick of voting for the lesser evil.  But Obama isn't just a "greater" evil, he's "evil" regarding our liberty.



I'm with you 100%

I too was so disgusted by George Bush Sr. that I've voted LPUSA every election since 88, and I too will vote Romney due to the clear and present danger Obama poses to constitutional governance.


----------



## The T

Full-Auto said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in under Carter and Renauldus Magnus. Served in Special OPS.
> 
> And ALL YOU need to know s0n. I don't give details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what bullshit
> 
> jesus, this place is hysterical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey blowhard. How about you tell us of yours ass lips..........
> 
> We can own you at will.
Click to expand...

 
The guy has no honor. All there is to it.


----------



## Full-Auto

The T said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what bullshit
> 
> jesus, this place is hysterical
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey blowhard. How about you tell us of yours ass lips..........
> 
> We can own you at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy has no honor. All there is to it.
Click to expand...


I always laugh at these simpletons that never served anything but fries


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> The guy has no honor. All there is to it.



Conz is a troll, nothing more or less. Best to just ignore him. All he wants is attention. Deny him what he seeks.


----------



## Foxfyre

The end product of Marxism is unattainable and so polly-annishly unrealistic as to be laughable, but it is at least noble.

But Marixism has no such notion of government being the servant of the people.  The purpose of government is to obtain absolute control and that requires destroying religion and any semblance of self worth or individualism from the people, requires confiscating the wealth of the wealthy, requires dismantling of the existing social sructures, and requires absolishment of all private property.  Once accomplished then all the wealth will be distributed evenly through the population who, without interference of a class mentality, will then enjoy utopia as they work together harmoniously and selflessly.

Unfortunately, no government employing Marxism ever seems to get past the total power part and move on the the Utopian part.

So how Marxist is it to suggest that the property owner/business owner does not merit credit for his/her success but that we all share in it?


----------



## saveliberty

Marxist followers are in it for Utopia.  Marxist leaders are in it for power.


----------



## Murf76

Foxfyre said:


> The end product of Marxism is unattainable and so polly-annishly unrealistic as to be laughable, but it is at least noble.
> 
> But Marixism has no such notion of government being the servant of the people.  The purpose of government is to obtain absolute control and that requires destroying religion and any semblance of self worth or individualism from the people, requires confiscating the wealth of the wealthy, requires dismantling of the existing social sructures, and requires absolishment of all private property.  Once accomplished then all the wealth will be distributed evenly through the population who, without interference of a class mentality, will then enjoy utopia as they work together harmoniously and selflessly.
> 
> Unfortunately, no government employing Marxism ever seems to get past the total power part and move on the the Utopian part.
> 
> So how Marxist is it to suggest that the property owner/business owner does not merit credit for his/her success but that we all share in it?



You can't _macromanage_ a society without _micromanaging_ it's people.
You can't have a _negative_ Bill of Rights and a _positive_ Second Bill of Rights.  One cancels the other.
You can't make _collectivism_ the number one objective and still protect the Liberty of the _individual_.

What these people WANT can't happen without destroying what they've become accustomed to, and for some reason they just can't wrap their minds around that sad fact.  I honestly think that most liberals, if they truly understood the either/or nature of the choice before them, would choose Liberty.  The rest are in actuality _statists_, afraid as they are of the chaotic nature of freedom and the uncertain outcome associated with it, whose choice would be subjugation.

*"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."*
---Benjamin Franklin


----------



## The T

Murf76 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The end product of Marxism is unattainable and so polly-annishly unrealistic as to be laughable, but it is at least noble.
> 
> But Marixism has no such notion of government being the servant of the people. The purpose of government is to obtain absolute control and that requires destroying religion and any semblance of self worth or individualism from the people, requires confiscating the wealth of the wealthy, requires dismantling of the existing social sructures, and requires absolishment of all private property. Once accomplished then all the wealth will be distributed evenly through the population who, without interference of a class mentality, will then enjoy utopia as they work together harmoniously and selflessly.
> 
> Unfortunately, no government employing Marxism ever seems to get past the total power part and move on the the Utopian part.
> 
> So how Marxist is it to suggest that the property owner/business owner does not merit credit for his/her success but that we all share in it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't _macromanage_ a society without _micromanaging_ it's people.
> You can't have a _negative_ Bill of Rights and a _positive_ Second Bill of Rights. One cancels the other.
> You can't make _collectivism_ the number one objective and still protect the Liberty of the _individual_.
> 
> What these people WANT can't happen without destroying what they've become accustomed to, and for some reason they just can't wrap their minds around that sad fact. I honestly think that most liberals, if they truly understood the either/or nature of the choice before them, would choose Liberty. The rest are in actuality _statists_, afraid as they are of the chaotic nature of freedom and the uncertain outcome associated with it, whose choice would be subjugation.
> 
> *"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."*
> ---Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

 
Indeed.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Murf76

The T said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The end product of Marxism is unattainable and so polly-annishly unrealistic as to be laughable, but it is at least noble.
> 
> But Marixism has no such notion of government being the servant of the people. The purpose of government is to obtain absolute control and that requires destroying religion and any semblance of self worth or individualism from the people, requires confiscating the wealth of the wealthy, requires dismantling of the existing social sructures, and requires absolishment of all private property. Once accomplished then all the wealth will be distributed evenly through the population who, without interference of a class mentality, will then enjoy utopia as they work together harmoniously and selflessly.
> 
> Unfortunately, no government employing Marxism ever seems to get past the total power part and move on the the Utopian part.
> 
> So how Marxist is it to suggest that the property owner/business owner does not merit credit for his/her success but that we all share in it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't _macromanage_ a society without _micromanaging_ it's people.
> You can't have a _negative_ Bill of Rights and a _positive_ Second Bill of Rights. One cancels the other.
> You can't make _collectivism_ the number one objective and still protect the Liberty of the _individual_.
> 
> What these people WANT can't happen without destroying what they've become accustomed to, and for some reason they just can't wrap their minds around that sad fact. I honestly think that most liberals, if they truly understood the either/or nature of the choice before them, would choose Liberty. The rest are in actuality _statists_, afraid as they are of the chaotic nature of freedom and the uncertain outcome associated with it, whose choice would be subjugation.
> 
> *"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."*
> ---Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I've got to "spread rep" T, but damn... what an opportune moment to remind us of what Barack Obama actually thinks about not only our Constitution, but "spreading the wealth".


----------



## The T

Murf76 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't _macromanage_ a society without _micromanaging_ it's people.
> You can't have a _negative_ Bill of Rights and a _positive_ Second Bill of Rights. One cancels the other.
> You can't make _collectivism_ the number one objective and still protect the Liberty of the _individual_.
> 
> What these people WANT can't happen without destroying what they've become accustomed to, and for some reason they just can't wrap their minds around that sad fact. I honestly think that most liberals, if they truly understood the either/or nature of the choice before them, would choose Liberty. The rest are in actuality _statists_, afraid as they are of the chaotic nature of freedom and the uncertain outcome associated with it, whose choice would be subjugation.
> 
> *"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."*
> ---Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got to "spread rep" T, but damn... what an opportune moment to remind us of what Barack Obama actually thinks about not only our Constitution, but "spreading the wealth".
Click to expand...

 
You actually get the REP for bringing it up. You were dead on. I just bolstered your argument.


----------



## Foxfyre

Damn you guys are putting out some excellent obserbvations and I can't rep you.   As an old debate coach, I can give you some great marks for solid points made though.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> Damn you guys are putting out some excellent obserbvations and I can't rep you. As an old debate coach, I can give you some great marks for solid points made though.


 
That's nice, and thanks.  

Some of us were paying attention before he ever got this far.


----------



## PredFan

I love that this thing still has legs. I hope it haunts obama all the way to the election.


----------



## saveliberty

I fully expect Obama to return to Chicago and declare himself king of Chicagistan.


----------



## Foxfyre

PredFan said:


> I love that this thing still has legs. I hope it haunts obama all the way to the election.



It will if we keep it alive, and we're all blooming idiots if we don't.   The trolls and moles will do their damndest to derail the discussions and change the subject.  It is up to us to keep our focus.


----------



## The T

PredFan said:


> I love that this thing still has legs. I hope it haunts obama all the way to the election.


 
They're panicked by the lashing out of the business folks that are trying to survive. The backpeddling by Obama and his minions is in full-tilt-boogie mode.


----------



## saveliberty

It seems to me that these roads and other benefits attributed to government have differing values according to who uses them.  How can that be?  I choose to go to college without government loans and I get more value from my education?  What about the four years of work I gave up to get it?  Seems like I paid twice.  Once for the schooling and twice for the income I gave up while attending.  Now Obama wants me to pay a THIRD time?

What all these benefits really are is OPPORTUNITY.  I used mine and others did not.  Simple as that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

saveliberty said:


> I fully expect Obama to return to Chicago and declare himself king of Chicagistan.



King Rahm might object...


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully expect Obama to return to Chicago and declare himself king of Chicagistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> King Rahm might object...
Click to expand...


----------



## saveliberty

The other message I'm seeing then is, if you gain too much benefit from opportunities the government has a hand in, you owe the government some of it back.  The achievement tax penalty.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully expect Obama to return to Chicago and declare himself king of Chicagistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> King Rahm might object...
Click to expand...


Somehow I suspect Rahm had a lot more to do with building Obama than Obama had with building Rahm.  If it came down to a contest between the two, I don't see it as being much of a contest.  

Maybe that's why Obama can't imagine a businessman or woman who imagined a concept, developed a business plan, invested in a business, and spent long hard hours making it prosper, all without somebody behind the scenes making it happen.  Maybe that is a concept so foreign to him, he honestly doesn't know that such a things exists?

I don't think Obama has ever accomplished anything on his own initiative in his life.  It wouldn't seem so prior to adulthood if you read his two books.  He sure didn't get into Columbia or Harvard on merit if his track record as a mediocre student is accurate.  He was named President of the Law Review almost immediately upon arrival at Harvard.  How does that happen if somebody isn't pulling strings.

His time as a Community Organizer was obviously orchestrated by other powers; his time as a 'constitutional lawyer professor' seems especially suspect when he has such a strange and uncommon view of the U.S. Constitution and even holds some of it in contempt.

He was certainly hand picked, groomed, polished, and trotted out as a pawn of the Chicago machine to get into the legislature there and then into the U.S. Senate.  He didn't do that on any of his own initiative.  Most especiallly when he almost immediately started running for President.

He was handed a Nobel Prize without doing a single damn thing that would qualify him for such an 'honor'.

And more than a few of us have strong suspicions that it is not him who is governing as President but rather unseen powers behind the scenes.

He has emphatically demonstrated that he is a piss poor speaker and has no original or organized thoughts when he is deprived of his teleprompter.

There is no evidence that he has earned anything he has ever obtained or that he has distinguished himself in any position.

So yeah, maybe that's why he thinks none of the rest of us are achievers either and should be grateful and willing puppets of whatever powers wish to control us.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> I should add that if it were not for the businesses of America, there would be no jobs and no income for most.  And there would be no funding for government at any level.  Government did not precede property or private initiative.  So how about seeing us 'all working together' that way Mr. President instead of trying to give government the credit for everybody else's success?


A perfect example of the snobbish elitist attitude of business people who think they are better than the people who do the actual work in this country. Without the elitists there would be nothing, no farms, no hunter gatherers no barter. People who do the work never did the work before businesses came along and farmed the land and hunted the game and made the clothes. People never survived until some businessman built a store on the corner with his bare hands. The first cavemen were businessmen who made it possible for the human race to survive. 

Business elitists consider themselves the Feudal lords and masters of the worthless little people who do all the work. They believe that no work would ever get done and mankind would starve to death without the businessman in the middle, so they deserve not only special privileges but also worship by the unwashed masses. Without a job given to him by a businessman in the city built singlehandedly by a businessman a farmer could not grow any food to feed himself and his family, so the lowly farmer owes the businessman worship. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRe42BDK_R4]TRAFFIC The Low Spark High Heeled Boys - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ConzHateUSA

some dumbshit rightwing bigot racist asshole inherits daddy's gas station and all of a sudden this dumbshit asshole is a capitalist going around lecturing the working folks on how hard they worked to be a business-owner

bigot assholes never cease to amaze


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Ed, thanks for continuing to insult us business owners.  I'm sure Obama is doing the same.
> 
> 
> 
> You're no business owner. Get a job you lazy f***ing leech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  Foxfyre is a "retired" business owner and I own one currently.  That is at least two owners you have insulted.  Keep it up!
Click to expand...

You don't own shit. It's amazing just how many COPN$ervoFascists claim to be businessmen, slaving away at their businesses 18 hours a day, certainly working harder and longer than their lazy employees, and yet they have unlimited free time to post on this messageboard.

Get a job you lazy f***ing leech.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should add that if it were not for the businesses of America, there would be no jobs and no income for most.  And there would be no funding for government at any level.  Government did not precede property or private initiative.  So how about seeing us 'all working together' that way Mr. President instead of trying to give government the credit for everybody else's success?
> 
> 
> 
> A perfect example of the snobbish elitist attitude of business people who think they are better than the people who do the actual work in this country. Without the elitists there would be nothing, no farms, no hunter gatherers no barter. People who do the work never did the work before businesses came along and farmed the land and hunted the game and made the clothes. People never survived until some businessman built a store on the corner with his bare hands. The first cavemen were businessmen who made it possible for the human race to survive.
> 
> Business elitists consider themselves the Feudal lords and masters of the worthless little people who do all the work. They believe that no work would ever get done and mankind would starve to death without the businessman in the middle, so they deserve not only special privileges but also worship by the unwashed masses. Without a job given to him by a businessman in the city built singlehandedly by a businessman a farmer could not grow any food to feed himself and his family, so the lowly farmer owes the businessman worship.
Click to expand...



Well... THAT didn't sound too Marxist. ........


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should add that if it were not for the businesses of America, there would be no jobs and no income for most.  And there would be no funding for government at any level.  Government did not precede property or private initiative.  So how about seeing us 'all working together' that way Mr. President instead of trying to give government the credit for everybody else's success?
> 
> 
> 
> A perfect example of the snobbish elitist attitude of business people who think they are better than the people who do the actual work in this country. Without the elitists there would be nothing, no farms, no hunter gatherers no barter. People who do the work never did the work before businesses came along and farmed the land and hunted the game and made the clothes. People never survived until some businessman built a store on the corner with his bare hands. The first cavemen were businessmen who made it possible for the human race to survive.
> 
> Business elitists consider themselves the Feudal lords and masters of the worthless little people who do all the work. They believe that no work would ever get done and mankind would starve to death without the businessman in the middle, so they deserve not only special privileges but also worship by the unwashed masses. Without a job given to him by a businessman in the city built singlehandedly by a businessman a farmer could not grow any food to feed himself and his family, so the lowly farmer owes the businessman worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well... THAT didn't sound too Marxist. ........
Click to expand...

And there you have it, when CON$ can't refute the fact that the human race survived long before businessmen existed despite elitist businessmen's claims to the contrary, they always stoop to name calling. Anyone who doesn't give the elitist businessman the worship the businessman believes he is entitled to is a Marxist.

Get off your knees and stop kissing an elitist businessman's feet.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A perfect example of the snobbish elitist attitude of business people who think they are better than the people who do the actual work in this country. Without the elitists there would be nothing, no farms, no hunter gatherers no barter. People who do the work never did the work before businesses came along and farmed the land and hunted the game and made the clothes. People never survived until some businessman built a store on the corner with his bare hands. The first cavemen were businessmen who made it possible for the human race to survive.
> 
> Business elitists consider themselves the Feudal lords and masters of the worthless little people who do all the work. They believe that no work would ever get done and mankind would starve to death without the businessman in the middle, so they deserve not only special privileges but also worship by the unwashed masses. Without a job given to him by a businessman in the city built singlehandedly by a businessman a farmer could not grow any food to feed himself and his family, so the lowly farmer owes the businessman worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... THAT didn't sound too Marxist. ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you have it, when CON$ can't refute the fact that the human race survived long before businessmen existed despite elitist businessmen's claims to the contrary, they always stoop to name calling. Anyone who doesn't give the elitist businessman the worship the businessman believes he is entitled to is a Marxist.
> 
> Get off your knees and stop kissing an elitist businessman's feet.
Click to expand...


People were doing business in this country waaayyy before we had a Congress with which to tax their earnings.  A caveman trading a rock for a stick would've been doing business.  A guy taxing that transaction wouldn't have been necessary for the transaction to be complete. 

You guys ought to just ADMIT who you are.  Come out of the pinko closet and have THAT conversation with the American people.  At least you'd be _honest_.  But you won't... because you already know how it would go down.


----------



## chanel

No small businesss owners I know want to be worshipped. Respected perhaps but most would rather that the govt stop villifying and punishing them for their success. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

Save your worshipping for your messiah. And his Hollywood minions.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're no business owner. Get a job you lazy f***ing leech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  Foxfyre is a "retired" business owner and I own one currently.  That is at least two owners you have insulted.  Keep it up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't own shit. It's amazing just how many COPN$ervoFascists claim to be businessmen, slaving away at their businesses 18 hours a day, certainly working harder and longer than their lazy employees, and yet they have unlimited free time to post on this messageboard.
> 
> Get a job you lazy f***ing leech.
Click to expand...


54 hours a week at the regular job and then 15 a week more during landscape season.
Thanks for showing your contempt and Obama's for us business owners once again.


----------



## The T

chanel said:


> No small businesss owners I know want to be worshipped. Respected perhaps but most would rather that the govt stop villifying and punishing them for their success. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?
> 
> Save your worshipping for your messiah. And his Hollywood minions.


 
They just want to be left alone to practice thier liberty as they see fit without government intrusion.

Obama prefers intrusion. That simple.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> A perfect example of the snobbish elitist attitude of business people who think they are better than the people who do the actual work in this country. Without the elitists there would be nothing, no farms, no hunter gatherers no barter. People who do the work never did the work before businesses came along and farmed the land and hunted the game and made the clothes. People never survived until some businessman built a store on the corner with his bare hands. The first cavemen were businessmen who made it possible for the human race to survive.
> 
> Business elitists consider themselves the Feudal lords and masters of the worthless little people who do all the work. They believe that no work would ever get done and mankind would starve to death without the businessman in the middle, so they deserve not only special privileges but also worship by the unwashed masses. Without a job given to him by a businessman in the city built singlehandedly by a businessman a farmer could not grow any food to feed himself and his family, so the lowly farmer owes the businessman worship.
> 
> TRAFFIC The Low Spark High Heeled Boys - YouTube



The farmer is a business person too idiot.  Way to show your hatred of capitalism.  Obama must be proud.


----------



## chanel

My husband discussed successsion planning with his guys in the event of his death. No one was interested in taking over. When he dies either I will sell it or it will fold. What does that tell you?


----------



## Jarhead

what makes me laugh is how he is still playing on that "everyone deserves a fair chance" thing...

When I started my own business I was bagging groceries at night for the extra cash. I was not eligible for a loan; I did not have family to turn to...and my education by no means prepared me for the real world.

If anyone can say they didnt have a fair chance, it would be someone in my shoes.

Yet, becuase I had a fair chance, I made it and sold my first company in 5 years.


----------



## Jarhead

chanel said:


> My husband discussed successsion planning with his guys in the event of his death. No one was interested in taking over. When he dies either I will sell it or it will fold. What does that tell you?



it tells me that you have long term plans to outlive your husband!


----------



## chanel

Ha ha. What can I say? I have a thing for older men!

I wish my kids were interested but they have other plans. Oh well.


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> And there you have it, when CON$ can't refute the fact that the human race survived long before businessmen existed despite elitist businessmen's claims to the contrary, they always stoop to name calling. Anyone who doesn't give the elitist businessman the worship the businessman believes he is entitled to is a Marxist.
> 
> Get off your knees and stop kissing an elitist businessman's feet.



Define "survived," edtheliar? You mean lived to 30 if we didn't get picked off by a predator or get murdered by an rival clan? You mean starved in the winter with the weaker members dying en mass, chasing water holes in the summer.


Yeah, that's a hell of a life you worship, edtheliar. And I believe you Bolsheviks would be more than happy to return the commoners to exactly that kind of life.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... THAT didn't sound too Marxist. ........
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, when CON$ can't refute the fact that the human race survived long before businessmen existed despite elitist businessmen's claims to the contrary, they always stoop to name calling. Anyone who doesn't give the elitist businessman the worship the businessman believes he is entitled to is a Marxist.
> 
> Get off your knees and stop kissing an elitist businessman's feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People were doing business in this country waaayyy before we had a Congress with which to tax their earnings.*  A caveman trading a rock for a stick would've been doing business.  *A guy taxing that transaction wouldn't have been necessary for the transaction to be complete.
> 
> You guys ought to just ADMIT who you are.  Come out of the pinko closet and have THAT conversation with the American people.  At least you'd be _honest_.  But you won't... because you already know how it would go down.
Click to expand...

Gee, you admit that workers can do business with each other without a businessman in the middle taking his cut. the only difference between the businessman in the middle taking his cut and the government in the middle taking a cut is the businessman hoards away his cut for himself and the government uses its cut for the general welfare of the community.


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, when CON$ can't refute the fact that the human race survived long before businessmen existed despite elitist businessmen's claims to the contrary, they always stoop to name calling. Anyone who doesn't give the elitist businessman the worship the businessman believes he is entitled to is a Marxist.
> 
> Get off your knees and stop kissing an elitist businessman's feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "survived," edtheliar? You mean lived to 30 if we didn't get picked off by a predator or get murdered by an rival clan? You mean starved in the winter with the weaker members dying en mass, chasing water holes in the summer.
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a hell of a life you worship, edtheliar. And I believe you Bolsheviks would be more than happy to return the commoners to exactly that kind of life.
Click to expand...

 
Edith prefers to be a Serf, and drag the rest of us down with him.


----------



## edthecynic

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, when CON$ can't refute the fact that the human race survived long before businessmen existed despite elitist businessmen's claims to the contrary, they always stoop to name calling. Anyone who doesn't give the elitist businessman the worship the businessman believes he is entitled to is a Marxist.
> 
> Get off your knees and stop kissing an elitist businessman's feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "survived," edtheliar? You mean lived to 30 if we didn't get picked off by a predator or get murdered by an rival clan? You mean starved in the winter with the weaker members dying en mass, chasing water holes in the summer.
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a hell of a life you worship, edtheliar. And I believe you Bolsheviks would be more than happy to return the commoners to exactly that kind of life.
Click to expand...

So it was the businessman who organized the people into a military and armed them for the defense of the community and not the government. We see yet another example of businessmen taking credit for the accomplishments of others.
Thank you.


----------



## edthecynic

The T said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, when CON$ can't refute the fact that the human race survived long before businessmen existed despite elitist businessmen's claims to the contrary, they always stoop to name calling. Anyone who doesn't give the elitist businessman the worship the businessman believes he is entitled to is a Marxist.
> 
> Get off your knees and stop kissing an elitist businessman's feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "survived," edtheliar? You mean lived to 30 if we didn't get picked off by a predator or get murdered by an rival clan? You mean starved in the winter with the weaker members dying en mass, chasing water holes in the summer.
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a hell of a life you worship, edtheliar. And I believe you Bolsheviks would be more than happy to return the commoners to exactly that kind of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Edith prefers to be a Serf, and drag the rest of us down with him.
Click to expand...

I love it, CON$ are on their knees licking clean the boots of their Feudal business masters while calling everybody else serfs! 
See the first quote in my sig.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, when CON$ can't refute the fact that the human race survived long before businessmen existed despite elitist businessmen's claims to the contrary, they always stoop to name calling. Anyone who doesn't give the elitist businessman the worship the businessman believes he is entitled to is a Marxist.
> 
> Get off your knees and stop kissing an elitist businessman's feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People were doing business in this country waaayyy before we had a Congress with which to tax their earnings.*  A caveman trading a rock for a stick would've been doing business.  *A guy taxing that transaction wouldn't have been necessary for the transaction to be complete.
> 
> You guys ought to just ADMIT who you are.  Come out of the pinko closet and have THAT conversation with the American people.  At least you'd be _honest_.  But you won't... because you already know how it would go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, you admit that workers can do business with each other without a businessman in the middle taking his cut. the only difference between the businessman in the middle taking his cut and the government in the middle taking a cut is the businessman hoards away his cut for himself and the government uses its cut for the general welfare of the community.
Click to expand...


Seriously?  You just can't be THAT thick.  A caveman with a rock to trade and a caveman with a stick to trade ARE two businessmen.  A colonial with a cart-load of turnips and native with a bag of cured animal skins ARE two businessmen.

How are you not getting this?


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> They just want to be left alone to practice thier liberty as they see fit without government intrusion.
> 
> Obama prefers intrusion. That simple.



It's more fundamental than that. The left views people as a resource, no different than a bag of grain or a computer. All resources rightfully belong to the government, which includes all people. The government is to manage resources and distribute them as needed. Thus a small business owner is property of the government, who allows their success as long as it is viewed as beneficial to the collective as a whole. Obama did nothing unusual in the eyes of the left, he merely stated their basic belief, that small business, as all business, succeeds because government decided that it should. Everything the business owner has, including his life, is property of the state to be used as the state sees fit. Obama simple said what the left believes.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were doing business in this country waaayyy before we had a Congress with which to tax their earnings.*  A caveman trading a rock for a stick would've been doing business.  *A guy taxing that transaction wouldn't have been necessary for the transaction to be complete.
> 
> You guys ought to just ADMIT who you are.  Come out of the pinko closet and have THAT conversation with the American people.  At least you'd be _honest_.  But you won't... because you already know how it would go down.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you admit that workers can do business with each other without a businessman in the middle taking his cut. the only difference between the businessman in the middle taking his cut and the government in the middle taking a cut is the businessman hoards away his cut for himself and the government uses its cut for the general welfare of the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You just can't be THAT thick.  A caveman with a rock to trade and a caveman with a stick to trade ARE two businessmen.  A colonial with a cart-load of turnips and native with a bag of cured animal skins ARE two businessmen.
> 
> How are you not getting this?
Click to expand...

No, a caveman with a rock or a cart full of turnips is a worker with the fruits of his labor. A businessman is a middleman who produces nothing himself trading the fruits of someone else's labor.


----------



## Listening

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you admit that workers can do business with each other without a businessman in the middle taking his cut. the only difference between the businessman in the middle taking his cut and the government in the middle taking a cut is the businessman hoards away his cut for himself and the government uses its cut for the general welfare of the community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You just can't be THAT thick.  A caveman with a rock to trade and a caveman with a stick to trade ARE two businessmen.  A colonial with a cart-load of turnips and native with a bag of cured animal skins ARE two businessmen.
> 
> How are you not getting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, a caveman with a rock or a cart full of turnips is a worker with the fruits of his labor. A businessman is a middleman who produces nothing himself trading the fruits of someone else's labor.
Click to expand...


I guess he is that thick.

What he calls a businessman is just a broker or middleman.

Lot's of farmers are very good businessmen.

And this guy claimed to be a scientist ?


----------



## Jarhead

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you admit that workers can do business with each other without a businessman in the middle taking his cut. the only difference between the businessman in the middle taking his cut and the government in the middle taking a cut is the businessman hoards away his cut for himself and the government uses its cut for the general welfare of the community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You just can't be THAT thick.  A caveman with a rock to trade and a caveman with a stick to trade ARE two businessmen.  A colonial with a cart-load of turnips and native with a bag of cured animal skins ARE two businessmen.
> 
> How are you not getting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, a caveman with a rock or a cart full of turnips is a worker with the fruits of his labor. A businessman is a middleman who produces nothing himself trading the fruits of someone else's labor.
Click to expand...


So in your world a businessman wakes up one day and has a business where he can trade the fruits of someone elses labor?

You are not aware of the financial risk, long hours, months of no income, and unexpected surprises that are associated with starting a business trading the fruits of another mans labor?

Maybe that is your problem?


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> They just want to be left alone to practice thier liberty as they see fit without government intrusion.
> 
> Obama prefers intrusion. That simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more fundamental than that. The left views people as a resource, no different than a bag of grain or a computer. All resources rightfully belong to the government, which includes all people. The government is to manage resources and distribute them as needed. Thus a small business owner is property of the government, who allows their success as long as it is viewed as beneficial to the collective as a whole. Obama did nothing unusual in the eyes of the left, he merely stated their basic belief, that small business, as all business, succeeds because government decided that it should. Everything the business owner has, including his life, is property of the state to be used as the state sees fit. Obama simple said what the left believes.
Click to expand...

 
Pretty good take on it. I like the view. In other words 'chattle' to be manipulated at the whim of government for the purpose OF government.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wouldn't you guys love to see how spartan a life Ed lives.  No delivered pizza, no automobile, all homemade furniture in his house, no refrigerator, no indoor plumbing unless he dug the iron or copper off his own land and fabricated it himself, grows all wild produce in his garden or from seed he scrounged from his neighbor, and God only knows what he barters with all those farmers who also are living completely self contained lives without benefit of any business.  I'm sure they're all doing just fantastically though.

Meanwhile, I don't think any of my employees ever objected to working for me.  At least I never had one quit because of working environment or conditions.  I've had a few who learned the ropes and acquired stellar skills and then moved on to bigger and better things after they hit the ceiling at our place.  We still stay in touch.  And I never objected to working for the other fellow when I have done that in the past too.  I was paid what I agreed to work for and in return they got what I agreed to do for them plus a bit more so that I could move into more interesting and/or better paying jobs.

Somehow the government just didn't factor into any of that except for the amount of taxes I had to pay and the mountains of paperwork required by government bureaucracies.

If I ever get elected dictator for a year or two, one of the first mandates I would put out is that we business owners have one federal form to fill out with all the information the government at all levels needs.  It will go to one central clearing station who will then distribute it to whatever various departments need the information as well as to the state and local governments who need the information.  Filling out endless forms, most containing the identical information, is ridiculous.


----------



## edthecynic

Listening said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You just can't be THAT thick.  A caveman with a rock to trade and a caveman with a stick to trade ARE two businessmen.  A colonial with a cart-load of turnips and native with a bag of cured animal skins ARE two businessmen.
> 
> How are you not getting this?
> 
> 
> 
> No, a caveman with a rock or a cart full of turnips is a worker with the fruits of his labor. A businessman is a middleman who produces nothing himself trading the fruits of someone else's labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess he is that thick.
> 
> *What he calls a businessman is just a broker or middleman.*
> 
> Lot's of farmers are very good businessmen.
> 
> And this guy claimed to be a scientist ?
Click to expand...

Willard is called a businessman, and he is nothing more than a broker!!!!! 

You are obviously not a scientist and very jealous of those who are.


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> So it was the businessman who organized the people into a military and armed them for the defense of the community and not the government.



ROFL

So you think the military learned to plant crops, to irrigate so those crops would live; learned to breed and raise livestock, to weave wool and cotton, to trade between those who specialized at what they were good at?

No edtheliar, the military only took by force of arms that which OTHERS, business people, created. The military creates nothing, it destroys and it steals, that is all it can do. We have our military because we believe they will do less harm and take less than the raiders of another tribe, but no one with an IQ above 10 thinks the military builds anything.



> We see yet another example of businessmen taking credit for the accomplishments of others.
> Thank you.



Trade is the basis of every good thing in the human condition.  Those who attack trade have humanities worsts interests at heart.


----------



## The T

edthecynic said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a caveman with a rock or a cart full of turnips is a worker with the fruits of his labor. A businessman is a middleman who produces nothing himself trading the fruits of someone else's labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess he is that thick.
> 
> *What he calls a businessman is just a broker or middleman.*
> 
> Lot's of farmers are very good businessmen.
> 
> And this guy claimed to be a scientist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Willard is called a businessman, and he is nothing more than a broker!!!!!
> 
> You are obviously not a scientist and very jealous of those who are.
Click to expand...

 
What is a broker than a businessman Edith? Please? You're getting boring with your stretches.

What is Obama but a tyrant and confirmed it to the rest of us as he unmasked himself with his statement?


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you admit that workers can do business with each other without a businessman in the middle taking his cut. the only difference between the businessman in the middle taking his cut and the government in the middle taking a cut is the businessman hoards away his cut for himself and the government uses its cut for the general welfare of the community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You just can't be THAT thick.  A caveman with a rock to trade and a caveman with a stick to trade ARE two businessmen.  A colonial with a cart-load of turnips and native with a bag of cured animal skins ARE two businessmen.
> 
> How are you not getting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, a caveman with a rock or a cart full of turnips is a worker with the fruits of his labor. A businessman is a middleman who produces nothing himself trading the fruits of someone else's labor.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Most small business owners have to be involved in the business everyday.  My business has one employee, me.  So their goes your middleman rant.  Try owning a restaurant and not be there. 

Want to know why most people start their own business (because I know you have no clue)?  Because they liked something enough to turn it into a business.  They also hoped to make a living at it.  If they make money, but quit, its because they retired or were so removed from the activity they actually wanted to do, it wasn't worth it any more.


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> See the first quote in my sig.



You know stupid, it was Saul Alinsky who wrote "Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing"

Rush Limbaugh merely quoted Alinsky and stated explicitly that he was quoting Alinsky. But you have zero integrity and an IQ under 50....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Murf76 said:


> Seriously?  You just can't be THAT thick.  A caveman with a rock to trade and a caveman with a stick to trade ARE two businessmen.  A colonial with a cart-load of turnips and native with a bag of cured animal skins ARE two businessmen.
> 
> How are you not getting this?



That he cannot grasp even a simple concept is the reason he is a Bolshevik.


----------



## saveliberty

Ed's science is limited to chemistry with his meth lab.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Wouldn't you guys love to see how spartan a life Ed lives. * No delivered pizza,* no automobile, all homemade furniture in his house, no refrigerator, no indoor plumbing unless he dug the iron or copper off his own land and fabricated it himself, grows all wild produce in his garden or from seed he scrounged from his neighbor, and God only knows what he barters with all those farmers who also are living completely self contained lives without benefit of any business.  I'm sure they're all doing just fantastically though.
> 
> Meanwhile, I don't think any of my employees ever objected to working for me.  At least I never had one quit because of working environment or conditions.  I've had a few who learned the ropes and acquired stellar skills and then moved on to bigger and better things after they hit the ceiling at our place.  We still stay in touch.  And I never objected to working for the other fellow when I have done that in the past too.  I was paid what I agreed to work for and in return they got what I agreed to do for them plus a bit more so that I could move into more interesting and/or better paying jobs.
> 
> Somehow the government just didn't factor into any of that except for the amount of taxes I had to pay and the mountains of paperwork required by government bureaucracies.
> 
> If I ever get elected dictator for a year or two, one of the first mandates I would put out is that we business owners have one federal form to fill out with all the information the government at all levels needs.  It will go to one central clearing station who will then distribute it to whatever various departments need the information as well as to the state and local governments who need the information.  Filling out endless forms, most containing the identical information, is ridiculous.


I make my own pizza, I'm Italian. 

Seriously, you claimed that there would be nothing if it wasn't for businessmen and I simply showed that people existed and survived before businessmen ever existed. Society became more specialized and organized and then businessmen appeared. Businessmen have their place in society, but they are not the elitist Gods they think they are and are not ENTITLED to special privileges simply because they are businessmen. Everybody contributes to society in different ways, and just because businessmen do not appreciate or even recognize the contributions of others does not make businessmen special.


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know stupid, it was Saul Alinsky who wrote "Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing"
> 
> Rush Limbaugh merely quoted Alinsky and stated explicitly that he was quoting Alinsky. But you have zero integrity and an IQ under 50....
Click to expand...

 
Edith has been taking Limbaugh out of context for some time. He has a hardon for him for whatever reason. Limbaugh siding with Alinsky is just way far stupid and a means for Edith to justify himself however falsely . Good catch.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't you guys love to see how spartan a life Ed lives. * No delivered pizza,* no automobile, all homemade furniture in his house, no refrigerator, no indoor plumbing unless he dug the iron or copper off his own land and fabricated it himself, grows all wild produce in his garden or from seed he scrounged from his neighbor, and God only knows what he barters with all those farmers who also are living completely self contained lives without benefit of any business.  I'm sure they're all doing just fantastically though.
> 
> Meanwhile, I don't think any of my employees ever objected to working for me.  At least I never had one quit because of working environment or conditions.  I've had a few who learned the ropes and acquired stellar skills and then moved on to bigger and better things after they hit the ceiling at our place.  We still stay in touch.  And I never objected to working for the other fellow when I have done that in the past too.  I was paid what I agreed to work for and in return they got what I agreed to do for them plus a bit more so that I could move into more interesting and/or better paying jobs.
> 
> Somehow the government just didn't factor into any of that except for the amount of taxes I had to pay and the mountains of paperwork required by government bureaucracies.
> 
> If I ever get elected dictator for a year or two, one of the first mandates I would put out is that we business owners have one federal form to fill out with all the information the government at all levels needs.  It will go to one central clearing station who will then distribute it to whatever various departments need the information as well as to the state and local governments who need the information.  Filling out endless forms, most containing the identical information, is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I make my own pizza, I'm Italian.
> 
> Seriously, you claimed that there would be nothing if it wasn't for businessmen and I simply showed that people existed and survived before businessmen ever existed. Society became more specialized and organized and then businessmen appeared. Businessmen have their place in society, but they are not the elitist Gods they think they are and are not ENTITLED to special privileges simply because they are businessmen. Everybody contributes to society in different ways, and just because businessmen do not appreciate or even recognize the contributions of others does not make businessmen special.
Click to expand...


Even Obama wants businesses to provide jobs.  We have already stated multiple times no special status or privileges required.  We just want to persue our opportunities without government looking for disproportional gains.  I am already told I have to equally fund medicare coverage for employees and more than half their social security as it stands right now.  I need to fund possible unemployment and injuries on the job at 100%.  Somehow you think the worker is being cheated.


----------



## edthecynic

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know stupid,* it was Saul Alinsky who wrote "Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing"*
> 
> Rush Limbaugh merely quoted Alinsky and stated explicitly that he was quoting Alinsky. But you have zero integrity and an IQ under 50....
Click to expand...

While Alinsky is your MessiahRushie's mentor, he was not quoting Alinsky, he was referring to Clinton. In fact the original quote is not even attributed to Alinsky. It is actually attributed to Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx.

As usual, you are a typical know-it-all who knows nothing.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't you guys love to see how spartan a life Ed lives. * No delivered pizza,* no automobile, all homemade furniture in his house, no refrigerator, no indoor plumbing unless he dug the iron or copper off his own land and fabricated it himself, grows all wild produce in his garden or from seed he scrounged from his neighbor, and God only knows what he barters with all those farmers who also are living completely self contained lives without benefit of any business.  I'm sure they're all doing just fantastically though.
> 
> Meanwhile, I don't think any of my employees ever objected to working for me.  At least I never had one quit because of working environment or conditions.  I've had a few who learned the ropes and acquired stellar skills and then moved on to bigger and better things after they hit the ceiling at our place.  We still stay in touch.  And I never objected to working for the other fellow when I have done that in the past too.  I was paid what I agreed to work for and in return they got what I agreed to do for them plus a bit more so that I could move into more interesting and/or better paying jobs.
> 
> Somehow the government just didn't factor into any of that except for the amount of taxes I had to pay and the mountains of paperwork required by government bureaucracies.
> 
> If I ever get elected dictator for a year or two, one of the first mandates I would put out is that we business owners have one federal form to fill out with all the information the government at all levels needs.  It will go to one central clearing station who will then distribute it to whatever various departments need the information as well as to the state and local governments who need the information.  Filling out endless forms, most containing the identical information, is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I make my own pizza, I'm Italian.
> 
> Seriously, you claimed that there would be nothing if it wasn't for businessmen and I simply showed that people existed and survived before businessmen ever existed. Society became more specialized and organized and then businessmen appeared. Businessmen have their place in society, but they are not the elitist Gods they think they are and are not ENTITLED to special privileges simply because they are businessmen. Everybody contributes to society in different ways, and just because businessmen do not appreciate or even recognize the contributions of others does not make businessmen special.
Click to expand...


Yes and I'm sure you grow your own wheat, grind it into flour, and find some sort of wild yeast to leaven it, dehydrate your own sea salt, and fire it in your own brick oven made from clay bricks you dug and formed from the ground.  And you grow, butcher, cure, and grind your own pork sausage, butcher your own beef--you had to find wild hogs and cattle somewhere--and somewhere find spices to make some sort of Pepperoni.   I mean you couldn't possibly deal with the evil people who would sell you such things for profit.

In all of recorded history in every tribe and culture known to humankind, you will find the businessman.  And even if we go back to the caveman, I'm sure even they developed some sort of barter system that after all is conducting business.

Nobody her has said the businessman is entitled to special privileges or has rights different from anybody else.  What we ARE saying is that our society works efficiently, effectively, and prosperously when the businessman is free to do his own thing for his own interests and thereby benefits everybody else, and none of us are free or can expect to prosper if the businessman is not entitled to the profts he earns.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know stupid,* it was Saul Alinsky who wrote "Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing"*
> 
> Rush Limbaugh merely quoted Alinsky and stated explicitly that he was quoting Alinsky. But you have zero integrity and an IQ under 50....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While Alinsky is your MessiahRushie's mentor, he was not quoting Alinsky, he was referring to Clinton. In fact the original quote is not even attributed to Alinsky. It is actually attributed to Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx.
> 
> As usual, you are a typical know-it-all who knows nothing.
Click to expand...


...neither did you before it was googled.


----------



## saveliberty

Ed the hypocrite is getting his electricity from somewhere...

...not to mention his computer.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't you guys love to see how spartan a life Ed lives. * No delivered pizza,* no automobile, all homemade furniture in his house, no refrigerator, no indoor plumbing unless he dug the iron or copper off his own land and fabricated it himself, grows all wild produce in his garden or from seed he scrounged from his neighbor, and God only knows what he barters with all those farmers who also are living completely self contained lives without benefit of any business.  I'm sure they're all doing just fantastically though.
> 
> Meanwhile, I don't think any of my employees ever objected to working for me.  At least I never had one quit because of working environment or conditions.  I've had a few who learned the ropes and acquired stellar skills and then moved on to bigger and better things after they hit the ceiling at our place.  We still stay in touch.  And I never objected to working for the other fellow when I have done that in the past too.  I was paid what I agreed to work for and in return they got what I agreed to do for them plus a bit more so that I could move into more interesting and/or better paying jobs.
> 
> Somehow the government just didn't factor into any of that except for the amount of taxes I had to pay and the mountains of paperwork required by government bureaucracies.
> 
> If I ever get elected dictator for a year or two, one of the first mandates I would put out is that we business owners have one federal form to fill out with all the information the government at all levels needs.  It will go to one central clearing station who will then distribute it to whatever various departments need the information as well as to the state and local governments who need the information.  Filling out endless forms, most containing the identical information, is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I make my own pizza, I'm Italian.
> 
> Seriously, you claimed that there would be nothing if it wasn't for businessmen and I simply showed that people existed and survived before businessmen ever existed. Society became more specialized and organized and then businessmen appeared. Businessmen have their place in society, but they are not the elitist Gods they think they are and are not ENTITLED to special privileges simply because they are businessmen. Everybody contributes to society in different ways, and just because businessmen do not appreciate or even recognize the contributions of others does not make businessmen special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Obama wants businesses to provide jobs. * We have already stated multiple times no special status or privileges required.*  We just want to persue our opportunities without government looking for disproportional gains.  I am already told I have to equally fund medicare coverage for employees and more than half their social security as it stands right now.  I need to fund possible unemployment and injuries on the job at 100%.  Somehow you think the worker is being cheated.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Businessmen want special tax privileges for their "risk" as is they are the only people on Earth who take risks.


----------



## Uncensored2008

saveliberty said:


> Ed's science is limited to chemistry with his meth lab.



Ed would be more Jessie Pinkman than Walter White...

I'm just sayin...


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't you guys love to see how spartan a life Ed lives. * No delivered pizza,* no automobile, all homemade furniture in his house, no refrigerator, no indoor plumbing unless he dug the iron or copper off his own land and fabricated it himself, grows all wild produce in his garden or from seed he scrounged from his neighbor, and God only knows what he barters with all those farmers who also are living completely self contained lives without benefit of any business.  I'm sure they're all doing just fantastically though.
> 
> Meanwhile, I don't think any of my employees ever objected to working for me.  At least I never had one quit because of working environment or conditions.  I've had a few who learned the ropes and acquired stellar skills and then moved on to bigger and better things after they hit the ceiling at our place.  We still stay in touch.  And I never objected to working for the other fellow when I have done that in the past too.  I was paid what I agreed to work for and in return they got what I agreed to do for them plus a bit more so that I could move into more interesting and/or better paying jobs.
> 
> Somehow the government just didn't factor into any of that except for the amount of taxes I had to pay and the mountains of paperwork required by government bureaucracies.
> 
> If I ever get elected dictator for a year or two, one of the first mandates I would put out is that we business owners have one federal form to fill out with all the information the government at all levels needs.  It will go to one central clearing station who will then distribute it to whatever various departments need the information as well as to the state and local governments who need the information.  Filling out endless forms, most containing the identical information, is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I make my own pizza, I'm Italian.
> 
> Seriously, you claimed that there would be nothing if it wasn't for businessmen and I simply showed that people existed and survived before businessmen ever existed. Society became more specialized and organized and then businessmen appeared. Businessmen have their place in society, but they are not the elitist Gods they think they are and are not ENTITLED to special privileges simply because they are businessmen. Everybody contributes to society in different ways, and just because businessmen do not appreciate or even recognize the contributions of others does not make businessmen special.
Click to expand...


Are you crazy?    People trading with one another IS "business".   

You know, it takes a special kind of slavish devotion to one's ideology when he has stooped SO LOW that he's arguing that people who are in business for themselves aren't doing business at all. 

Come out of the pinko closet, Ed.  You'll sound more intelligent.


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> Edith has been taking Limbaugh out of context for some time. He has a hardon for him for whatever reason. Limbaugh siding with Alinsky is just way far stupid and a means for Edith to justify himself however falsely . Good catch.



That's one of many reasons he's known as edtheliar.


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> While Alinsky is your MessiahRushie's mentor, he was not quoting Alinsky, he was referring to Clinton. In fact the original quote is not even attributed to Alinsky. It is actually attributed to Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx.
> 
> As usual, you are a typical know-it-all who knows nothing.



My gawd but you are a pathological liar and drooling fool....

Obama, Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky and Rules For Radicals | RedState


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I make my own pizza, I'm Italian.
> 
> Seriously, you claimed that there would be nothing if it wasn't for businessmen and I simply showed that people existed and survived before businessmen ever existed. Society became more specialized and organized and then businessmen appeared. Businessmen have their place in society, but they are not the elitist Gods they think they are and are not ENTITLED to special privileges simply because they are businessmen. Everybody contributes to society in different ways, and just because businessmen do not appreciate or even recognize the contributions of others does not make businessmen special.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Obama wants businesses to provide jobs. * We have already stated multiple times no special status or privileges required.*  We just want to persue our opportunities without government looking for disproportional gains.  I am already told I have to equally fund medicare coverage for employees and more than half their social security as it stands right now.  I need to fund possible unemployment and injuries on the job at 100%.  Somehow you think the worker is being cheated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Businessmen want special tax privileges for their "risk" as is they are the only people on Earth who take risks.
Click to expand...


Privileges like paying both halves of the social security tax for ourselves?  I own a corporation, so I don't get the tax credit.  I mentioned two taxes that I pay 100% as well.  Typically, business people do take MORE risk.  Its fact.  Please, continue to show the contempt for businesses like your leader Obama.  It speaks volumes.


----------



## oreo

Sallow said:


> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.




The only one that is accustomed to taking credit for something they DIDN'T do is Barack Obama.


----------



## saveliberty

Obama must believe people aren't created equal, he needs some of the inequality back.


----------



## Foxfyre

The thing is Save, you might come landscape my back yard free gratis if you feel you really owed me a very VERY nice gift or were returning a favor.  But you would go broke very quckly giving away much of your services like that as well as not having any new income coming in.  So you aren't landscaping my back yard for my benefit.  You are doing it to put bread on your own table and pay for the expenses you incur in the process and for other purposes that are in your interest.

When I went out to do work in my business, I wasn't doing it for the benefit of my clients.  I was doing it to fund my own interests, put bread on my table, and to have the money to pay Save to landscape my back yard.

My clients did not give me the contracts for my benefit.  They gave me the contracts in order to run their own businesses for their own purposes to put bread on their tables and to pay their expenses of running the business and for other purposes.

I don't hire my employees for their benefit.  I hire them because I have more work than I can do myself and I need to complete the work that takes care of my interests.

My employees don't work for me for my benefit.  They work for me for their own interests to put bread on their own tables and for their own interests.

The guy repaving the road out there isn't doing it for my benefit.  He is doing it to put bread on his table and for other purposes all in his interest.

The baker doesn't bake the bread for any of our benefit but he bakes it to sell in his own interest.  And we don't buy the bread to benefit the baker but we buy it in order to have something to eat.

And if we all happen to become friends and enjoy each other in the process, well that is very nice and an unexpected benefit, but it doesn't change the fact that we do what we do for nobody's benefit but our own.  The fact that it happens to all be interrelated in some way is the miracle of the free market, but we still are each simply doing our own thing for our own purposes.

And we ALL vote the bonds and pay taxes to help pay for shared government infrastructure and services that we all need that would not be needed and could not be funded if we all weren't doing our own thing for our own purposes.


----------



## The T

oreo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one that is accustomed to taking credit for something they DIDN'T do is Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

 

How very appropriate! Hey? Maybe after Romney is elected/ he'll get one of those too...(Or is he the wrong political persuation)?


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one that is accustomed to taking credit for something they DIDN'T do is Barack Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How very appropriate! Hey? Maybe after Romney is elected/ he'll get one of those too...(Or is he the wrong political persuation)?
Click to expand...


Yeah, they aren't gonna give a Nobel Peace Prize to a rich white guy, even one that has done far more for the world already than our current POTUS ever thought about.  And besides, Hugo Chavez has endorsed Obama (again) and dismissed Romney in attempt.  So that probably dashes Romney's chances to get anything from a Nobel group.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one that is accustomed to taking credit for something they DIDN'T do is Barack Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How very appropriate! Hey? Maybe after Romney is elected/ he'll get one of those too...(Or is he the wrong political persuation)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they aren't gonna give a Nobel Peace Prize to a rich white guy, even one that has done far more for the world already than our current POTUS ever thought about.  And besides, Hugo Chavez has endorsed Obama (again) and dismissed Romney in attempt.  So that probably dashes Romney's chances to get anything from a Nobel group.
Click to expand...

did you just say romney has done more good for the world than obama?

please tell me i misread that


----------



## The T

saveliberty said:


> Obama must believe people aren't created equal, he needs some of the inequality back.


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> How very appropriate! Hey? Maybe after Romney is elected/ he'll get one of those too...(Or is he the wrong political persuation)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they aren't gonna give a Nobel Peace Prize to a rich white guy, even one that has done far more for the world already than our current POTUS ever thought about. And besides, Hugo Chavez has endorsed Obama (again) and dismissed Romney in attempt. So that probably dashes Romney's chances to get anything from a Nobel group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you just say romney has done more good for the world than obama?
> 
> please tell me i misread that
Click to expand...

 
You didn't, and it was correct. And THIS bothers YOU how exactly?


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Obama wants businesses to provide jobs. * We have already stated multiple times no special status or privileges required.*  We just want to persue our opportunities without government looking for disproportional gains.  I am already told I have to equally fund medicare coverage for employees and more than half their social security as it stands right now.  I need to fund possible unemployment and injuries on the job at 100%.  Somehow you think the worker is being cheated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Businessmen want special tax privileges for their "risk" as is they are the only people on Earth who take risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Privileges like paying both halves of the social security tax for ourselves?  I own a corporation, so I don't get the tax credit.  I mentioned two taxes that I pay 100% as well.  Typically, business people do take MORE risk.  Its fact.  Please, continue to show the contempt for businesses like your leader Obama.  It speaks volumes.
Click to expand...


Yep, when I had employees, I had the wonderful privilege of paying:
--income taxes and gross receipts taxes on any profits from the business.
--self employment taxes (both halves of FICA and Medicare) on any profits from the bueiness.
--FICA for each employee .
--SUTA for each employee
--FUTA for each employee
--Work Comp that included a flat minimum plus additional for any wages exceeding a minimum.
--General liability that included a flat minimum plus additional for any wages exceeding a minimum.
--E & O that increased when it covered the employees too.

Then there are all the other costs of doing business from the computers to transportation to utilities to storage and a myriad of supplies etc. etc. etc.  The sheer volume of paper work involved can bury a person.

And tax credits for any of this?  Not for us.  Not a single one.

Nor did we receive any help in start up monies or any other credits to get the biz going in the first place.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Oh my god, i am trying not to use emoticons so much, lazy man's way of expressing himself, but mr T, you phony special ops racist lying idiot, you are so funny it is killing me NOT to


----------



## DiamondDave

ConzHateUSA said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> How very appropriate! Hey? Maybe after Romney is elected/ he'll get one of those too...(Or is he the wrong political persuation)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they aren't gonna give a Nobel Peace Prize to a rich white guy, even one that has done far more for the world already than our current POTUS ever thought about.  And besides, Hugo Chavez has endorsed Obama (again) and dismissed Romney in attempt.  So that probably dashes Romney's chances to get anything from a Nobel group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you just say romney has done more good for the world than obama?
> 
> please tell me i misread that
Click to expand...


If Romney has done 1 good thing for the world.. it would be more than Obama.. the worst Romney could do is tie


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Businessmen want special tax privileges for their "risk" as is they are the only people on Earth who take risks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Privileges like paying both halves of the social security tax for ourselves?  I own a corporation, so I don't get the tax credit.  I mentioned two taxes that I pay 100% as well.  Typically, business people do take MORE risk.  Its fact.  Please, continue to show the contempt for businesses like your leader Obama.  It speaks volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, when I had employees, I had the wonderful privilege of paying:
> --income taxes and gross receipts taxes on any profits from the business.
> --self employment taxes (both halves of FICA) on any profits from the bueiness.
> --FICA for each employee
> --SUTA for each employee
> --FUTA for each employee
> --Work Comp that included a flat minimum plus additional for any wages exceeding a minimum.
> --General liability that included a flat minimum plus additional for any wages exceeding a minimum.
> --E & O that increased when it covered the employees too.
> 
> Then there are all the other costs of doing business from the computers to transportation to utilities to storage and a myriad of supplies etc. etc. etc.  The sheer volume of paper work involved can bury a person.
> 
> And tax credits for any of this?  Not for us.  Not a single one.
> 
> Nor did we receive any help in start up monies or any other credits to get the biz going in the first place.
Click to expand...


liar, stop googling and posting bullshit

employees?  sure, tell us what kind of biz


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> Oh my god, i am trying not to use emoticons so much, lazy man's way of expressing himself, but mr T, you phony special ops racist lying idiot, you are so funny it is killing me NOT to


 
*Fuck Off*


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, i am trying not to use emoticons so much, lazy man's way of expressing himself, but mr T, you phony special ops racist lying idiot, you are so funny it is killing me NOT to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fuck Off*
Click to expand...


and 20 points for me

i pissed of the lying piece of shit racist shitbag


----------



## Cecilie1200

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he was.*  He was suggesting that small business owners don't deserve the credit.*  They don't work longer hours or work harder than anybody else.  They built their businesses because somebody else built an infrastructure or taught a class and/or otherwise helped them do it..  It is not them doing their own thing to prosper and thereby provide taxes so that government can build and maintain an infrastructure.  His meaning was 100% clear that they owe their success to society and all us working together and therefore should be grateful and obligated and pay more in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> you are a pathological liar. I hasve corrected you in this and other threads and here you are STILL lying.
> 
> OBAMA: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but also because we do things together."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole speech was to drive home the point that being smart and working hard take a lowly back seat to the concept of collective effort, and he was quite clear that the collective effort was through the government.  Or at least he made no reference to anything accomplished by the private sector; only that 'help' we got from government.  There was no praise for the entreprenour or small business or large business owner.  Only contempt for thinking he or she had anything to do with his/her own success.  Yes he acknowledged that individual initiative figured into the mix, but there was zero recognition of the necessity of  private business owners for a healthy economy or that the business owners contributed to the 'help' anybody has gotten along the way.
Click to expand...


That is what is known as "throwing you a bone".  Obama is graciously conceding that maybe entrepreneurs did a little more than just sit back, sipping lattes, before going back to telling them that they shouldn't get cocky and above themselves, because they'd be nothing without the benevolent collective in the form of Big Government.


----------



## saveliberty

ConzHateUSA said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Privileges like paying both halves of the social security tax for ourselves?  I own a corporation, so I don't get the tax credit.  I mentioned two taxes that I pay 100% as well.  Typically, business people do take MORE risk.  Its fact.  Please, continue to show the contempt for businesses like your leader Obama.  It speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, when I had employees, I had the wonderful privilege of paying:
> --income taxes and gross receipts taxes on any profits from the business.
> --self employment taxes (both halves of FICA) on any profits from the bueiness.
> --FICA for each employee
> --SUTA for each employee
> --FUTA for each employee
> --Work Comp that included a flat minimum plus additional for any wages exceeding a minimum.
> --General liability that included a flat minimum plus additional for any wages exceeding a minimum.
> --E & O that increased when it covered the employees too.
> 
> Then there are all the other costs of doing business from the computers to transportation to utilities to storage and a myriad of supplies etc. etc. etc.  The sheer volume of paper work involved can bury a person.
> 
> And tax credits for any of this?  Not for us.  Not a single one.
> 
> Nor did we receive any help in start up monies or any other credits to get the biz going in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liar, stop googling and posting bullshit
> 
> employees?  sure, tell us what kind of biz
Click to expand...


Disprove even one thing posted above.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

disprove she owns her own business and didnt just google that?

ok

she doesnt own her own business, there

now if she does, what kind of biz was it?


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> disprove she owns her own business and didnt just google that?
> 
> ok
> 
> she doesnt own her own business, there
> 
> now if she does, what kind of biz was it?


 
NONE of YOUR fucking BIZ.

Get it ACE?


----------



## saveliberty

ConzHateUSA said:


> disprove she owns her own business and didnt just google that?
> 
> ok
> 
> she doesnt own her own business, there
> 
> now if she does, what kind of biz was it?



It is clear over time that Foxfyre and myself each own a business.  There are many posts discussing them.  Mine is a landscape company.  I had employees for awhile, but the worker's compensation premiums made that burdensome.  Now its a part-time business and doing okay this year.  I made a post over the weekend about completing a paver walk.

Please continue to flail around though.  It reflects so well on you and the president.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Bfgrn said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you idiot racist shitbags still lying about what the Prez said and taking his quote out of context to create an issue that doesnt exist?
> 
> 
> thought so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when Obama said it was taken out of context he was counting on the numerous amount of morons that are too lazy to listen and watch the video who will, instead say "yeah, they took it ouyt of context."
> 
> Watch the video man. It was not taken out of context....not AT ALL.
> 
> He sees you as a lazy moron who will believe anything he says.
> 
> Need to ask you...
> 
> What is it like to adamantly support a man who views you as a lazy moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW! You are taking what the President said, and applying what YOU want it to mean, not what the President said.
> 
> His message is clear.
> 
> The point is  that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
Click to expand...


Could you possibly grab your ears, pull until you hear the popping noise, and thus remove your head from Obama's sphincter long enough to tell us the purpose of Obama's speech?  For all that you idiots like to scream about "Context!", you certainly do want to pretend that he just popped this little bit of blather out in a vacuum, apropos of nothing.  But I'm going to tell you right now, however much you want to spin and pretend, absolutely no one but your fellow travelers is buying the idea that he suddenly decided to talk about roads and bridges being an interconnected society for no reason at all.  So why don't you find yourself the transcript of the entire speech, if you can, and tell us what point he was getting at which this debated section was in service of.

I'll be fascinated to see if you can muster that much intellectual honesty.


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, i am trying not to use emoticons so much, lazy man's way of expressing himself, but mr T, you phony special ops racist lying idiot, you are so funny it is killing me NOT to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fuck Off*
Click to expand...


The correct pronunciation is "Fuck Off, Troll."


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> and 20 points for me
> 
> i pissed of the lying piece of shit racist shitbag



Fuck off, troll.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

phew, thank GOD you shitbaggers have no power or wont very soon

the planet itself would self destruct in less than a year if people as stupid as you were in charge of anything


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Uncensored2008 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 20 points for me
> 
> i pissed of the lying piece of shit racist shitbag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off, troll.
Click to expand...


ahh, did i make you mad

then stop being a shitbag terrorist prick who hates the prez solely based on the color of his skin

stop hating women because you dont understand them

stop hating muslims because you dont understand them

stop hating Black people because you dont look like them

then I will fuck off

Gladly...


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, i am trying not to use emoticons so much, lazy man's way of expressing himself, but mr T, you phony special ops racist lying idiot, you are so funny it is killing me NOT to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fuck Off*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and 20 points for me
> 
> i pissed of the lying piece of shit racist shitbag
Click to expand...

 
No. s0n. You have it wrong. You did nothing of the sort.

Only pointed out your dillusional existance.

And allowed me to spray this thread idiot.


----------



## kaz

ConzHateUSA said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 20 points for me
> 
> i pissed of the lying piece of shit racist shitbag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ahh, did i make you mad
> 
> then stop being a shitbag terrorist prick who hates the prez solely based on the color of his skin
> 
> stop hating women because you dont understand them
> 
> stop hating muslims because you dont understand them
> 
> stop hating Black people because you dont look like them
> 
> then I will fuck off
> 
> Gladly...
Click to expand...


That was so gay


----------



## saveliberty

Don't know what the rest of you plan to do, but for me, ConzHateUSA is one of the purest trolls we have seen.  Therefore, he is sent to the ash heap of the ignore list for me.  Not going to feed a troll.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> ahh, did i make you mad



LOL

The goal of the troll, to elicit a response.

No, you didn't get what you wanted.

Really, you're quite boring. You're boring because you're stupid. A clever troll would mix enough rational content to convince others that he was worth bothering with.

You don't, and You're not.

So, fuck off, troll.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

murph 





> ...what an opportune moment to remind us of what Barack Obama actually thinks about not only our Constitution, but "spreading the wealth".



Care to point out REAL examples of either?

No, I don't mean fux, lushbo crap. I mean PROOF.


----------



## saveliberty

Gee another troll arrives.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know stupid,* it was Saul Alinsky who wrote "Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing"*
> 
> Rush Limbaugh merely quoted Alinsky and stated explicitly that he was quoting Alinsky. But you have zero integrity and an IQ under 50....
> 
> 
> 
> While Alinsky is your MessiahRushie's mentor, he was not quoting Alinsky, he was referring to Clinton. In fact the original quote is not even attributed to Alinsky. It is actually attributed to Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx.
> 
> As usual, you are a typical know-it-all who knows nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...neither did you before it was googled.
Click to expand...

Bullshit!

you are at least the 50th DittoNutzi to claim your MessiahRushie was quoting his mentor Alinsky.


----------



## The T

luddly.neddite said:


> murph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...what an opportune moment to remind us of what Barack Obama actually thinks about not only our Constitution, but "spreading the wealth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to point out REAL examples of either?
> 
> No, I don't mean fux, lushbo crap. I mean PROOF.
Click to expand...

 
And what is 'fux' lushbo'?

Speak english twerp.


----------



## saveliberty

The leader can easily be judged by the quality of person who supports him.  Take a look at the posters following Obama here.  Enough said.


----------



## kaz

saveliberty said:


> Don't know what the rest of you plan to do, but for me, ConzHateUSA is one of the purest trolls we have seen.  Therefore, he is sent to the ash heap of the ignore list for me.  Not going to feed a troll.



You're right, he is a lame troll.  But it is fun to screw with him for a little bit, give us that.


----------



## saveliberty

Ed the Simpleton thinks everything said here comes from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.  At least that is what Huffo told him.


----------



## edthecynic

The T said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the first quote in my sig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know stupid, it was Saul Alinsky who wrote "Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing"
> 
> Rush Limbaugh merely quoted Alinsky and stated explicitly that he was quoting Alinsky. But you have zero integrity and an IQ under 50....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Edith has been taking Limbaugh out of context for some time. He has a hardon for him for whatever reason. *Limbaugh siding with Alinsky *is just way far stupid and a means for Edith to justify himself however falsely . Good catch.
Click to expand...

your MessiahRushie following his mentor Alinsky is unassailable, and you know it, and it is a testimony to your lack of credibility.
Thank you.

Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to* ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with. *

May 14, 2007
RUSH: Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. *We were making fun of and laughing. *

January 24, 2007
RUSH: *One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule,* because there's no response to it. *When you get ridiculed and made fun of,* that's the toughest thing to have a response because *everybody's laughing at you*... *In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience*, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW! You are taking what the President said, and applying what YOU want it to mean, not what the President said.
> 
> His message is clear.
> 
> The point is  that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure undadulterated garbage.
> 
> His message is clear.
> 
> You didn't earn your money without some help and so we are going to help ourselves to more of your money.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what he said or what what he meant. If you watched the video or read the transcript and came away with: 'You didn't earn your money without some help and so we are going to help ourselves to more of your money', you are applying what YOU want it to mean, not what the President said.
Click to expand...


How about we look at the rest of his speech and see what it was he really meant, hmmm, Context Boy?

From earlier in Obama's speech, as found in the transcripts released on WhiteHouse.gov:

_     THE PRESIDENT:  On the one side youve got my opponent in this presidential race and his Republican allies who --

     AUDIENCE:  Booo --

     THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, look -- I mean, were having a good, healthy, democratic debate.  Thats how this works.  And on their side, theyve got a basic theory about how you grow the economy.  And the theory is very simple:  They think that the economy grows from the top down.  So their basic theory is, if wealthy investors are doing well then everybody does well.  So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that thats somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job-training programs and gutting transportation projects, and maybe even seeing middle-class folks have a higher tax burden. 

AUDIENCE:  No!

THE PRESIDENT:  So thats part number one, right.  More tax cuts for those at the top.

     Part number two is they believe if you tear down all the regulations that weve put in place -- for example, on Wall Street banks or on insurance companies or on credit card companies or on polluters -- that somehow the economy is going to do much, much better.  So those are their two theories.  Theyve got the tax cuts for the high end, and theyve got rollback regulation.

     Now, heres the problem.  You may have guessed -- we tried this.  We tried this in the last decade and it did not work.

[snip]

     But you know what, Im not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who dont need them.  So Im going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, weve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.

     There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back._

And this is where his little rant about business owners "not building that" started up.

So tell me, Context Boy, how we're wrong about Mr. Obama's point in the controversial clip - indeed, in his entire speech - being that successful people should want to "give something back" - ie. pay more taxes - because they "owe" the collective for generously contributing to their success?

FYI, the transcript of the entire speech is available at Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event in Roanoke, Virginia | The White House


----------



## The T

edthecynic said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know stupid, it was Saul Alinsky who wrote "Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing"
> 
> Rush Limbaugh merely quoted Alinsky and stated explicitly that he was quoting Alinsky. But you have zero integrity and an IQ under 50....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edith has been taking Limbaugh out of context for some time. He has a hardon for him for whatever reason. *Limbaugh siding with Alinsky *is just way far stupid and a means for Edith to justify himself however falsely . Good catch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your MessiahRushie following his mentor Alinsky is unassailable, and you know it, and it is a testimony to your lack of credibility.
> Thank you.
> 
> Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
> 
> November 11, 2009
> RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to* ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with. *
> 
> May 14, 2007
> RUSH: Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. *We were making fun of and laughing. *
> 
> January 24, 2007
> RUSH: *One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule,* because there's no response to it. *When you get ridiculed and made fun of,* that's the toughest thing to have a response because *everybody's laughing at you*... *In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience*, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.
Click to expand...

 
NO Dumbass...it isn't...and referring to it wasn't endorsing it.

YOU need to wein yourself OFF of Thinkprogress and THINK for yourself Edith, you dingbat.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

kaz said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what the rest of you plan to do, but for me, ConzHateUSA is one of the purest trolls we have seen.  Therefore, he is sent to the ash heap of the ignore list for me.  Not going to feed a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, he is a lame troll.  But it is fun to screw with him for a little bit, give us that.
Click to expand...


you silly stupid bigot shitbag terrorists, the entire planet is laughing at you

by now I would think that would bother you at least a little?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

and i see foxfyre never did tell me what kind of biz they are in

why?  cuz it knows I have them on something, so he or she doesn't know what to say

that is all you guys do is lie, amazing, sometimes when I say it I dont actually believe it, i mean how can a group of people never ever once tell the truth, but you do


----------



## kaz

ConzHateUSA said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what the rest of you plan to do, but for me, ConzHateUSA is one of the purest trolls we have seen.  Therefore, he is sent to the ash heap of the ignore list for me.  Not going to feed a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, he is a lame troll.  But it is fun to screw with him for a little bit, give us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you silly stupid bigot shitbag terrorists, the entire planet is laughing at you
> 
> by now I would think that would bother you at least a little?
Click to expand...


Ouch, next are you going to go to pee pee and poo poo jokes?  I was kidding when I said you're eight, but you actually are aren't you?  Are you and ed in the same class?

Here's a pee pee for you ...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

kaz said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, he is a lame troll.  But it is fun to screw with him for a little bit, give us that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you silly stupid bigot shitbag terrorists, the entire planet is laughing at you
> 
> by now I would think that would bother you at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch, next are you going to go to pee pee and poo poo jokes?  I was kidding when I said you're eight, but you actually are aren't you?  Are you and ed in the same class?
> 
> Here's a pee pee for you ...
Click to expand...

Insisting on talking to me, therefore losing every single discussion, insisting on continuing to prove to the planet that you are the idiot this headline is talking about







is really something...you dont actually know you are the butt of the joke around the planet, do you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Murf76 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ed-Obama camp must be scared to death about this gaffe by the President.  Their mutual contempt for hard working American business owners is out.  Might want to find a better way of dealing with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are.  This tops every Obama gaffe ever made by its sheer magnitude.  And there's no escaping it.  Small businesses create about 70% of jobs.  And Obama just let them know that he thinks they owe him something more than what they're already paying.
> 
> Small business owners are ubiquitous.  Their influence is wide-ranging.  We all know somebody or other who's out there busting their ass to make it.  And we LIKE that enterprising American spirit.  We respect it the way we respect "the troops" and "the middle class".
Click to expand...


When the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business are BOTH reading his comments as insults to small business owners and getting pissed off about it, I think the Democrats and their useful idiots should just give up on the idea of convincing people that's not what he meant.


----------



## GuyPinestra

freedombecki said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre does not lie, edthecynic. She's one of the finest members on this board, an experienced, honest business community member, and a prolific helper with seniors in her community. Badmouthing her makes you look like a creature from the gloom lagoon. I recommend a new hobby for you other than trying to spin a smear on an innocent person like Foxfyre.
> 
> 
> 
> Her lies in this thread are obvious and I have highlighted them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, sir are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Click to expand...


Careful, next he'll call you a Bible-thumping Christian terrorist!


----------



## edthecynic

The T said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edith has been taking Limbaugh out of context for some time. He has a hardon for him for whatever reason. *Limbaugh siding with Alinsky *is just way far stupid and a means for Edith to justify himself however falsely . Good catch.
> 
> 
> 
> your MessiahRushie following his mentor Alinsky is unassailable, and you know it, and it is a testimony to your lack of credibility.
> Thank you.
> 
> Rule 5: Ridicule is man&#8217;s most potent weapon. It&#8217;s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
> 
> November 11, 2009
> RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to* ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with. *
> 
> May 14, 2007
> RUSH: Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. *We were making fun of and laughing. *
> 
> January 24, 2007
> RUSH: *One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule,* because there's no response to it. *When you get ridiculed and made fun of,* that's the toughest thing to have a response because *everybody's laughing at you*... *In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience*, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO Dumbass...it isn't...and referring to it wasn't endorsing it.
> 
> YOU need to wein yourself OFF of Thinkprogress and THINK for yourself Edith, you dingbat.
Click to expand...

Oh that patented CON$ervoFascist dumb act again. 

Your MessiahRushie wasn't referring to it, he admitted it was his FASTEST and therefore his favorite tactic!!!!! If that isn't an endorsement there is no such thing as an endorsement.
He also claims it was Reagan's favorite tactic too. that's right St Ronnie was an Alinskyite too!!! All CON$ worship at the altar of Alinsky.

June 23, 2008
RUSH: Ronald Reagan said, "Just laugh at 'em, just laugh at 'em and just ridicule it,"


----------



## edthecynic

Cecilie1200 said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ed-Obama camp must be scared to death about this gaffe by the President.  Their mutual contempt for hard working American business owners is out.  Might want to find a better way of dealing with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are.  This tops every Obama gaffe ever made by its sheer magnitude.  And there's no escaping it.  Small businesses create about 70% of jobs.  And Obama just let them know that he thinks they owe him something more than what they're already paying.
> 
> Small business owners are ubiquitous.  Their influence is wide-ranging.  We all know somebody or other who's out there busting their ass to make it.  And we LIKE that enterprising American spirit.  We respect it the way we respect "the troops" and "the middle class".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business are BOTH* reading his comments as insults to small business owners and getting pissed off about it, I think the Democrats and their useful idiots should just give up on the idea of convincing people that's not what he meant.
Click to expand...

No, all they prove is CON$ervoFascists lie in packs!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

These kids didn't get there without the government.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p7L3s_gyD8]Kids Lemonade Stand Fined $500, Shut Down - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Cecilie1200

chanel said:


> No small businesss owners I know want to be worshipped. Respected perhaps but most would rather that the govt stop villifying and punishing them for their success. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?
> 
> Save your worshipping for your messiah. And his Hollywood minions.



Leftists don't think it's possible to take a position for any reason other than that you are slavishly adoring someone.  The idea of advocating something - like respect for business owners and their entrepreneurship - simply because it's the right thing to do is totally alien to them.


----------



## Zxereus

saveliberty said:


> Don't know what the rest of you plan to do, but for me, ConzHateUSA is one of the purest trolls we have seen.  Therefore, he is sent to the ash heap of the ignore list for me.  Not going to feed a troll.



Conz does nothing but posts hateful filthy names directed at conservatives.
He is the most hateful member of this board, and it's amazing the mods allow his stink.


----------



## edthecynic

The T said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edith has been taking Limbaugh out of context for some time. He has a hardon for him for whatever reason. *Limbaugh siding with Alinsky *is just way far stupid and a means for Edith to justify himself however falsely . Good catch.
> 
> 
> 
> your MessiahRushie following his mentor Alinsky is unassailable, and you know it, and it is a testimony to your lack of credibility.
> Thank you.
> 
> Rule 5: Ridicule is man&#8217;s most potent weapon. It&#8217;s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
> 
> November 11, 2009
> RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to* ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with. *
> 
> May 14, 2007
> RUSH: Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. *We were making fun of and laughing. *
> 
> January 24, 2007
> RUSH: *One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule,* because there's no response to it. *When you get ridiculed and made fun of,* that's the toughest thing to have a response because *everybody's laughing at you*... *In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience*, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO Dumbass...it isn't...and referring to it wasn't endorsing it.
> 
> YOU need to wein yourself OFF of *Thinkprogress* and THINK for yourself Edith, you dingbat.
Click to expand...

All you mindless drones have been programmed to say that anyone who exposes you to the fact that your MessiahRushie is nothing but worthless lying scum got their info from some Lib website. Yet every time I challenge you to link to the website that uses the same quotes that I do, you brainwashed fools NEVER can.

Come on, prove me wrong and link to the Thinkprogress page that uses the same quotes I just used. If you can't or won't, you will have proven yourself to be a liar yet again.
Thank you.


----------



## HenryBHough

Q.  Is it wrong to call a shovel a spade?

A.  Yes.  Shovels have sharp, pointed tips capable of breaking new ground.  Spades have flattened tips, more suitable for scooping up and spreading dung.


----------



## edthecynic

Zxereus said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what the rest of you plan to do, but for me, ConzHateUSA is one of the purest trolls we have seen.  Therefore, he is sent to the ash heap of the ignore list for me.  Not going to feed a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conz does nothing but posts hateful filthy names directed at conservatives.
> He is the most hateful member of this board, and it's amazing the mods allow his stink.
Click to expand...

CON$ervoFascists can dish it out, but cry to their mommy or the mods when they are treated in kind.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were doing business in this country waaayyy before we had a Congress with which to tax their earnings.*  A caveman trading a rock for a stick would've been doing business.  *A guy taxing that transaction wouldn't have been necessary for the transaction to be complete.
> 
> You guys ought to just ADMIT who you are.  Come out of the pinko closet and have THAT conversation with the American people.  At least you'd be _honest_.  But you won't... because you already know how it would go down.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you admit that workers can do business with each other without a businessman in the middle taking his cut. the only difference between the businessman in the middle taking his cut and the government in the middle taking a cut is the businessman hoards away his cut for himself and the government uses its cut for the general welfare of the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You just can't be THAT thick.  A caveman with a rock to trade and a caveman with a stick to trade ARE two businessmen.  A colonial with a cart-load of turnips and native with a bag of cured animal skins ARE two businessmen.
> 
> How are you not getting this?
Click to expand...


Ever since primitive man realized that different members of the tribe had varying skill levels at different things, humans have been trading, ie. doing business.

Settlers on the plains weren't staking claims of the size that they were because they just wanted to plant a vegetable garden to feel their families.  They did it because they intended to grow enough of something to sell it.

It always amazes me how 21st-century-America-centric lefties are.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zxereus said:


> Conz does nothing but posts hateful filthy names directed at conservatives.
> He is the most hateful member of this board, and it's amazing the mods allow his stink.



There's nothing in the TOS against being a troll. 

Put him on ignore if he really bothers you. He's a stupid little kid, trolling to try to make himself feel better about being a loser.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conz does nothing but posts hateful filthy names directed at conservatives.
> He is the most hateful member of this board, and it's amazing the mods allow his stink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in the TOS against being a troll.
> 
> Put him on ignore if he really bothers you. He's a stupid little kid, trolling to try to make himself feel better about being a loser.
Click to expand...


little kid eh

I have told your friends, i will tell you

$50,000 cash for the first one of you that can turn back the clock and make me a kid again


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> little kid eh
> 
> I have told your friends, i will tell you
> 
> $50,000 cash for the first one of you that can turn back the clock and make me a kid again



You are either 13, or have the maturity of a 13 year old.

Either way, fuck off, troll.


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you threatened my life because you cant stand to hear me tell the truth
> 
> is that how it is? fine...you said you could find me, go ahead, asshole
> 
> maybe you can team up with the patriot that shot all those people in colorado?
> 
> oh, and thanks for proving my point as to what your types are really like, what your character really is...
> 
> this is my country, fuck you, i served my country, my father served my country, my step son served my country, NOBODY especially a rightwing prick will threaten me
> 
> not now, not ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's it feel IDIOT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how does what feel, idiot, being threatened by someone who doesnt want free speech to exist?
> 
> nothing new, surely you have heard of hitler before?
Click to expand...

 
Juxtapose what YOU just wrote into a mirror and the VITRIOL _YOU_ have been dishing out as to speech?

Again? YOU have some serious soul searching to do. Call this your POT MEET KETTLE moment and learn to settle down.


----------



## Cecilie1200

saveliberty said:


> Don't know what the rest of you plan to do, but for me, ConzHateUSA is one of the purest trolls we have seen.  Therefore, he is sent to the ash heap of the ignore list for me.  Not going to feed a troll.



I would have ignored him a long time ago, except he's just not worth the effort involved in making all those mouse clicks.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

vitriol?  me?

I am not the one who hates women, blax, latinos, gays, asians, science, etc etc etc

you have it backwards


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## ConzHateUSA

Cecilie1200 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what the rest of you plan to do, but for me, ConzHateUSA is one of the purest trolls we have seen.  Therefore, he is sent to the ash heap of the ignore list for me.  Not going to feed a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have ignored him a long time ago, except he's just not worth the effort involved in making all those mouse clicks.
Click to expand...


As I have said before, the reason you pathetic shitbag baggers read me, respond to me, is you know deep down I am right and you are wrong.

You dont know how to admit it, because if you did, it would mean you would have to admit you have been wrong about everything your entire adult lives

While I admit that is a lot to expect, it is necessary for your growth...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Lakhota said:


>



Oh you, posting truthful things, now you know damn well what is going to happen next

wait for it

i have a good internet friend who lives and breathes bartcop


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> vitriol? me?
> 
> I am not the one who hates women, blax, latinos, gays, asians, science, etc etc etc
> 
> you have it backwards


 
and OFF it goes again. Remember Obama told you about teachable moments? Even YOU defy your messiah...tsk...tsk...

Can't say that I didn't try to reason with you.

YOU are on your own. Welcome to the shortbus that is my ignore list.

Goombye.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


>



Was Romney saying any of that in the context of a speech about how Olympians should be taxed on their medals?


----------



## Murf76

Cecilie1200 said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ed-Obama camp must be scared to death about this gaffe by the President.  Their mutual contempt for hard working American business owners is out.  Might want to find a better way of dealing with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are.  This tops every Obama gaffe ever made by its sheer magnitude.  And there's no escaping it.  Small businesses create about 70% of jobs.  And Obama just let them know that he thinks they owe him something more than what they're already paying.
> 
> Small business owners are ubiquitous.  Their influence is wide-ranging.  We all know somebody or other who's out there busting their ass to make it.  And we LIKE that enterprising American spirit.  We respect it the way we respect "the troops" and "the middle class".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business are BOTH reading his comments as insults to small business owners and getting pissed off about it, I think the Democrats and their useful idiots should just give up on the idea of convincing people that's not what he meant.
Click to expand...


He's been pissing with the Chamber of Commerce for a long time now.  If you'll remember, back at the midterm he was accusing them of taking foreign money, and then had to walk that back.
Obama

The guy has set himself up in an adversarial position with the business community damn near since he took office, culminating in this latest insult last week in Roanoke.  But somehow, his supporters would have us believe that he's being unfairly attacked... by using his own words in the context in which he said them.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

MY GOD MORE LIES FROM SHITBAGGERS

do you guys EVER get tired of telling lies?


----------



## plant

ConzHateUSA said:


> MY GOD MORE LIES FROM SHITBAGGERS
> 
> do you guys EVER get tired of telling lies?



It's all they have well they have mittens romney lmfao


----------



## ConzHateUSA

plant said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> MY GOD MORE LIES FROM SHITBAGGERS
> 
> do you guys EVER get tired of telling lies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all they have well they have mittens romney lmfao
Click to expand...


It isnt like we have enough trouble that a handful of billionaires own the country, own both parties..

That we have to deal with these complete shitbag morons, it is almost too much


----------



## plant

ConzHateUSA said:


> plant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> MY GOD MORE LIES FROM SHITBAGGERS
> 
> do you guys EVER get tired of telling lies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all they have well they have mittens romney lmfao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isnt like we have enough trouble that a handful of billionaires own the country, own both parties..
> 
> That we have to deal with these complete shitbag morons, it is almost too much
Click to expand...


Agree 100% , they have shit the bed with mittens this guy is a fucking joke. So I'm not to worried the American people are smart enough to see through the bullshit


----------



## ConzHateUSA

plant said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all they have well they have mittens romney lmfao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt like we have enough trouble that a handful of billionaires own the country, own both parties..
> 
> That we have to deal with these complete shitbag morons, it is almost too much
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree 100% , they have shit the bed with mittens this guy is a fucking joke. So I'm not to worried the American people are smart enough to see through the bullshit
Click to expand...


Agreed, but what about the swing states where it is now illegal to vote if you are a democrat and a minority or student?

This is not solved yet, why do you think the fake Fast and Furious issue was created.  The election is in 3 months and in Texas you can vote with a hunting license but NOT a student ID..this is very very  very serious shit...


----------



## Meister

plant said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all they have well they have mittens romney lmfao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt like we have enough trouble that a handful of billionaires own the country, own both parties..
> 
> That we have to deal with these complete shitbag morons, it is almost too much
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree 100% , they have shit the bed with mittens this guy is a fucking joke. So I'm not to worried the American people are smart enough to see through the bullshit
Click to expand...


Not to interrupt with your man thing with Con, but I think the American people are smart enough to see through bullshit, and they don't like the person that is residing at 1600 pennsylvania Ave.  just sayin.....


----------



## Lakhota

> "Fox and Friends" still has beef with President Obama's comments about small businesses. On Tuesday, the show turned to the ultimate source to prove its point: two little girls who run a lemonade stand.



'Fox And Friends' To Little Girls: Did The Government Help You Start Lemonade Stand? (VIDEO)


----------



## Lakhota

Romney, RNC: We Did Obama A Favor By Taking Him Out Of Context! | TPM2012

Yes, lies are always helpful...


----------



## Lakhota

Team Obama Steps Up You Didnt Build That Pushback | TPM2012


----------



## Freewill

Rush: Obama Sings 'You Didn't Build That' Parody #YDBT

Rush: Obama Sings &#39;You Didn&#39;t Build That&#39; Parody #YDBT - YouTube


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

In any case, Barry's idea was that since successful people had help he would  graciously stand by on behalf of all the helpers, living and dead, to impose a new round of taxes on the successful people for the benefit of the helpers. 

Those who helped the less successful people will apparently not be entitled  
to such new benefits, for some reason.

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Lakhota said:


> "Fox and Friends" still has beef with President Obama's comments about small businesses. On Tuesday, the show turned to the ultimate source to prove its point: two little girls who run a lemonade stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Fox And Friends' To Little Girls: Did The Government Help You Start Lemonade Stand? (VIDEO)
Click to expand...



If Obama believes businesses didn't make it on their own but government helped them do it, then the same can be said of those who are unable to find employment. If an individual in their 20s graduated without the basic necessities like math skills, or the ability to simply read a tape measure, then it's the same *government* "public school policies" that allowed for it. If those on welfare simply can receive a check without the slightest need or desire to have to earn it, again . . . you can't look far than the *government* that created such a system. Is Obama equally proud of government when it fails to deliver the much needed tools / skills to allow everyone the fighting opportunity for individual success?


----------



## Murf76

Lakhota said:


> Romney, RNC: We Did Obama A Favor By Taking Him Out Of Context! | TPM2012
> 
> Yes, lies are always helpful...



THAT's your 'smoking gun'??? 
I didn't note the title of the article  in any quoted format though.  That said, Romney's got a good point... the context of telling people they're not particularly smart or hard-working is probably more insulting than the money-line of "you didn't build that". 



> The context is worse than the quote, Romney said in an exchange with Larry Kudlow. The context, he says, you know, you think youve been successful because youre smart, but he says a lot of people are smart. You think youve been successful because you work hard, a lot of people work hard."
> 
> Romney, RNC: We Did Obama A Favor By Taking Him Out Of Context! | TPM2012


----------



## saveliberty

When it comes time to walk into the voting booth, people vote their wallets.  The economic factors point to Romney as the clear choice.  Obama put a nail in his presidential coffin last week.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know...........I thought the GOP was against big FEDERAL government, because they seem to stand on the side of states and towns rights to be enforced locally.

Did you know it was CITY ORDINANCE that stopped the girls stand?  The mayor could have given them a pass if he wanted.



> Midway Police Shut Down Girls' Lemonade Stand
> 
> Midway police bust none other than a lemonade stand, because the three girls running it didn't have a business license. The three girls thought if they sold enough lemonade, they could make money to go to the water park Splash in the Boro. Well they thought wrong. Midway police say,* they're breaking city law and have to go.*
> 
> Its kind of crazy that we couldnt sell lemonade. It was fun, but we had to listen to the cops and shut it down, 14-year-old Casity Dixon said.
> 
> The girls had only been opened for one day before Midways police chief and another officer cruised by and saw the stand.
> 
> They told us to shut it down, 10-year-old Skylar Roberts said.
> 
> We had told them, we understand you guys are young, but still, youre breaking the law, and we cant let you do it anymore. The law is the law, and we have to be consistent with how we enforce the laws, Midway Police Chief Kelly (actually, Kelli-- Ed.) Morningstar said.
> 
> 
> Read more: Young Girls' Lemonade Stand Shut Down in Midway, Ga. | NewsBusters.org


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Is Obama equally proud of government when it fails to deliver the much needed tools / skills to allow everyone the fighting opportunity for?




good point!!! so if government is to get more money, under Barry's reign,  from successful people because government helped them, then, it should be penalized for all the failures like the Great Society near-genocide against blacks!!


----------



## Lakhota

Romney's 'You Didn't Build That' Attack Ad Stars Businessman Who Received Millions in Government Money | ThinkProgress


----------



## Dr.House

Lakhota said:


> Romney's 'You Didn't Build That' Attack Ad Stars Businessman Who Received Millions in Government Money | ThinkProgress



Another 10 cents for Shitting Bull...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Romney's 'You Didn't Build That' Attack Ad Stars Businessman Who Received Millions in Government Money | ThinkProgress



I can get more meaningful commentary by feeding my husband beans and recording the resulting flatulence than from anything ThinkProgress has ever said, but you still keep quoting them as though anyone but you and your butt-buddies is brain-damaged enough to think they matter.


----------



## saveliberty

How does business benefit from roads again?  Seems to be Obama's big example.  Roads are a cost and all costs are passed on to the consumer.  So Obama is really saying consumers should pay more.


----------



## edthecynic

Freewill said:


> Rush: Obama Sings 'You Didn't Build That' Parody #YDBT
> 
> Rush: Obama Sings 'You Didn't Build That' Parody #YDBT - YouTube


"America sucks" 
- Rush Limbaugh


----------



## bripat9643

Republicans are against big government, period.  State government can be almost as oppressive as the federal government.  The one advantage to state government is that you can move to another state if you don't like the way the one you're in is governed.

The worst possible solution to any problem is the government solution.




ABikerSailor said:


> You know...........I thought the GOP was against big FEDERAL government, because they seem to stand on the side of states and towns rights to be enforced locally.
> 
> Did you know it was CITY ORDINANCE that stopped the girls stand?  The mayor could have given them a pass if he wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midway Police Shut Down Girls' Lemonade Stand
> 
> Midway police bust none other than a lemonade stand, because the three girls running it didn't have a business license. The three girls thought if they sold enough lemonade, they could make money to go to the water park Splash in the Boro. Well they thought wrong. Midway police say,* they're breaking city law and have to go.*
> 
> Its kind of crazy that we couldnt sell lemonade. It was fun, but we had to listen to the cops and shut it down, 14-year-old Casity Dixon said.
> 
> The girls had only been opened for one day before Midways police chief and another officer cruised by and saw the stand.
> 
> They told us to shut it down, 10-year-old Skylar Roberts said.
> 
> We had told them, we understand you guys are young, but still, youre breaking the law, and we cant let you do it anymore. The law is the law, and we have to be consistent with how we enforce the laws, Midway Police Chief Kelly (actually, Kelli-- Ed.) Morningstar said.
> 
> 
> Read more: Young Girls' Lemonade Stand Shut Down in Midway, Ga. | NewsBusters.org
Click to expand...


----------



## thereisnospoon

Lakhota said:


> Romney's 'You Didn't Build That' Attack Ad Stars Businessman Who Received Millions in Government Money | ThinkProgress



Think progress has no credibility. The site makes up shit as it goes.
Stop posting bullshit.


----------



## thereisnospoon

bripat9643 said:


> Republicans are against big government, period.  State government can be almost as oppressive as the federal government.  The one advantage to state government is that you can move to another state if you don't like the way the one you're in is governed.
> 
> The worst possible solution to any problem is the government solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know...........I thought the GOP was against big FEDERAL government, because they seem to stand on the side of states and towns rights to be enforced locally.
> 
> Did you know it was CITY ORDINANCE that stopped the girls stand?  The mayor could have given them a pass if he wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midway Police Shut Down Girls' Lemonade Stand
> 
> Midway police bust none other than a lemonade stand, because the three girls running it didn't have a business license. The three girls thought if they sold enough lemonade, they could make money to go to the water park Splash in the Boro. Well they thought wrong. Midway police say,* they're breaking city law and have to go.*
> 
> Its kind of crazy that we couldnt sell lemonade. It was fun, but we had to listen to the cops and shut it down, 14-year-old Casity Dixon said.
> 
> The girls had only been opened for one day before Midways police chief and another officer cruised by and saw the stand.
> 
> They told us to shut it down, 10-year-old Skylar Roberts said.
> 
> We had told them, we understand you guys are young, but still, youre breaking the law, and we cant let you do it anymore. The law is the law, and we have to be consistent with how we enforce the laws, Midway Police Chief Kelly (actually, Kelli-- Ed.) Morningstar said.
> 
> 
> Read more: Young Girls' Lemonade Stand Shut Down in Midway, Ga. | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Actually is not republicans who oppose big government. It is conservatives who oppose it.
The laws in which are cited in the story above exist because too many of us are either afraid to take a stand or unwilling to take a stand against UNJUST laws.
That includes the members of law enforcement who know darned well that those kid's lemonade stand was not hurting anyone.


----------



## Foxfyre

thereisnospoon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against big government, period.  State government can be almost as oppressive as the federal government.  The one advantage to state government is that you can move to another state if you don't like the way the one you're in is governed.
> 
> The worst possible solution to any problem is the government solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know...........I thought the GOP was against big FEDERAL government, because they seem to stand on the side of states and towns rights to be enforced locally.
> 
> Did you know it was CITY ORDINANCE that stopped the girls stand?  The mayor could have given them a pass if he wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually is not republicans who oppose big government. It is conservatives who oppose it.
> The laws in which are cited in the story above exist because too many of us are either afraid to take a stand or unwilling to take a stand against UNJUST laws.
> That includes the members of law enforcement who know darned well that those kid's lemonade stand was not hurting anyone.
Click to expand...


You're right.  The GOP has not been a whole lot better than the Democrats in restraining the growth of government and shifting more and more power to the government.  It happens maybe a bit more disciplined and a bit more slowly under the Republicans, but it has been steadily happening for a long time now.

Unless the Tea Partiers and similar groups are able to put enough true conservatives, that would be Constitutional originalists, into government at all levels, we're screwed.

At least the GOP has traditionally been more pro business and don't disrespect and dismiss entreprenourship as the President and many of his Democratic supporters do.


----------



## Listening

edthecynic said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush: Obama Sings 'You Didn't Build That' Parody #YDBT
> 
> Rush: Obama Sings 'You Didn't Build That' Parody #YDBT - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> "America sucks"
> - Rush Limbaugh
Click to expand...


Who cares what Rush says ?

You listen to him ?

I don't.


----------



## Listening

thereisnospoon said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney's 'You Didn't Build That' Attack Ad Stars Businessman Who Received Millions in Government Money | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think progress has no credibility. The site makes up shit as it goes.
> Stop posting bullshit.
Click to expand...


Comment deleted because on second thought it would be an insult to cretins to include Lakhota in their community.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Someone else made that happen? Business owners know hard work, long hours lead to success -- and an early grave*

By Perry Chiaramonte
July 24, 2012


Long hours and hard work helped Joey Vento build a landmark restaurant in Philadelphia from the ground up, but that work ethic may have also sent him to an early grave.

That's why Eileen Vento's blood boiled when she heard President Obama declare last week that small business owners like her husband owed others for their success.

That is ridiculous. My husband had $6 in his pocket when he started. Vento said to FoxNews.com about Joey Vento, who opened Genos Steaks in 1966 in the neighborhood of South Philly.


He worked hard his whole life to build the place up. We made a lot of money. Unfortunately he didnt get to enjoy it.
- Eileen Vento, widow of cheesesteak king Joey Vento


He worked hard his whole life to build the place up. We made a lot of money. Unfortunately, he didnt get to enjoy it, she added.

---

Read more: Someone else made that happen? Business owners know hard work, long hours lead to success -- and an early grave | Fox News


----------



## edthecynic

American_Jihad said:


> *Someone else made that happen? Business owners know hard work, long hours lead to success -- and an early grave*
> 
> By Perry Chiaramonte
> July 24, 2012
> 
> 
> Long hours and hard work helped Joey Vento build a landmark restaurant in Philadelphia from the ground up, but that work ethic may have also *sent him to an early grave.*
> 
> That's why Eileen Vento's blood boiled when she heard President Obama declare last week that small business owners like her husband owed others for their success.
> 
> That is ridiculous. My husband had $6 in his pocket when he started. Vento said to FoxNews.com about Joey Vento, who opened Genos Steaks in 1966 in the neighborhood of South Philly.
> 
> 
> He worked hard his whole life to build the place up. We made a lot of money. Unfortunately he didnt get to enjoy it.
> - Eileen Vento, widow of cheesesteak king Joey Vento
> 
> 
> He worked hard his whole life to build the place up. We made a lot of money. Unfortunately, he didnt get to enjoy it, she added.
> 
> ---
> 
> Read more: Someone else made that happen? Business owners know hard work, long hours lead to success -- and an early grave | Fox News


The bigoted pig ate himself to death after living a full life of over 71 years. You assholes are really getting desperate with your lies and FAUX outrage.


----------



## Barb




----------



## Barb




----------



## Barb

Star Of Romney Ad Inadvertently Proves That Success Doesn&#8217;t Happen In A Bubble (VIDEOS) | Addicting Info



> Of course his fathers hands built the company. Of course his hands built the company. Of course his sons hands built the company, but not without over $1 million in government loans.
> 
> From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
> 
> In 1999, Gilchrist Metal received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment, according to a New Hampshire Union Leader report at the time.
> 
> The federal government allocates to each state a certain amount of tax-exempt bonding capacity each year for business and housing loans.
> 
> Because the bond buyers do not pay federal taxes on the interest, the interest rate for the borrower is typically lower than that of standard bank financing.
> 
> Last year, Gilchrist Metal also received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008, according to a government web site that tracks spending.
> 
> In another bit of irony, his reasoning is that he dislikes Obama because Gilchrist may start receiving less government money after budget cuts (emphasis mine).
> 
> Defense business is a good way to help the economy, Gilchrist told the Leader. But the President wants to cut the crap out of the defense budget. Im not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government. As far as Im concerned, Im getting some of my tax money back. Im not stupid, Im not going to say no. Shame on me if I didnt use whats available.
> 
> And I will let that little bit of Republican hypocrisy speak for itself.


----------



## American_Jihad

You didn't build that.​

You Didn't Build That
Readings from the Book of Barack​
1 In the beginning Govt created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the economy was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the ATMs, and the Spirit of Govt was hovering over the land.

3 And Govt said, Let there be spending, and there was spending. 4 Govt saw that the spending was good, and that it separated the light from the darkness. 5 Govt called the spending Investments, and this he did in the first day.

6 Then Govt said, Let there be roads and bridges across the waters, and let dams divide the waters from the waters. 7 Thus Govt made the infrastructure and the patronage jobs for eternity under the firmament from the Potomac which was above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And Govt called the firmament Washington. This Govt did on the second day.

9 Then Govt said, Let the regulations and the guidlines under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the Bureaus appear; and it was so. 10 And Govt called the Bureaus demigovts, and the gathering together of them He called AFSCME. And Govt saw that it was good.

---
More:
iowahawk: You Didn't Build That


----------



## Bfgrn

The 'Marxist' dictator speaks:

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do - in small businesses, companies that begin when -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit - one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. 

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

President Barack Obama


----------



## Oddball

Translation: My teleprompter went on the wrong plane and ended up in Rapid City!


----------



## MeBelle

Barb said:


> Star Of Romney Ad Inadvertently Proves That Success Doesn&#8217;t Happen In A Bubble (VIDEOS) | Addicting Info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course his father&#8217;s hands built the company. Of course his hands built the company. Of course his son&#8217;s hands built the company, but not without over $1 million in government loans.
> 
> From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
> 
> In 1999, Gilchrist Metal received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority &#8220;to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment,&#8221; according to a New Hampshire Union Leader report at the time.
> 
> The federal government allocates to each state a certain amount of tax-exempt bonding capacity each year for business and housing loans.
> 
> Because the bond buyers do not pay federal taxes on the interest, the interest rate for the borrower is typically lower than that of standard bank financing.
> 
> Last year, Gilchrist Metal also received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008, according to a government web site that tracks spending.
> 
> In another bit of irony, his reasoning is that he dislikes Obama because Gilchrist may start receiving less government money after budget cuts (emphasis mine).
> 
> &#8220;Defense business is a good way to help the economy,&#8221; Gilchrist told the Leader. &#8220;But the President wants to cut the crap out of the defense budget. I&#8217;m not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government. As far as I&#8217;m concerned, I&#8217;m getting some of my tax money back. I&#8217;m not stupid, I&#8217;m not going to say &#8216;no.&#8217; Shame on me if I didn&#8217;t use what&#8217;s available.&#8221;
> 
> And I will let that little bit of Republican hypocrisy speak for itself.
Click to expand...


I read about this guy.
He is still in business!
He paid back the * loans..*..didn't borrow then go bankrupt, right?

Heck, I got a government student * loan...I paid it back*.

This is Joe The Plumber all over again. Beat on a private citizen!


----------



## clevergirl




----------



## Barb

Republicans block small-business tax break on procedural vote | McClatchy



> WASHINGTON  One of the top items on President Barack Obama's to do list - a 10 percent tax break for small businesses that make new hires - got tangled in an election-year tax debate as Republicans lead a filibuster to block the measure.
> 
> Read more here: Republicans block small-business tax break on procedural vote | McClatchy


----------



## Cecilie1200

Barb said:


>



Aahh, the liberal Cult of Personality.  "Abandon your own knowledge, thoughts, and opinions, because So-And-So said THIS quote!"


----------



## Barb

MeBelle60 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Star Of Romney Ad Inadvertently Proves That Success Doesnt Happen In A Bubble (VIDEOS) | Addicting Info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course his fathers hands built the company. Of course his hands built the company. Of course his sons hands built the company, but not without over $1 million in government loans.
> 
> From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
> 
> In 1999, Gilchrist Metal received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment, according to a New Hampshire Union Leader report at the time.
> 
> The federal government allocates to each state a certain amount of tax-exempt bonding capacity each year for business and housing loans.
> 
> Because the bond buyers do not pay federal taxes on the interest, the interest rate for the borrower is typically lower than that of standard bank financing.
> 
> Last year, Gilchrist Metal also received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008, according to a government web site that tracks spending.
> 
> In another bit of irony, his reasoning is that he dislikes Obama because Gilchrist may start receiving less government money after budget cuts (emphasis mine).
> 
> Defense business is a good way to help the economy, Gilchrist told the Leader. But the President wants to cut the crap out of the defense budget. Im not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government. As far as Im concerned, Im getting some of my tax money back. Im not stupid, Im not going to say no. Shame on me if I didnt use whats available.
> 
> And I will let that little bit of Republican hypocrisy speak for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read about this guy.
> He is still in business!
> He paid back the * loans..*..didn't borrow then go bankrupt, right?
> 
> Heck, I got a government student * loan...I paid it back*.
> 
> This is Joe The Plumber all over again. Beat on a private citizen!
Click to expand...




> In another bit of irony, his reasoning is that* he dislikes Obama because Gilchrist may start receiving less government money after budget cut*s (emphasis mine).
> 
> Defense business is a good way to help the economy, Gilchrist told the Leader. But the President wants to cut the crap out of the defense budget. *Im not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government. As far as Im concerned, Im getting some of my tax money back. Im not stupid, Im not going to say no.* Shame on me if I didnt use whats available.
> 
> And I will let that little bit of Republican hypocrisy speak for itself


----------



## Barb

Cecilie1200 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aahh, the liberal Cult of Personality.  "Abandon your own knowledge, thoughts, and opinions, because So-And-So said THIS quote!"
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Barb said:


>



Is he repaying the loans?  Is there interest on them?  Did the government help him earn the credit rating that qualified him for the loans?  Is the government sending someone to his business every day to help with the work and earn the money to pay back those loans, with interest?

So basically, your arguments are still crap.  Only a dimwit like you would think there's a "Gotcha!" moment in pointing out that the government exists and is the backdrop of everyone's life, as though anyone has argued that.

The government does not deserve gratitude for existing and functioning, and it sure as shit doesn't deserve credit for the success of the people who build on the basic playing field we're all given simply because it's part of that field . . . and CERTAINLY not when they're getting all their money back, PLUS a hefty fee for its temporary use.

Don't even TRY to tell me Mr. Gilchrist "owes" the government even more for the success HE put the blood, sweat, and tears into on top of his taxes, his contributions to the community, his loan payments, AND his fucking interest!


----------



## MeBelle

Barb said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Star Of Romney Ad Inadvertently Proves That Success Doesn&#8217;t Happen In A Bubble (VIDEOS) | Addicting Info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read about this guy.
> He is still in business!
> He paid back the * loans..*..didn't borrow then go bankrupt, right?
> 
> Heck, I got a government student * loan...I paid it back*.
> 
> This is Joe The Plumber all over again. Beat on a private citizen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In another bit of irony, his reasoning is that* he dislikes Obama because Gilchrist may start receiving less government money after budget cut*s (emphasis mine).
> 
> &#8220;Defense business is a good way to help the economy,&#8221; Gilchrist told the Leader. &#8220;But the President wants to cut the crap out of the defense budget. *I&#8217;m not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government. As far as I&#8217;m concerned, I&#8217;m getting some of my tax money back. I&#8217;m not stupid, I&#8217;m not going to say &#8216;no.&#8217;* Shame on me if I didn&#8217;t use what&#8217;s available.&#8221;
> 
> And I will let that little bit of Republican hypocrisy speak for itself
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You know you already posted that, right?
*He's talking about being able to bid and win a few government contract jobs. How is that hypocritical? Is the government just throwing money at him for doing nothing? *


----------



## Barb

Cecilie1200 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he repaying the loans?  Is there interest on them?  Did the government help him earn the credit rating that qualified him for the loans?  Is the government sending someone to his business every day to help with the work and earn the money to pay back those loans, with interest?
> 
> So basically, your arguments are still crap.  Only a dimwit like you would think there's a "Gotcha!" moment in pointing out that the government exists and is the backdrop of everyone's life, as though anyone has argued that.
> 
> The government does not deserve gratitude for existing and functioning, and it sure as shit doesn't deserve credit for the success of the people who build on the basic playing field we're all given simply because it's part of that field . . . and CERTAINLY not when they're getting all their money back, PLUS a hefty fee for its temporary use.
> 
> Don't even TRY to tell me Mr. Gilchrist "owes" the government even more for the success HE put the blood, sweat, and tears into on top of his taxes, his contributions to the community, his loan payments, AND his fucking interest!
Click to expand...


AND government contracts paid with by our tax money, you ignorant cow. 



> In another bit of irony, his reasoning is that *he dislikes Obama because Gilchrist may start receiving less government money after budget cuts* (emphasis mine).
> 
> Defense business is a good way to help the economy, Gilchrist told the Leader. But the President wants to cut the crap out of the defense budget.* Im not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government. As far as Im concerned, Im getting some of my tax money back. Im not stupid, Im not going to say no.* Shame on me if I didnt use whats available.
> 
> And I will let that little bit of Republican hypocrisy speak for itself


----------



## Barb

MeBelle60 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read about this guy.
> He is still in business!
> He paid back the * loans..*..didn't borrow then go bankrupt, right?
> 
> Heck, I got a government student * loan...I paid it back*.
> 
> This is Joe The Plumber all over again. Beat on a private citizen!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In another bit of irony, his reasoning is that* he dislikes Obama because Gilchrist may start receiving less government money after budget cut*s (emphasis mine).
> 
> Defense business is a good way to help the economy, Gilchrist told the Leader. But the President wants to cut the crap out of the defense budget. *Im not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government. As far as Im concerned, Im getting some of my tax money back. Im not stupid, Im not going to say no.* Shame on me if I didnt use whats available.
> 
> And I will let that little bit of Republican hypocrisy speak for itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know you already posted that, right?
> *He's talking about being able to bid and win a few government contract jobs. How is that hypocritical? Is the government just throwing money at him for doing nothing? *
Click to expand...


You're fucking kidding me, right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Barb said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he repaying the loans?  Is there interest on them?  Did the government help him earn the credit rating that qualified him for the loans?  Is the government sending someone to his business every day to help with the work and earn the money to pay back those loans, with interest?
> 
> So basically, your arguments are still crap.  Only a dimwit like you would think there's a "Gotcha!" moment in pointing out that the government exists and is the backdrop of everyone's life, as though anyone has argued that.
> 
> The government does not deserve gratitude for existing and functioning, and it sure as shit doesn't deserve credit for the success of the people who build on the basic playing field we're all given simply because it's part of that field . . . and CERTAINLY not when they're getting all their money back, PLUS a hefty fee for its temporary use.
> 
> Don't even TRY to tell me Mr. Gilchrist "owes" the government even more for the success HE put the blood, sweat, and tears into on top of his taxes, his contributions to the community, his loan payments, AND his fucking interest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND government contracts paid with by our tax money, you ignorant cow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In another bit of irony, his reasoning is that *he dislikes Obama because Gilchrist may start receiving less government money after budget cuts* (emphasis mine).
> 
> Defense business is a good way to help the economy, Gilchrist told the Leader. But the President wants to cut the crap out of the defense budget.* Im not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government. As far as Im concerned, Im getting some of my tax money back. Im not stupid, Im not going to say no.* Shame on me if I didnt use whats available.
> 
> And I will let that little bit of Republican hypocrisy speak for itself
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yeah, and?

You have yet to say anything that makes GOVERNMENT responsible for the success of businesses or the success of America.  I'll be happy to thank Mr. Gilchrist for HIS contributions to building America in exchange for my tax dollars, because unlike the government, HE is actually producing something for my money.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Barb said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know you already posted that, right?
> *He's talking about being able to bid and win a few government contract jobs. How is that hypocritical? Is the government just throwing money at him for doing nothing? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking kidding me, right?
Click to expand...


Nope.  You've just told us that all those wonderful "donations" Obama claims the government makes to the success of businesses and communities are actually made by other businesses, like Mr. Gilchrist's.

Congratulations, shitforbrains.


----------



## Barb

Cecilie1200 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know you already posted that, right?
> *He's talking about being able to bid and win a few government contract jobs. How is that hypocritical? Is the government just throwing money at him for doing nothing? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking kidding me, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You've just told us that all those wonderful "donations" Obama claims the government makes to the success of businesses and communities are actually made by other businesses, like Mr. Gilchrist's.
> 
> Congratulations, shitforbrains.
Click to expand...


Well, you really ARE this ignorant, so I kind of expect it from you. 

And don't tell me what I said, you graceless cow, I know damned well what I said. 

The premise of the thread was based on a quote taken completely out of context. This guy, your hero, the poster boy for the Romney complaint that business doesn't rely even in PART on the infrastructure of government got his start DUE to government structure, and is pissing and moaning that the government PORK that keeps him in business is being reduced.


----------



## Article 15

"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Did anyone help me out? No."

- Craig T. Nelson


----------



## edthecynic




----------



## saveliberty

EdtheLiar's fall back position, use cartoons.  lol

The government takes money from its citizens, skims off some as graft and handling charges, then returns it to different groups.  Some people mistake this for the government helping them.  It was their money to begin with.


----------



## Papageorgio

Barb said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know you already posted that, right?
> *He's talking about being able to bid and win a few government contract jobs. How is that hypocritical? Is the government just throwing money at him for doing nothing? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're fucking kidding me, right?
Click to expand...


Barb the government needs to stop ALL business loans.

If the loans are available to every eligible business, then all businesses should be have equal access, otherwise government is determining who succeeds and who fails. It is not right for government to interfere, but if they do, all businesses need to do what they do to level the playing field, if that means taking loans and paying them back at a lower interest rate than another lender, then so be it. 

All that said, the government needs to get out of the loan business, including student and home loans.


----------



## Papageorgio

saveliberty said:


> EdtheLiar's fall back position, use cartoons.  lol
> 
> The government takes money from its citizens, skims off some as graft and handling charges, then returns it to different groups.  Some people mistake this for the government helping them.  It was their money to begin with.



Funny how they can't defend the position, so they rely on others thinking for them.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


>



Sounds like what NBC does, doesn't it?


----------



## Stephanie

Article 15 said:


> "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Did anyone help me out? No."
> 
> - Craig T. Nelson



well how wonderful now that he has made the big time...he should give us taxpayers our money back


----------



## Murf76

Cecilie1200 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he repaying the loans?  Is there interest on them?  Did the government help him earn the credit rating that qualified him for the loans?  Is the government sending someone to his business every day to help with the work and earn the money to pay back those loans, with interest?
> 
> So basically, your arguments are still crap.  Only a dimwit like you would think there's a "Gotcha!" moment in pointing out that the government exists and is the backdrop of everyone's life, as though anyone has argued that.
> 
> The government does not deserve gratitude for existing and functioning, and it sure as shit doesn't deserve credit for the success of the people who build on the basic playing field we're all given simply because it's part of that field . . . and CERTAINLY not when they're getting all their money back, PLUS a hefty fee for its temporary use.
> 
> Don't even TRY to tell me Mr. Gilchrist "owes" the government even more for the success HE put the blood, sweat, and tears into on top of his taxes, his contributions to the community, his loan payments, AND his fucking interest!
Click to expand...


This is the left's classic "straw man" argument, arguing against positions that conservatives don't even take.  Check this out... _The Ultimate Takedown:_ 



> Excerpt:
> 
> When Obama implied at the Roanoke, Virginia rally that some businessmen refuse to pay for public works from which they benefit, he presented a thesis which, like a three-legged stool, relies on three assumptions that must all be true for the argument to remain standing:
> 
> 1. That the public programs he mentioned in his speech constitute a significant portion of the federal budget;
> 2. That business owners dont already pay far more than their fair share of these expenses; and
> 3. That these specific public benefits are a federal issue, rather than a local issue.
> 
> If any of these legs fails, then the whole argument collapses.
> 
> For good measure, we wont just kick out one, well kick out all three.
> 
> *Small Government Is Not the Same as No Government*
> 
> Progressives critique the fiscal conservative/Tea Party/libertarian position by purposely misrepresenting it as anarchy. When fiscal conservatives say We want smaller government, progressives reply, Oh, so you want no government?
> 
> (cont...)
> Zombie » The Ultimate Takedown of Obama&#8217;s &#8216;You Didn&#8217;t Build That&#8217; Speech



Do read the entire article though.  It really does leave them with 'no leg to stand on'. (pun intended )
The idea that we're all some sort of anarchists is _their_ invention.  The conservative position is NOT that there should be "no government", it's that our federal government should be smaller and limited to functions enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.  

Furthermore, as we read down Zombie's piece, we find that the federal dollars provided that would _"go to projects and programs that benefit the general public and entrepreneurs"_, only amount to less than a quarter of what is spent.. and that's a more than generous accounting.

Our leftist friends have NO ARGUMENT.  Their candidate has let the socialist cat out of the bag at a crucial moment in the campaign and there's just no way to spin it.
Of course, that leaves them testy and vitriolic, but their only alternative would be to re-think their entire ideology. 

As I posted yesterday, you can't _macromanage_ a society without _micromanaging_ lives.  And we can't have both a _negative_ (what the government can't do TO you) Bill of Rights and a _positive_ (what the government must do FOR you) Second Bill of Rights.  They cancel each other out.


----------



## Stephanie

going after the guy who made a ad for Romney..

that's the Progressive-Obama way, when you have nothing else, tear down your fellow American citizens..

vote this administration out people


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


>



You know Barb, your post embodies all the thoughts and ideas of the left.


----------



## saveliberty

...and what of government employees having better pensions and pay in comparision to private jobs at same level?  Now there's a group who certainly didn't get there on their own.


----------



## Buford

Have they put Barky back on the teleprompter yet?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Papageorgio said:


> Barb the government needs to stop ALL business loans.



Barb believes that the government needs to stop ALL business.


----------



## saveliberty

Unwavering support for small business from Obama:  Nil, is not a good support level.


----------



## Barb

Murf76 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he repaying the loans?  Is there interest on them?  Did the government help him earn the credit rating that qualified him for the loans?  Is the government sending someone to his business every day to help with the work and earn the money to pay back those loans, with interest?
> 
> So basically, your arguments are still crap.  Only a dimwit like you would think there's a "Gotcha!" moment in pointing out that the government exists and is the backdrop of everyone's life, as though anyone has argued that.
> 
> The government does not deserve gratitude for existing and functioning, and it sure as shit doesn't deserve credit for the success of the people who build on the basic playing field we're all given simply because it's part of that field . . . and CERTAINLY not when they're getting all their money back, PLUS a hefty fee for its temporary use.
> 
> Don't even TRY to tell me Mr. Gilchrist "owes" the government even more for the success HE put the blood, sweat, and tears into on top of his taxes, his contributions to the community, his loan payments, AND his fucking interest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the left's classic "straw man" argument, arguing against positions that conservatives don't even take.  Check this out... _The Ultimate Takedown:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> When Obama implied at the Roanoke, Virginia rally that some businessmen refuse to pay for public works from which they benefit, he presented a thesis which, like a three-legged stool, relies on three assumptions that must all be true for the argument to remain standing:
> 
> 1. That the public programs he mentioned in his speech constitute a significant portion of the federal budget;
> 2. That business owners dont already pay far more than their fair share of these expenses; and
> 3. That these specific public benefits are a federal issue, rather than a local issue.
> 
> If any of these legs fails, then the whole argument collapses.
> 
> For good measure, we wont just kick out one, well kick out all three.
> 
> *Small Government Is Not the Same as No Government*
> 
> Progressives critique the fiscal conservative/Tea Party/libertarian position by purposely misrepresenting it as anarchy. When fiscal conservatives say We want smaller government, progressives reply, Oh, so you want no government?
> 
> (cont...)
> Zombie » The Ultimate Takedown of Obamas You Didnt Build That Speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do read the entire article though.  It really does leave them with 'no leg to stand on'. (pun intended )
> The idea that we're all some sort of anarchists is _their_ invention.  The conservative position is NOT that there should be "no government", it's that our federal government should be smaller and limited to functions enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, as we read down Zombie's piece, we find that the federal dollars provided that would _"go to projects and programs that benefit the general public and entrepreneurs"_, only amount to less than a quarter of what is spent.. and that's a more than generous accounting.
> 
> Our leftist friends have NO ARGUMENT.  Their candidate has let the socialist cat out of the bag at a crucial moment in the campaign and there's just no way to spin it.
> Of course, that leaves them testy and vitriolic, but their only alternative would be to re-think their entire ideology.
> 
> As I posted yesterday, you can't _macromanage_ a society without _micromanaging_ lives.  And we can't have both a _negative_ (what the government can't do TO you) Bill of Rights and a _positive_ (what the government must do FOR you) Second Bill of Rights.  They cancel each other out.
Click to expand...




Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that *benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. *A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste. 

Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and stabilize (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom  

Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69


----------



## Uncensored2008

saveliberty said:


> Unwavering support for small business from Obama:  Nil, is not a good support level.



If Obama simply offered no support, that would be okay. But Obama has declared war on small business, determined to take what he wants from them with both of his greedy paws. Typical democrat, looting the fruits of the labor of another.


----------



## Barb

Uncensored2008 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unwavering support for small business from Obama:  Nil, is not a good support level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama simply offered no support, that would be okay. But Obama has declared war on small business, determined to take what he wants from them with both of his greedy paws. Typical democrat, looting the fruits of the labor of another.
Click to expand...


----------



## Full-Auto

Barb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unwavering support for small business from Obama:  Nil, is not a good support level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama simply offered no support, that would be okay. But Obama has declared war on small business, determined to take what he wants from them with both of his greedy paws. Typical democrat, looting the fruits of the labor of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


As if we were not aware your offers were just another scam at picking winners and losers as those offers did not include all small businesses.

Fail..........


----------



## Jarhead

Barb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unwavering support for small business from Obama:  Nil, is not a good support level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama simply offered no support, that would be okay. But Obama has declared war on small business, determined to take what he wants from them with both of his greedy paws. Typical democrat, looting the fruits of the labor of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


well....seems Barb is another person who falls for the games they play in Washington.

YUou do realize, Barb, that the folks in Washington count on the gullible to suppoort their little games..

Just as you did when you posted that cute little picture.

Start paying attentrion. They are makingh you look naive.

Fyi...if a bill sasys..."all people who make 100K or less will get a check in the mail for 20K...and in return we will give a 10% tax refund to small bsuinesses....the GOP will filliubuster or vote against it.

Not becuase they are against a tax break....but becuase they are against giving out free money to select people.


----------



## Barb

Jarhead said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama simply offered no support, that would be okay. But Obama has declared war on small business, determined to take what he wants from them with both of his greedy paws. Typical democrat, looting the fruits of the labor of another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well....seems Barb is another person who falls for the games they play in Washington.
> 
> YUou do realize, Barb, that the folks in Washington count on the gullible to suppoort their little games..
> 
> Just as you did when you posted that cute little picture.
> 
> Start paying attentrion. They are makingh you look naive.
> 
> Fyi...if a bill sasys..."all people who make 100K or less will get a check in the mail for 20K...and in return we will give a 10% tax refund to small bsuinesses....the GOP will filliubuster or vote against it.
> 
> Not becuase they are against a tax break....but becuase they are against giving out free money to select people.
Click to expand...


fyi, that's NOT what the bill said.


----------



## Katzndogz

Uncensored2008 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> They just want to be left alone to practice thier liberty as they see fit without government intrusion.
> 
> Obama prefers intrusion. That simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more fundamental than that. The left views people as a resource, no different than a bag of grain or a computer. All resources rightfully belong to the government, which includes all people. The government is to manage resources and distribute them as needed. Thus a small business owner is property of the government, who allows their success as long as it is viewed as beneficial to the collective as a whole. Obama did nothing unusual in the eyes of the left, he merely stated their basic belief, that small business, as all business, succeeds because government decided that it should. Everything the business owner has, including his life, is property of the state to be used as the state sees fit. Obama simple said what the left believes.
Click to expand...


Then obama is merely reflecting what is the popular belief in the United Nations.


----------



## Jarhead

Barb said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well....seems Barb is another person who falls for the games they play in Washington.
> 
> YUou do realize, Barb, that the folks in Washington count on the gullible to suppoort their little games..
> 
> Just as you did when you posted that cute little picture.
> 
> Start paying attentrion. They are makingh you look naive.
> 
> Fyi...if a bill sasys..."all people who make 100K or less will get a check in the mail for 20K...and in return we will give a 10% tax refund to small bsuinesses....the GOP will filliubuster or vote against it.
> 
> Not becuase they are against a tax break....but becuase they are against giving out free money to select people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fyi, that's NOT what the bill said.
Click to expand...


FYI... I know...I used a ficticious buill to make my point.

Politicians play those games Barb. Theyputrediculous things in Bills so the opposition rejects them...even if it has a little of what the opposition wants....so they can then campaign about how the opposition turned down what the supporters of the opposition wants.

Its known as gaming the game in an effort to win ovotes from the opppsition.

And you posted a clear example of it.

Which means you fell for it.

Which means you are not paying attention.


----------



## Murf76

Barb said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he repaying the loans?  Is there interest on them?  Did the government help him earn the credit rating that qualified him for the loans?  Is the government sending someone to his business every day to help with the work and earn the money to pay back those loans, with interest?
> 
> So basically, your arguments are still crap.  Only a dimwit like you would think there's a "Gotcha!" moment in pointing out that the government exists and is the backdrop of everyone's life, as though anyone has argued that.
> 
> The government does not deserve gratitude for existing and functioning, and it sure as shit doesn't deserve credit for the success of the people who build on the basic playing field we're all given simply because it's part of that field . . . and CERTAINLY not when they're getting all their money back, PLUS a hefty fee for its temporary use.
> 
> Don't even TRY to tell me Mr. Gilchrist "owes" the government even more for the success HE put the blood, sweat, and tears into on top of his taxes, his contributions to the community, his loan payments, AND his fucking interest!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the left's classic "straw man" argument, arguing against positions that conservatives don't even take.  Check this out... _The Ultimate Takedown:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> When Obama implied at the Roanoke, Virginia rally that some businessmen refuse to pay for public works from which they benefit, he presented a thesis which, like a three-legged stool, relies on three assumptions that must all be true for the argument to remain standing:
> 
> 1. That the public programs he mentioned in his speech constitute a significant portion of the federal budget;
> 2. That business owners dont already pay far more than their fair share of these expenses; and
> 3. That these specific public benefits are a federal issue, rather than a local issue.
> 
> If any of these legs fails, then the whole argument collapses.
> 
> For good measure, we wont just kick out one, well kick out all three.
> 
> *Small Government Is Not the Same as No Government*
> 
> Progressives critique the fiscal conservative/Tea Party/libertarian position by purposely misrepresenting it as anarchy. When fiscal conservatives say We want smaller government, progressives reply, Oh, so you want no government?
> 
> (cont...)
> Zombie » The Ultimate Takedown of Obamas You Didnt Build That Speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do read the entire article though.  It really does leave them with 'no leg to stand on'. (pun intended )
> The idea that we're all some sort of anarchists is _their_ invention.  The conservative position is NOT that there should be "no government", it's that our federal government should be smaller and limited to functions enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, as we read down Zombie's piece, we find that the federal dollars provided that would _"go to projects and programs that benefit the general public and entrepreneurs"_, only amount to less than a quarter of what is spent.. and that's a more than generous accounting.
> 
> Our leftist friends have NO ARGUMENT.  Their candidate has let the socialist cat out of the bag at a crucial moment in the campaign and there's just no way to spin it.
> Of course, that leaves them testy and vitriolic, but their only alternative would be to re-think their entire ideology.
> 
> As I posted yesterday, you can't _macromanage_ a society without _micromanaging_ lives.  And we can't have both a _negative_ (what the government can't do TO you) Bill of Rights and a _positive_ (what the government must do FOR you) Second Bill of Rights.  They cancel each other out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that *benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. *A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.
> 
> Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and stabilize (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom
> 
> Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69
Click to expand...


Are those your words or a book quotation?  Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.

In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that.  He _gives_ you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%.  It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay.  At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.                                                                               

Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty.  Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.  This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.

We should ALL be pissed about that.  This guy RAN on unity.


----------



## Barb

Jarhead said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> well....seems Barb is another person who falls for the games they play in Washington.
> 
> YUou do realize, Barb, that the folks in Washington count on the gullible to suppoort their little games..
> 
> Just as you did when you posted that cute little picture.
> 
> Start paying attentrion. They are makingh you look naive.
> 
> Fyi...if a bill sasys..."all people who make 100K or less will get a check in the mail for 20K...and in return we will give a 10% tax refund to small bsuinesses....the GOP will filliubuster or vote against it.
> 
> Not becuase they are against a tax break....but becuase they are against giving out free money to select people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fyi, that's NOT what the bill said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI... I know...I used a ficticious buill to make my point.
> 
> Politicians play those games Barb. Theyputrediculous things in Bills so the opposition rejects them...even if it has a little of what the opposition wants....so they can then campaign about how the opposition turned down what the supporters of the opposition wants.
> 
> Its known as gaming the game in an effort to win ovotes from the opppsition.
> 
> And you posted a clear example of it.
> 
> Which means you fell for it.
> 
> Which means you are not paying attention.
Click to expand...


I've paid attention. I paid attention while my mom and dad voted for people who incessantly spouted support for "small business" and instead gave everything to global corporate in every policy measure and pretty much said screw you all to small business people. 
That's what I've paid attention to, thank you very much.


----------



## Barb

Murf76 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the left's classic "straw man" argument, arguing against positions that conservatives don't even take.  Check this out... _The Ultimate Takedown:_
> 
> 
> 
> Do read the entire article though.  It really does leave them with 'no leg to stand on'. (pun intended )
> The idea that we're all some sort of anarchists is _their_ invention.  The conservative position is NOT that there should be "no government", it's that our federal government should be smaller and limited to functions enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, as we read down Zombie's piece, we find that the federal dollars provided that would _"go to projects and programs that benefit the general public and entrepreneurs"_, only amount to less than a quarter of what is spent.. and that's a more than generous accounting.
> 
> Our leftist friends have NO ARGUMENT.  Their candidate has let the socialist cat out of the bag at a crucial moment in the campaign and there's just no way to spin it.
> Of course, that leaves them testy and vitriolic, but their only alternative would be to re-think their entire ideology.
> 
> As I posted yesterday, you can't _macromanage_ a society without _micromanaging_ lives.  And we can't have both a _negative_ (what the government can't do TO you) Bill of Rights and a _positive_ (what the government must do FOR you) Second Bill of Rights.  They cancel each other out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that *benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. *A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.
> 
> Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and stabilize (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom
> 
> Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those your words or a book quotation?  Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.
> 
> In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that.  He _gives_ you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%.  *It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay.*  At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.
> 
> Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty.  Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.  This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.
> 
> We should ALL be pissed about that.  This guy RAN on unity.
Click to expand...


My words. I quoted my source. 

As to the bolded above, horse shit.


----------



## Vast LWC

Wha wha what?


----------



## saveliberty

So you support Obama who is even worse at helping small business.  Great solution Barb.


----------



## Murf76

Barb said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that *benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. *A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.
> 
> Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and stabilize (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom
> 
> Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your words or a book quotation?  Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.
> 
> In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that.  He _gives_ you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%.  *It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay.*  At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.
> 
> Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty.  Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.  This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.
> 
> We should ALL be pissed about that.  This guy RAN on unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My words. I quoted my source.
> 
> As to the bolded above, horse shit.
Click to expand...


By all means, let's take a look at your argument then.   Show us where Zombie is wrong.


----------



## Barb

Vast LWC said:


> Wha wha what?



You post a picture using the insert image tag, and LOL did he REEEELY???







sWEEEET.


----------



## Vast LWC

Barb said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wha wha what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post a picture using the insert image tag, and LOL did he REEEELY???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sWEEEET.
Click to expand...


I know, for some reason it didn't work for that photo for me.

And yes, really, LOL.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> I've paid attention. I paid attention while my mom and dad voted for people who incessantly spouted support for "small business" and instead gave everything to global corporate in every policy measure and pretty much said screw you all to small business people.
> That's what I've paid attention to, thank you very much.



Yet you vote for and lie for those very people.....


----------



## Jarhead

Barb said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi, that's NOT what the bill said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI... I know...I used a ficticious buill to make my point.
> 
> Politicians play those games Barb. Theyputrediculous things in Bills so the opposition rejects them...even if it has a little of what the opposition wants....so they can then campaign about how the opposition turned down what the supporters of the opposition wants.
> 
> Its known as gaming the game in an effort to win ovotes from the opppsition.
> 
> And you posted a clear example of it.
> 
> Which means you fell for it.
> 
> Which means you are not paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've paid attention. I paid attention while my mom and dad voted for people who incessantly spouted support for "small business" and instead gave everything to global corporate in every policy measure and pretty much said screw you all to small business people.
> That's what I've paid attention to, thank you very much.
Click to expand...


Funny.....I have owned small businesses since the 80's...and my companies were vendors to small businesses....and I did not struggle due to any DEM or GOP policies whatsoever...nor did my clients.

However, I am now retired (54 years old...seems I really didnt get hurt)...but still in touch with my clients who became friends....and from what I hear, they are petrified by Obamacare...and not surprised that Obama has such a negative feeling towrd business owners.

FYI...small businesses THRIVE when large corporations do well. Most industries are oligopolies...and the anchors of oligopolies (large corporations) set the tone of the industry...they do well, the entire industry does well.

Sadly, you and Obama dont seem to want to understand that.


----------



## Vast LWC

Just for cut and pasting purposes...



> "You Olympians... * know that you didn't get here solely on your own power*.  For most of you, loving parents, sisters, or brothers encouraged your hopes.  Coaches guided.  *Communities built venues and organized competitions.*  All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them."
> 
> -Mitt Romney, 2002



That's right.  This thread has been invalidated.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Romney never said the Communities did that for them.


----------



## Vast LWC

CrusaderFrank said:


> Romney never said the Communities did that for them.



It was an exact quote.

You can see it for yourself here, starting at about 35 seconds in.  

You guys continually seem to forget that what is said on video is generally still around somewhere....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSWm2qZ8Oc]Romney to Olympians: 'You Didn't Get Here Solely On Your Own' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vast LWC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney never said the Communities did that for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an exact quote.
> 
> You can see it for yourself here, starting at about 35 seconds in.
> 
> You guys continually seem to forget that what is said on video is generally still around somewhere....
Click to expand...


Wow, the context sure alters what you claim. 

A bit desperate to cover for Obama's fuckup, aren't you?


----------



## kaz

Vast LWC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney never said the Communities did that for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an exact quote.
> 
> You can see it for yourself here, starting at about 35 seconds in.
> 
> You guys continually seem to forget that what is said on video is generally still around somewhere....
Click to expand...


This is just another stupid liberal trick.  Yes, business owners and Olympians didn't do what they did in a bubble.  There are two fundamental differences between them.

1)  Obama is using it as a rationalization to take away from the business owner that which they built.  Other people helped you, so we're taking your money.  Romney is taking nothing from the Olympians, he's just saying to appreciate how much they helped you.  

2)  Obama's not even advocating the people who actually helped the business owner.  He's just saying someone helped you, so I'm taking it and giving it to someone else.  Romney is advocating the people who actually did help Olympians.

It's just one of the stupid games liberals like to play.  Here are things that sound similar, but actually are clearly not to someone with even a modicum of intelligence.  So it's the same.  Yeah.  I'd say nice try, but it wasn't it was lame.


----------



## Jarhead

Vast LWC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney never said the Communities did that for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an exact quote.
> 
> You can see it for yourself here, starting at about 35 seconds in.
> 
> You guys continually seem to forget that what is said on video is generally still around somewhere....
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSWm2qZ8Oc]Romney to Olympians: 'You Didn't Get Here Solely On Your Own' - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


No one is denying he said it.

We are laughing at those who feel there is a correlation between an olympic athlete and a business owner.

Most olympic athletes are youngsters....within the age of 22. Most are responsible for one thing...themselves. They fail, they fail...they deal with the disappointment and they move on to real life. WShile training they live at home...they do not have to buy their own food....put a roof over their heads...pay the salaries of employees...

Most business owners are adults. They have many other responsibilities...such as having to feed themselves, clothe themselves and put a roof over their heads...and in many cases...families as well. They need to worry about employees....business expenses.....taxes.....they fail...they may lose everything.

It is a joke to try to compare the two.


----------



## Murf76

Vast LWC said:


> Just for cut and pasting purposes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You Olympians... * know that you didn't get here solely on your own power*.  For most of you, loving parents, sisters, or brothers encouraged your hopes.  Coaches guided.  *Communities built venues and organized competitions.*  All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them."
> 
> -Mitt Romney, 2002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  This thread has been invalidated.
Click to expand...


  Really???
Did Romney try to raise taxes on them during that little speech?  Did he tell those young Olympians to get out their wallets and hand over some cash to the federal government in return for what their families and communities had done for them? 

It's not really an argument that 'no man is an island'.   None is.  The context of the argument is about what we owe to the ones who helped us along.  Do we owe them our thanks and gratitude?... or do we owe them our CASH, ultimately at the point of a gun?


----------



## Vast LWC

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wow, the context sure alters what you claim.
> 
> A bit desperate to cover for Obama's fuckup, aren't you?



Really?  That's interesting.

What context, specifically, alters the fact that Romney told the Olympic athletes that they "didn't do it on their own" and that the "communities" deserved some credit for their achievement?

Cause I'm not hearing it.  Maybe you're hearing some other voices that are providing your "context"...


----------



## kaz

Vast LWC said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the context sure alters what you claim.
> 
> A bit desperate to cover for Obama's fuckup, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  That's interesting.
> 
> What context, specifically, alters the fact that Romney told the Olympic athletes that they "didn't do it on their own" and that the "communities" deserved some credit for their achievement?
> 
> Cause I'm not hearing it.  Maybe you're hearing some other voices that are providing your "context"...
Click to expand...


Read my post roughly three up because I just explained it to you.  Murf and Jarhead then pretty much said the same thing.  If you read responses, you'll understand the answer to your questions better.


----------



## Vast LWC

kaz said:


> This is just another stupid liberal trick.  Yes, business owners and Olympians didn't do what they did in a bubble.  There are two fundamental differences between them.
> 
> 1)  Obama is using it as a rationalization to take away from the business owner that which they built.  Other people helped you, so we're taking your money.  Romney is taking nothing from the Olympians, he's just saying to appreciate how much they helped you.
> 
> 2)  Obama's not even advocating the people who actually helped the business owner.  He's just saying someone helped you, so I'm taking it and giving it to someone else.  Romney is advocating the people who actually did help Olympians.
> 
> It's just one of the stupid games liberals like to play.  Here are things that sound similar, but actually are clearly not to someone with even a modicum of intelligence.  So it's the same.  Yeah.  I'd say nice try, but it wasn't it was lame.



Yes, you're right.  

*Presenting the facts, in the exact context they were presented, is a "Liberal Trick".*

Obama is not "using it as a rationalization" for anything.  

He's pointing out that business owners didn't get there on their own, they had workers, families and communities that supported them.

*Which is exactly what Romney did in that speech.*

Apparently, in your Bizarro universe, a "modicum of intelligence" is code for "years worth of right-wing brainwashing".


----------



## Barb

Murf76 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your words or a book quotation?  Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.
> 
> In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that.  He _gives_ you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%.  *It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay.*  At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.
> 
> Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty.  Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.  This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.
> 
> We should ALL be pissed about that.  This guy RAN on unity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My words. I quoted my source.
> 
> As to the bolded above, horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means, let's take a look at your argument then.   Show us where Zombie is wrong.
Click to expand...


Look at your own (or zombies) math above in what you quoted. 1% make up 37% of intake, and 1% use up 25% of outlay. Now, that intake doesn't account for the contribution to their coffers via the industriousness OR the education of the American workforce (at an all time high mind you despite record losses in real income), the loopholes in our tax code, the fact that workers are taxed immediately on every dime of income while the wealthy are allowed (by the tax code and the wealth that insulates them from the need to access income immediately) to DEFER what little tax they pay, and all the offshore tax havens where so MUCH can be hidden from the (ever fewer) accountants in the IRS who supposedly look to see that they're paying what is legally due, which is nowhere near their fair share.


----------



## kaz

Vast LWC said:


> Obama is not "using it as a rationalization" for anything.
> 
> He's pointing out that business owners didn't get there on their own, they had workers, families and communities that supported them


----------



## Vast LWC

Jarhead said:


> No one is denying he said it.
> 
> We are laughing at those who feel there is a correlation between an olympic athlete and a business owner.
> 
> Most olympic athletes are youngsters....within the age of 22. Most are responsible for one thing...themselves. They fail, they fail...they deal with the disappointment and they move on to real life. WShile training they live at home...they do not have to buy their own food....put a roof over their heads...pay the salaries of employees...
> 
> Most business owners are adults. They have many other responsibilities...such as having to feed themselves, clothe themselves and put a roof over their heads...and in many cases...families as well. They need to worry about employees....business expenses.....taxes.....they fail...they may lose everything.
> 
> It is a joke to try to compare the two.



Ahh, yes, obviously there is a huge difference between the rich folks that the right-wing venerates as their Gods... 

and anyone else.

Sorry, I'll go read Ayn Rand a few hundred times now, so I can see your point of view.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Many of us who don't like what Obama said began losing this argument when they tried to respond to the "roads and bridges" straw man.  A masterful job of diversion by the Left.

.


----------



## Murf76

Vast LWC said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the context sure alters what you claim.
> 
> A bit desperate to cover for Obama's fuckup, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  That's interesting.
> 
> What context, specifically, alters the fact that Romney told the Olympic athletes that they "didn't do it on their own" and that the "communities" deserved some credit for their achievement?
> 
> Cause I'm not hearing it.  Maybe you're hearing some other voices that are providing your "context"...
Click to expand...



See... this is the classic Straw Man argument.  You assign a position to your opponent that he doesn't even have and then proceed to knock it down.

Conservatives don't believe that any man is "an island".  Our position in this particular debate is that businesses ALREADY PAY more than enough for their use of public infrastructure, not that they don't use it at all.

It's very frustrating that you people can't ever rummage up some basic honesty.  Your candidate screwed himself.  That doesn't mean that you have to follow his lead.


----------



## Vast LWC

Murf76 said:


> Really???
> Did Romney try to raise taxes on them during that little speech?  Did he tell those young Olympians to get out their wallets and hand over some cash to the federal government in return for what their families and communities had done for them?
> 
> It's not really an argument that 'no man is an island'.   None is.  The context of the argument is about what we owe to the ones who helped us along.  Do we owe them our thanks and gratitude?... or do we owe them our CASH, ultimately at the point of a gun?



He was asking the Olympians to share the currency that they were paid in:

Fame and Glory.

It's the exact same argument.  

You can rationalize it all you want, but anyone who isn't a brainwashed radical extremist psychopath will see the point, and agree.


----------



## Stephanie

Vast LWC said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> Did Romney try to raise taxes on them during that little speech?  Did he tell those young Olympians to get out their wallets and hand over some cash to the federal government in return for what their families and communities had done for them?
> 
> It's not really an argument that 'no man is an island'.   None is.  The context of the argument is about what we owe to the ones who helped us along.  Do we owe them our thanks and gratitude?... or do we owe them our CASH, ultimately at the point of a gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was asking the Olympians to share the currency that they were paid in:
> 
> Fame and Glory.
> 
> It's the exact same argument.
> 
> You can rationalize it all you want, but anyone who isn't a brainwashed radical extremist psychopath will see the point, and agree.
Click to expand...


wow...not even close..my goodness


----------



## Vast LWC

Murf76 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  That's interesting.
> 
> What context, specifically, alters the fact that Romney told the Olympic athletes that they "didn't do it on their own" and that the "communities" deserved some credit for their achievement?
> 
> Cause I'm not hearing it.  Maybe you're hearing some other voices that are providing your "context"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See... this is the classic Straw Man argument.  You assign a position to your opponent that he doesn't even have and then proceed to knock it down.
Click to expand...


What?  That makes no sense.



Murf76 said:


> Conservatives don't believe that any man is "an island".  Our position in this particular debate is that businesses ALREADY PAY more than enough for their use of public infrastructure, not that they don't use it at all.
> 
> It's very frustrating that you people can't ever rummage up some basic honesty.  Your candidate screwed himself.  That doesn't mean that you have to follow his lead.



Tell me, what is the title of this thread?


----------



## Vast LWC

Stephanie said:


> wow...not even close..my goodness



Says the brainwashed extremist...


----------



## Barb

Jarhead said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI... I know...I used a ficticious buill to make my point.
> 
> Politicians play those games Barb. Theyputrediculous things in Bills so the opposition rejects them...even if it has a little of what the opposition wants....so they can then campaign about how the opposition turned down what the supporters of the opposition wants.
> 
> Its known as gaming the game in an effort to win ovotes from the opppsition.
> 
> And you posted a clear example of it.
> 
> Which means you fell for it.
> 
> Which means you are not paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've paid attention. I paid attention while my mom and dad voted for people who incessantly spouted support for "small business" and instead gave everything to global corporate in every policy measure and pretty much said screw you all to small business people.
> That's what I've paid attention to, thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.....I have owned small businesses since the 80's...and my companies were vendors to small businesses....and I did not struggle due to any DEM or GOP policies whatsoever...nor did my clients.
> 
> However, I am now retired (54 years old...seems I really didnt get hurt)...but still in touch with my clients who became friends....and from what I hear, they are petrified by Obamacare...and not surprised that Obama has such a negative feeling towrd business owners.
> 
> FYI...small businesses THRIVE when large corporations do well. Most industries are oligopolies...and the anchors of oligopolies (large corporations) set the tone of the industry...they do well, the entire industry does well.
> 
> Sadly, you and Obama dont seem to want to understand that.
Click to expand...


Small businesses are overtaken, out priced, and put under by conglomerates. 

See a lot of mom and pop hardware stores lately? What's sad about that is the SERVICE that is lost. Remember customer service? Do you remember when you could go into a store with a broken part, hand it to a familiar face behind the counter, and that person would find the replacement for you, AND, *for no extra charge* give you a few tips what to look for and avoid when replacing it? I do. 

Not for nothing,

 After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections. (Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100-101)

The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our glorious past.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

My name is Willard Romney, and I earned every penny I have the old fashioned way, first I inherited a shitload of it, then I invested that money in shipping jobs overseas.

And now I want to be your President and ship ALL American jobs overseas...please vote for me.


----------



## kaz

Barb said:


> The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage



So the Tea ... Tax ... was a reference to "ginormous corporations?"  "Corporations" were taxing the colonists?


----------



## Murf76

Barb said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> My words. I quoted my source.
> 
> As to the bolded above, horse shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By all means, let's take a look at your argument then.   Show us where Zombie is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at your own (or zombies) math above in what you quoted. 1% make up 37% of intake, and 1% use up 25% of outlay. Now, that intake doesn't account for the contribution to their coffers via the industriousness OR the education of the American workforce (at an all time high mind you despite record losses in real income), the loopholes in our tax code, the fact that workers are taxed immediately on every dime of income while the wealthy are allowed (by the tax code and the wealth that insulates them from the need to access income immediately) to DEFER what little tax they pay, and all the offshore tax havens where so MUCH can be hidden from the (ever fewer) accountants in the IRS who supposedly look to see that they're paying what is legally due, which is nowhere near their fair share.
Click to expand...


The hole in your argument, Barb, is that the 1% who cover the cost of that infrastructure aren't the only ones making use of it.  

The top 20% of earners pay 94% of the federal income tax.  That means that the bottom 80% are paying virtually nothing.  And those small business owners are typically a part of that 20%.   It's not true that the_"1% use up 25% of outlay"_. If it was, they'd be the only ones allowed to use the infrastructure and the only ones protected by national defense.  But they MORE than pay for it, as we see. 

What's more, and I'd really like to see somebody, anybody, provide an answer to this question....  This administration has behaved irresponsibly with our tax dollars to begin with.  We have NO budget and NO attempt to reform our unsustainable entitlements, which are eating up two-thirds of federal spending.  Instead, they've given us another, even more expensive entitlement, costing three times what we were told it would.  And they've driven the national debt to nearly 16 trillion.

WHY should even one American, no matter how filthy rich, give another red cent to this administration when it's obvious that they're not doing the job they were elected to do???


----------



## ConzHateUSA

*sometimes when I read a post by a bagger, and American history is involved, i honest to god dont know whether to laugh hysterically, or lower my head and cry*


----------



## kaz

ConzHateUSA said:


> I invested that money in shipping jobs overseas



I'd think you'd like that.  Fewer Americans are victims of evil businesses by working for them.  Let someone else suffer from having a job instead of a great, innocent, non-working liberal American.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

kaz said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I invested that money in shipping jobs overseas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd think you'd like that.  Fewer Americans are victims of evil businesses by working for them.  Let someone else suffer from having a job instead of an innocent, non-working American.
Click to expand...


and the board IQ just dropped another 10 points


----------



## zuul

If you think you built your business on your own lets try an experiment. Lets stop enforcing patents and see what happens.


----------



## Jarhead

Barb said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've paid attention. I paid attention while my mom and dad voted for people who incessantly spouted support for "small business" and instead gave everything to global corporate in every policy measure and pretty much said screw you all to small business people.
> That's what I've paid attention to, thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.....I have owned small businesses since the 80's...and my companies were vendors to small businesses....and I did not struggle due to any DEM or GOP policies whatsoever...nor did my clients.
> 
> However, I am now retired (54 years old...seems I really didnt get hurt)...but still in touch with my clients who became friends....and from what I hear, they are petrified by Obamacare...and not surprised that Obama has such a negative feeling towrd business owners.
> 
> FYI...small businesses THRIVE when large corporations do well. Most industries are oligopolies...and the anchors of oligopolies (large corporations) set the tone of the industry...they do well, the entire industry does well.
> 
> Sadly, you and Obama dont seem to want to understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Small businesses are overtaken, out priced, and put under by conglomerates.
> 
> See a lot of mom and pop hardware stores lately? What's sad about that is the SERVICE that is lost. Remember customer service? Do you remember when you could go into a store with a broken part, hand it to a familiar face behind the counter, and that person would find the replacement for you, AND, *for no extra charge* give you a few tips what to look for and avoid when replacing it? I do.
> 
> Not for nothing,
> 
> After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
> Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections. (Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100-101)
> 
> The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our glorious past.
Click to expand...


Now you are talking about something completely different. Sure, I miss those days where the local merhcant knew your name, asked how you folks were doing and truly cared about your needs. I miss it so much, I use my local vendors here on Long Island anytime I can.

But lets be honest here...Government has nothing to do with the big conglomerates. Demand does. We, the people have found that "one stop shopping" trumps customer service. If I had a nickel for everytime I went to my local hardware store to find out they did not carry what I needed...to then find it in quantity at the Home Depot...I would be a wealthy man.

Likewise....prices...we prefer lower prices as consumers.....and the mega stores offer lower prices. And yes..the prices are much lower in the mega stores than they are in the local stores. I am OK with it...I can afford to pay 3% more for something...and I do...but many people cant...so they go to the mega stores.

But we are talking about retailers.....

There are thousands of non retail businesses that NEED the larger companies...for as I said earlier...most industries are oligololies..and the smaller companies follow the lead of the larger firms......BY CHOICE.

So I am confused about the point you are making. Is it large companies you dont like or the fact that large companies get certain breaks that helkp the industries...including the smaller companies that capitalize on the success of the anchor firms?


----------



## saveliberty

Small business can also react more quickly to market changes than a large business.  Knowing your customer is the advantage.

Barb rewrites the Boston Tea Party, how quaint.

The whole premise of the government helping business rests on government doling out our money.  A fail from the start.


----------



## Vast LWC

kaz said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Tea ... Tax ... was a reference to "ginormous corporations?"  "Corporations" were taxing the colonists?
Click to expand...


Yep, it was called the East India Company.

From the Wiki:

East India Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> At the same time, there was commercial stagnation and trade depression throughout Europe. *The directors of the company attempted to avert bankruptcy by appealing to Parliament for financial help. This led to the passing of the Tea Act in 1773*, which gave the Company greater autonomy in running its trade in the American colonies, and allowed it an exemption from tea import duties which its colonial competitors were required to pay.
> 
> When the American colonists, who included tea merchants, were told of the act, they tried to boycott it, claiming that although the price had gone down on the tea when enforcing the act, it also would help validate the Townshend Acts and set a precedent for the king to impose additional taxes in the future. The arrival of tax-exempt Company tea, undercutting the local merchants,* triggered the Boston Tea Party* in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, one of the major events leading up to the American Revolution.


----------



## kaz

ConzHateUSA said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I invested that money in shipping jobs overseas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd think you'd like that.  Fewer Americans are victims of evil businesses by working for them.  Let someone else suffer from having a job instead of an innocent, non-working American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the board IQ just dropped another 10 points
Click to expand...


Yes, you're back


----------



## Jarhead

zuul said:


> If you think you built your business on your own lets try an experiment. Lets stop enforcing patents and see what happens.



when it is free to get a patent, I will gladly support your premise.

Until then, your premise is nonesense.


----------



## kaz

Vast LWC said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Tea ... Tax ... was a reference to "ginormous corporations?"  "Corporations" were taxing the colonists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, it was called the East India Company.
> 
> From the Wiki:
> 
> East India Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time, there was commercial stagnation and trade depression throughout Europe. *The directors of the company attempted to avert bankruptcy by appealing to Parliament for financial help. This led to the passing of the Tea Act in 1773*, which gave the Company greater autonomy in running its trade in the American colonies, and allowed it an exemption from tea import duties which its colonial competitors were required to pay.
> 
> When the American colonists, who included tea merchants, were told of the act, they tried to boycott it, claiming that although the price had gone down on the tea when enforcing the act, it also would help validate the Townshend Acts and set a precedent for the king to impose additional taxes in the future. The arrival of tax-exempt Company tea, undercutting the local merchants,* triggered the Boston Tea Party* in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, one of the major events leading up to the American Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Tea Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Yes, and the corporation created the tea tax.  Which is why John Adams and company were always saying, another tax?  Damn, I HATE corporations!!!!   Liberals really have no shame when it comes to stupid arguments, do you?  Duh, a private company created a tax, the founding fathers hated corporations because they were taxing us.  Then the two of you stroke each other.  Get a room.


----------



## Vast LWC

Murf76 said:


> The hole in your argument, Barb, is that the 1% who cover the cost of that infrastructure aren't the only ones making use of it.
> 
> The top 20% of earners pay 94% of the federal income tax.  That means that the bottom 80% are paying virtually nothing.  And those small business owners are typically a part of that 20%.   It's not true that the_"1% use up 25% of outlay"_. If it was, they'd be the only ones allowed to use the infrastructure and the only ones protected by national defense.  But they MORE than pay for it, as we see.
> 
> What's more, and I'd really like to see somebody, anybody, provide an answer to this question....  This administration has behaved irresponsibly with our tax dollars to begin with.  We have NO budget and NO attempt to reform our unsustainable entitlements, which are eating up two-thirds of federal spending.  Instead, they've given us another, even more expensive entitlement, costing three times what we were told it would.  And they've driven the national debt to nearly 16 trillion.
> 
> WHY should even one American, no matter how filthy rich, give another red cent to this administration when it's obvious that they're not doing the job they were elected to do???



That's because the top 20% of the nation owns 85% of the wealth.  And that's not even including the money they've been hiding overseas.

*This chart is from 2007.  The disparity has grown significantly since then.*







And, of course, as usual, you're only including income tax in your figures.

But, putting that aside, how much of the infrastructure do you think a minimum wage worker uses, in comparison to a multi-millionaire with multiple investments in various corporations?


----------



## Murf76

Vast LWC said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> Did Romney try to raise taxes on them during that little speech?  Did he tell those young Olympians to get out their wallets and hand over some cash to the federal government in return for what their families and communities had done for them?
> 
> It's not really an argument that 'no man is an island'.   None is.  The context of the argument is about what we owe to the ones who helped us along.  Do we owe them our thanks and gratitude?... or do we owe them our CASH, ultimately at the point of a gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was asking the Olympians to share the currency that they were paid in:
> 
> Fame and Glory.
> 
> It's the exact same argument.
> 
> You can rationalize it all you want, but anyone who isn't a brainwashed radical extremist psychopath will see the point, and agree.
Click to expand...


You do of course realize, that taxes are mandated with the force of law behind them.  If you don't pay your taxes and if you persist in resisting paying your taxes, eventually some uniformed officer is going to come and pick you up, take you to jail, and if you give him any guff about it, you'll go there at the point of a gun.

"Cheers" are not mandated, and the suggestion that people engage in a round of applause does _not_ carry the force of law.


----------



## kaz

Vast LWC said:


> That's because the top 20% of the nation owns 85% of the wealth.  And that's not even including the money they've been hiding overseas



If you exclude unrealized equity in their homes and the NPV of their retirement accounts, which are the primary assets of the 80%, then they have 15% of the wealth.  Wow, you're onto something...


----------



## Vast LWC

kaz said:


> Tea Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yes, and the corporation created the tea tax.  Which is why John Adams and company were always saying, another tax?  Damn, I HATE corporations!!!!   Liberals really have no shame when it comes to stupid arguments, do you?  Duh, a private company created a tax, the founding fathers hated corporations because they were taxing us.  Then the two of you stroke each other.  Get a room.



See if you can wrap your head around this...

The corporation lobbied the British parliament to levy a tax, so the British government could use the funds garnered to subsidize the corporation's operations.

Which is extremely similar to half the shit that goes on in Washington today.

And yes, the founding fathers did in fact hate the East India Company.  Jefferson hated corporations with a passion.


----------



## Vast LWC

saveliberty said:


> Small business can also react more quickly to market changes than a large business.  Knowing your customer is the advantage.
> 
> Barb rewrites the Boston Tea Party, how quaint.
> 
> The whole premise of the government helping business rests on government doling out our money.  A fail from the start.



She didn't rewrite it at all.

The Boston Tea Party was a result of the Tea Tax...

Which the British levied so they could use the funds to subsidize a corporation.

Those are the facts.  Look em up.


----------



## Vast LWC

kaz said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the top 20% of the nation owns 85% of the wealth.  And that's not even including the money they've been hiding overseas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you exclude unrealized equity in their homes and the NPV of their retirement accounts, which are the primary assets of the 80%, then they have 15% of the wealth.  Wow, you're onto something...
Click to expand...


Why would you exclude any of that?

Are you suggesting that wealth should not be counted because it's invested in something that will make the owner more wealth?


----------



## kaz

Vast LWC said:


> See if you can wrap your head around this...
> 
> The corporation lobbied the British parliament to levy a tax, so the British government could use the funds garnered to subsidize the corporation's operations.
> 
> Which is extremely similar to half the shit that goes on in Washington today.



Ding, ding, ding.  True.  Though you're ignoring the same problem occurs with Unions and other both right and left wing special interest groups as well.

Now, let's consider our approaches to this problem.

I want to weaken government, which weakens their ability to do anything regardless of how much they lobby.

You want to strengthen government while whining that people with money are lobbying it to do things you oppose.  Strengthening government will protect us.

Say huh?



Vast LWC said:


> And yes, the founding fathers did in fact hate the East India Company.  Jefferson hated corporations with a passion.



This contradicts nothing that I said


----------



## kaz

Vast LWC said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the top 20% of the nation owns 85% of the wealth.  And that's not even including the money they've been hiding overseas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you exclude unrealized equity in their homes and the NPV of their retirement accounts, which are the primary assets of the 80%, then they have 15% of the wealth.  Wow, you're onto something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you exclude any of that?
> 
> Are you suggesting that wealth should not be counted because it's invested in something that will make the owner more wealth?
Click to expand...


Um...OK.  ???

I'm saying your chart is excluding and and it shouldn't.  Hint, that's what I said.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the left's classic "straw man" argument, arguing against positions that conservatives don't even take.  Check this out... _The Ultimate Takedown:_
> 
> 
> 
> Do read the entire article though.  It really does leave them with 'no leg to stand on'. (pun intended )
> The idea that we're all some sort of anarchists is _their_ invention.  The conservative position is NOT that there should be "no government", it's that our federal government should be smaller and limited to functions enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, as we read down Zombie's piece, we find that the federal dollars provided that would _"go to projects and programs that benefit the general public and entrepreneurs"_, only amount to less than a quarter of what is spent.. and that's a more than generous accounting.
> 
> Our leftist friends have NO ARGUMENT.  Their candidate has let the socialist cat out of the bag at a crucial moment in the campaign and there's just no way to spin it.
> Of course, that leaves them testy and vitriolic, but their only alternative would be to re-think their entire ideology.
> 
> As I posted yesterday, you can't _macromanage_ a society without _micromanaging_ lives.  And we can't have both a _negative_ (what the government can't do TO you) Bill of Rights and a _positive_ (what the government must do FOR you) Second Bill of Rights.  They cancel each other out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that *benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. *A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.
> 
> Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and stabilize (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom
> 
> Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those your words or a book quotation?  Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.
> 
> In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that.  He _gives_ you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%.  It's just not possible to say that* the business community is profiting* more than they pay.  *At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.  *
> 
> Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty.  Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.  This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.
> 
> We should ALL be pissed about that.  This guy RAN on unity.
Click to expand...

Maybe the  in your link can deceive a gullible fool like you, but his slick lies have no chance with a Cynic.

As you can see from the highlighted part, he claims that BUSINESSES benefit 25% but when he tries to lie about BUSINESS overpaying taxes the slick professional deceiver SHIFTS to the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS. If he were honest he would compare the share of CORPORATE taxes paid to the federal government. Corporate taxes account for 7.4% of total federal revenue.



> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> Capital gains tax	45
> *Corporate income tax	132*
> Individual income tax	794
> Social Security taxes	713
> *Total revenues	1,782*
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.


----------



## Vast LWC

Murf76 said:


> You do of course realize, that taxes are mandated with the force of law behind them.  If you don't pay your taxes and if you persist in resisting paying your taxes, eventually some uniformed officer is going to come and pick you up, take you to jail, and if you give him any guff about it, you'll go there at the point of a gun.
> 
> "Cheers" are not mandated, and the suggestion that people engage in a round of applause does _not_ carry the force of law.



Ahh, but corporations and rich investors are rewarded in cash, are they not?

Whereas athletes are rewarded with fame and respect.

Therefore, it is appropriate for each to give back some of what they relied on their community to procure...

Gyms get to put up signs in their windows about how they trained the Gold Medal winners.  Restaurants advertise that "Mark Phelps ate here".  Athletic programs that the medalists were a part of get more donations due to the success of the athlete.


----------



## Katzndogz

If the democrats think that telling people they didn't achieve on their own is working for them, they should continue to run with it.   obama should give another speech telling people how they don't deserve what they have because the government gave it to them.


----------



## Barb

Murf76 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By all means, let's take a look at your argument then.   Show us where Zombie is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your own (or zombies) math above in what you quoted. 1% make up 37% of intake, and 1% use up 25% of outlay. Now, that intake doesn't account for the contribution to their coffers via the industriousness OR the education of the American workforce (at an all time high mind you despite record losses in real income), the loopholes in our tax code, the fact that workers are taxed immediately on every dime of income while the wealthy are allowed (by the tax code and the wealth that insulates them from the need to access income immediately) to DEFER what little tax they pay, and all the offshore tax havens where so MUCH can be hidden from the (ever fewer) accountants in the IRS who supposedly look to see that they're paying what is legally due, which is nowhere near their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The hole in your argument, Barb, is that the 1% who cover the cost of that infrastructure aren't the only ones making use of it.  *
> 
> The top 20% of earners pay 94% of the federal income tax.  That means that the bottom 80% are paying virtually nothing.  And those small business owners are typically a part of that 20%.   It's not true that the_"1% use up 25% of outlay"_. If it was, they'd be the only ones allowed to use the infrastructure and the only ones protected by national defense.  But they MORE than pay for it, as we see.
> 
> What's more, and I'd really like to see somebody, anybody, provide an answer to this question....  This administration has behaved irresponsibly with our tax dollars to begin with.  We have NO budget and NO attempt to reform our unsustainable entitlements, which are eating up two-thirds of federal spending.  Instead, they've given us another, even more expensive entitlement, costing three times what we were told it would.  And they've driven the national debt to nearly 16 trillion.
> 
> WHY should even one American, no matter how filthy rich, give another red cent to this administration when it's obvious that they're not doing the job they were elected to do???
Click to expand...


As to the bolded, it depends on percentages spent, doesn't it? VASTLY more is spent on our military industrial complex than is spent on the domestic welfare state (keeping in mind that even that has larger benefits to business than it does to those it serves individually), and not only does big business benefit from it, it also PROFITS from the outlay. 


After that, your numbers are accordingly fucked, what you quoted of mine are your own numbers (go back and look them up, I plan on staying up later than usual today), and as I've shown, they PROFIT more from what little they're taxed than anyone at the bottom. 

Once you've digested that, look up the definition of "entitlements" where it concerns the budget. 

Once you've done that, consider the following:

 In 1984, a Reagan campaign ad declared that it was Morning in America. The Economic Recovery Tax Act was responsible for long-term deficits and a cumulative revenue loss of $300 billion by the end of 1984 and $1 trillion by the end of 1987.  Unlike the uppity crust that partied like rock stars for the previous four years, the rest of us picked up the party tab by way of a graduating Social Security tax increase among other revenue enhancements. This particular adjustment, overtly put into place in response to a modest shortfall of Social Security revenue covertly covered a national deficit that had already nearly tripled by 1983.  
The possibility that the third rail of safety net entitlements could be unavailable a few decades into the future was a twofer for the Reagan Administration. The White House was eager to find an issue more pressing than the result of its fiscal policies and the Presidents flippancy about millions of unemployed. For the first time since Social Securitys establishment, every one who earned up to the maximum wage taxed for the program paid gradually more each year than was needed to supply the current benefit spending. Through creative accounting and by overcharging the masses, Reagan kept the huge income tax cuts for the wealthiest, and masked the true depth of his administrations deficits. 

Johnston, David Cay, Perfectly Legal; The covert campaign to rig our tax system to benefit the super rich-and cheat everybody else, USA, Penguin Group, 2003, 123-128

Do you know how much MORE costly it is for people living on paychecks rather than wealth to have their income PRE taxed? They have less to spend, less to save, and less to invest. Rather than deferring their taxes, as the wealthy are able to do, every cent of their income is taxed weekly, in real time and in real dollars. Those who are paid vastly more can defer their taxes, and the longer they do that, the less they pay in real income. Those who are taxed AHEAD OF TIME pay more in REAL income.

As for the Obama administration not having a budget, that's bullshit. Like him or hat him, he was handed a shit sandwich. You might as well go to your local hotel or resort with your own bug, "find" it in your bed, get your room comped, and then stiff the maid for a tip. That's how despicable that bullshit right there is.

In my lifetime it wasn't the common laborer, skilled worker, or professional who tanked our economy. It was the captains of industry and commerce who did that by deregulating, downsizing, outsourcing, raping, pillaging, and stealing anything that moved. They were shortsighted, and continue to be, grasping, and continue to be, and contemptibly poor planners who had no idea how to build sustainability of the ecology, the economy, or a consumer base into any business plan, or why it was in their rational self-interest to do so.   
This isnt that hard to grasp. People without a job can't pay their bills, wages that don't keep up with the cost of living cause people to spend less, and people spending less and not paying the bills cost industries money in lost revenue. In the US, this idea dates back in history to the industrial revolution and solutions found at the time of the Great Depression. Shortening the workweek to 40 hours served to grant working people more leisure, opportunity, and health, while lifting more people out of poverty to gainful employment and financial stability. Not lost on at least some in the business community was the buying power of the American consumer.  
Neoconservatives treat with contempt the idea that the government, by helping people meet the basic standards of survival, would help industry and commerce as well by preventing the floor they stood on from collapsing. Over and again, they burned the crops and plowed the fields with salt. It didnt work out so well, again. 
This, of course, the captains of industry and commerce took as a signal to downsize, outsource, rape, pillage, and steal anything and anyone left standing, including itself. It found its tail, and ate it. It then demanded that the government pay for reconstructive surgery. It immediately blamed the government for doing so.  Any and everyone unhappy with the results of these winning strategies are accused of class warfare. 

My class would like to say


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> Maybe the  in your link can deceive a gullible fool like you, but his slick lies have no chance with a Cynic.
> 
> As you can see from the highlighted part, he claims that BUSINESSES benefit 25% but when he tries to lie about BUSINESS overpaying taxes the slick professional deceiver SHIFTS to the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS. If he were honest he would compare the share of CORPORATE taxes paid to the federal government. Corporate taxes account for 7.4% of total federal revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> Capital gains tax	45
> *Corporate income tax	132*
> Individual income tax	794
> Social Security taxes	713
> *Total revenues	1,782*
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
Click to expand...


Great, now link how corporate taxes pay for roads dimwit.


----------



## Barb

kaz said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Tea ... Tax ... was a reference to "ginormous corporations?"  "Corporations" were taxing the colonists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it was called the East India Company.
> 
> From the Wiki:
> 
> East India Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time, there was commercial stagnation and trade depression throughout Europe. *The directors of the company attempted to avert bankruptcy by appealing to Parliament for financial help. This led to the passing of the Tea Act in 1773*, which gave the Company greater autonomy in running its trade in the American colonies, and allowed it an exemption from tea import duties which its colonial competitors were required to pay.
> 
> When the American colonists, who included tea merchants, were told of the act, they tried to boycott it, claiming that although the price had gone down on the tea when enforcing the act, it also would help validate the Townshend Acts and set a precedent for the king to impose additional taxes in the future. The arrival of tax-exempt Company tea, undercutting the local merchants,* triggered the Boston Tea Party* in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, one of the major events leading up to the American Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tea Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yes, and the corporation created the tea tax.  Which is why John Adams and company were always saying, another tax?  Damn, I HATE corporations!!!!   Liberals really have no shame when it comes to stupid arguments, do you?  Duh, a private company created a tax, the founding fathers hated corporations because they were taxing us.  Then the two of you stroke each other.  Get a room.
Click to expand...


God, but you're a moron. From YOUR quote:



> The directors of the company attempted to avert bankruptcy by appealing to Parliament for financial help. *This led to the passing of the Tea Act in 1773, which gave the Company greater autonomy in running its trade in the American colonies, and allowed it an exemption from tea import duties which its colonial competitors were required to pay.*



The Crown subsidized the East India Trading Company by EXEMPTING it from taxes that local small tradesmen (small business) were required to pay, putting (drum roll, please) LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES at a disadvantage. 

It wasn't about the tax, it was about the government (the crown) putting American businesses at a disadvantage to (dum da DUMB) an overseas corporation. 

jesushchristonapopsiclestick


----------



## Katzndogz

Here is a simple reality, simple enough for democrats to comprehend.

It is only democrat street operatives still claiming that businesses didn't achieve on their own.   obama is trying to run away as fast as he can.

It is actually beneficial that democrats keep this going because it does point out that obama is a liar when he denies that what he said is what he meant.   What he meant was perfectly understood by democrats still carrying the message.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the  in your link can deceive a gullible fool like you, but his slick lies have no chance with a Cynic.
> 
> As you can see from the highlighted part, he claims that BUSINESSES benefit 25% but when he tries to lie about BUSINESS overpaying taxes the slick professional deceiver SHIFTS to the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS. If he were honest he would compare the share of CORPORATE taxes paid to the federal government. Corporate taxes account for 7.4% of total federal revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> Capital gains tax	45
> *Corporate income tax	132*
> Individual income tax	794
> Social Security taxes	713
> *Total revenues	1,782*
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, now link how corporate taxes pay for roads dimwit.
Click to expand...

So now you are saying corporations who benefit 25% from infrastructure contribute NOTHING to building infrastructure.
Thank you.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> So now you are saying corporations who benefit 25% from infrastructure contribute NOTHING to building infrastructure.
> Thank you.



Roads are paid by gas tax and property tax dimwit.  Thanks for showing us your lack of knowledge on this subject.  You're probably pretty happy about your strawman huh?  Fail.


----------



## Barb

Jarhead said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.....I have owned small businesses since the 80's...and my companies were vendors to small businesses....and I did not struggle due to any DEM or GOP policies whatsoever...nor did my clients.
> 
> However, I am now retired (54 years old...seems I really didnt get hurt)...but still in touch with my clients who became friends....and from what I hear, they are petrified by Obamacare...and not surprised that Obama has such a negative feeling towrd business owners.
> 
> FYI...small businesses THRIVE when large corporations do well. Most industries are oligopolies...and the anchors of oligopolies (large corporations) set the tone of the industry...they do well, the entire industry does well.
> 
> Sadly, you and Obama dont seem to want to understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Small businesses are overtaken, out priced, and put under by conglomerates.
> 
> See a lot of mom and pop hardware stores lately? What's sad about that is the SERVICE that is lost. Remember customer service? Do you remember when you could go into a store with a broken part, hand it to a familiar face behind the counter, and that person would find the replacement for you, AND, *for no extra charge* give you a few tips what to look for and avoid when replacing it? I do.
> 
> Not for nothing,
> 
> After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
> Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections. (Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100-101)
> 
> The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our glorious past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are talking about something completely different. Sure, I miss those days where the local merhcant knew your name, asked how you folks were doing and truly cared about your needs. I miss it so much, I use my local vendors here on Long Island anytime I can.
> 
> But lets be honest here...Government has nothing to do with the big conglomerates. Demand does. We, the people have found that "one stop shopping" trumps customer service. If I had a nickel for everytime I went to my local hardware store to find out they did not carry what I needed...to then find it in quantity at the Home Depot...I would be a wealthy man.
> 
> Likewise....prices...we prefer lower prices as consumers.....and the mega stores offer lower prices. And yes..the prices are much lower in the mega stores than they are in the local stores. I am OK with it...I can afford to pay 3% more for something...and I do...but many people cant...so they go to the mega stores.
> 
> But we are talking about retailers.....
> 
> There are thousands of non retail businesses that NEED the larger companies...for as I said earlier...most industries are oligololies..and the smaller companies follow the lead of the larger firms......BY CHOICE.
> 
> So I am confused about the point you are making. Is it large companies you dont like or the fact that large companies get certain breaks that helkp the industries...including the smaller companies that capitalize on the success of the anchor firms?
Click to expand...


True equity of trade rests on the assumption that trade is voluntary. Savvy? Where there is no choice, there is no equity. 

Please, for the love of whatever you find holy, please do not pretend you don't understand that.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are saying corporations who benefit 25% from infrastructure contribute NOTHING to building infrastructure.
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roads are paid by gas tax and property tax dimwit.  Thanks for showing us your lack of knowledge on this subject.  You're probably pretty happy about your strawman huh?  Fail.
Click to expand...

So now we have confirmation that corporations contribute NOTHING to the building of infrastructure.
Thank you again.


----------



## Vast LWC

kaz said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can wrap your head around this...
> 
> The corporation lobbied the British parliament to levy a tax, so the British government could use the funds garnered to subsidize the corporation's operations.
> 
> Which is extremely similar to half the shit that goes on in Washington today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding.  True.  Though you're ignoring the same problem occurs with Unions and other both right and left wing special interest groups as well.
> 
> Now, let's consider our approaches to this problem.
> 
> I want to weaken government, which weakens their ability to do anything regardless of how much they lobby.
> 
> You want to strengthen government while whining that people with money are lobbying it to do things you oppose.  Strengthening government will protect us.
> 
> Say huh?
Click to expand...



At what point did I say I want to "strengthen government"?

Also, you're ignoring the fact that in the East India Company example, it's a corporation controlling a government, not the government controlling a corporation.



kaz said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, the founding fathers did in fact hate the East India Company.  Jefferson hated corporations with a passion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This contradicts nothing that I said
Click to expand...


True enough.  I read fast.  My bad.


----------



## Barb

Katzndogz said:


> Here is a simple reality, simple enough for democrats to comprehend.
> 
> It is only democrat street operatives still claiming that businesses didn't achieve on their own.   obama is trying to run away as fast as he can.
> 
> It is actually beneficial that democrats keep this going because it does point out that obama is a liar when he denies that what he said is what he meant.   What he meant was perfectly understood by democrats still carrying the message.



Are you still running on a quote taken completely out of context? I'd say good luck with that, but sadly, especially in view of what I've seen here, misdirection and the reliance on the stupidity of the masses are still winning strategies. 

Goddamned shame, but it is what it is.


----------



## Murf76

Vast LWC said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hole in your argument, Barb, is that the 1% who cover the cost of that infrastructure aren't the only ones making use of it.
> 
> The top 20% of earners pay 94% of the federal income tax.  That means that the bottom 80% are paying virtually nothing.  And those small business owners are typically a part of that 20%.   It's not true that the_"1% use up 25% of outlay"_. If it was, they'd be the only ones allowed to use the infrastructure and the only ones protected by national defense.  But they MORE than pay for it, as we see.
> 
> What's more, and I'd really like to see somebody, anybody, provide an answer to this question....  This administration has behaved irresponsibly with our tax dollars to begin with.  We have NO budget and NO attempt to reform our unsustainable entitlements, which are eating up two-thirds of federal spending.  Instead, they've given us another, even more expensive entitlement, costing three times what we were told it would.  And they've driven the national debt to nearly 16 trillion.
> 
> WHY should even one American, no matter how filthy rich, give another red cent to this administration when it's obvious that they're not doing the job they were elected to do???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the top 20% of the nation owns 85% of the wealth.  And that's not even including the money they've been hiding overseas.
> 
> *This chart is from 2007.  The disparity has grown significantly since then.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, as usual, you're only including income tax in your figures.
> 
> But, putting that aside, how much of the infrastructure do you think a minimum wage worker uses, in comparison to a multi-millionaire with multiple investments in various corporations?
Click to expand...


First off... 20%+85% would be 105%.  So, there's a problem right off the top with your math.  But as we saw in Zombie's work-up earlier, even if the top 1% used the infrastructure and national defense exclusively... they're ALREADY paying more than enough for it at 37% of revenue.

None of that answers my question though... Washington has behaved with complete disregard toward its responsibility to spend our money wisely.  We have no budget and no attempt to fix our broken entitlements.  There's no equivocation on the word "_unsustainable_".  It means what it means.  Why should ANYONE have to pony up even one more red cent until politicians do _their_ jobs? 

We all know that wealth is not evenly distributed in this country.  We accept that to some extent, that's just the nature of human beings... some will be more successful than others.  But that doesn't mean that it has to be as lop-sided as it is now.  The thing is though, that it's _your_ ideology which creates the extremes of it.  The more power that you give to politicians and bureaucrats, the more they can USE that power to enrich themselves and their friends.  You CREATE the very crony capitalism that you hate.  

It's not possible to "redistribute the wealth" by means of government intervention.  It's not possible, because they WILL skim the cream off the top.  That's human nature too.  Greed is as innate to us as compassion.  Go back to kwc57's post #298 and consider that her example of "Jose the Tamale Salesman" could not engage the marketplace in today's business climate.  He wouldn't be able to raise the start-up costs he'd need in order to be properly licensed, inspected, and insured.  His _opportunities_ are not limited by Big Business.  They're limited by politicians and bureaucrats who are often politically _indebted_ to Big Business, or who are useful idiots of the Nanny State.

It's not Wall Street which writes the rules.  It's the politicians we send to Washington.  Neuter them, and you neuter special influences.  Big, bloated government is where cronyism is born.  It's where opportunities for the poor and middle class are sacrificed.
LIMIT government, and wealth will redistribute organically as it was meant to.


----------



## Vast LWC

kaz said:


> Um...OK.  ???
> 
> I'm saying your chart is excluding and and it shouldn't.  Hint, that's what I said.



The chart is a measure of total wealth, which would include wealth tied up in investment.

And, as I said, the figures displayed in the chart have become much more lopsided since the Great Recession began in 2007.

However, you are correct in that I misinterpreted your exact meaning.  As I said before, I read that too fast.


----------



## saveliberty

We are also discussing small business owners, not the top 1%.  Don't let that stop you Barb.


----------



## Vast LWC

Katzndogz said:


> Here is a simple reality, simple enough for democrats to comprehend.
> 
> It is only democrat street operatives still claiming that businesses didn't achieve on their own.   obama is trying to run away as fast as he can.
> 
> It is actually beneficial that democrats keep this going because it does point out that obama is a liar when he denies that what he said is what he meant.   What he meant was perfectly understood by democrats still carrying the message.



I don't care if 99% of the people in the nation believe that the rich achieve everything they do on their own, without any help from society.

It still wouldn't be true.


----------



## Murf76

kaz said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can wrap your head around this...
> 
> The corporation lobbied the British parliament to levy a tax, so the British government could use the funds garnered to subsidize the corporation's operations.
> 
> Which is extremely similar to half the shit that goes on in Washington today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding.  True.  Though you're ignoring the same problem occurs with Unions and other both right and left wing special interest groups as well.
> 
> Now, let's consider our approaches to this problem.
> 
> *I want to weaken government, which weakens their ability to do anything regardless of how much they lobby.
> 
> You want to strengthen government while whining that people with money are lobbying it to do things you oppose.  Strengthening government will protect us.*
> 
> Say huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, the founding fathers did in fact hate the East India Company.  Jefferson hated corporations with a passion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This contradicts nothing that I said
Click to expand...


(bold is mine)

Wish I had some rep to give.  We're on the same wavelength today.


----------



## saveliberty

Vast LWC said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a simple reality, simple enough for democrats to comprehend.
> 
> It is only democrat street operatives still claiming that businesses didn't achieve on their own.   obama is trying to run away as fast as he can.
> 
> It is actually beneficial that democrats keep this going because it does point out that obama is a liar when he denies that what he said is what he meant.   What he meant was perfectly understood by democrats still carrying the message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if 99% of the people in the nation believe that the rich achieve everything they do on their own, without any help from society.
> 
> It still wouldn't be true.
Click to expand...


^^^^
True believer!

Interesting that he fails to recognize that the businesses help society and allow the government to continue.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> We are also discussing small business owners, not the top 1%.  Don't let that stop you Barb.


And now we have confirmation that "zombie" was dishonest in using the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS to show that corporations pay more in federal infrastructure taxes than they benefit from the infrastructure.
Thank you yet again.
Murf76, you should gag this guy!!!


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that *benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. *A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.
> 
> Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and stabilize (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom
> 
> Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your words or a book quotation?  Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.
> 
> In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that.  He _gives_ you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%.  It's just not possible to say that* the business community is profiting* more than they pay.  *At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.  *
> 
> Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty.  Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.  This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.
> 
> We should ALL be pissed about that.  This guy RAN on unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the  in your link can deceive a gullible fool like you, but his slick lies have no chance with a Cynic.
> 
> As you can see from the highlighted part, he claims that BUSINESSES benefit 25% but when he tries to lie about BUSINESS overpaying taxes the slick professional deceiver SHIFTS to the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS. If he were honest he would compare the share of CORPORATE taxes paid to the federal government. Corporate taxes account for 7.4% of total federal revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> Capital gains tax	45
> *Corporate income tax	132*
> Individual income tax	794
> Social Security taxes	713
> *Total revenues	1,782*
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Ed.  Go read the entire article.  You'll find that he's being overly generous in conceding points to the utterly ridiculous claims of the left.  IOW, for the sake of argument, he takes them at face value.

Obama's not talking about only raising the corporate rate anyway.  He's talking about raising income taxes which will affect small businesses, typically LLCs and S Corps.  Further, as he kicks out the "third leg of the stool", we find that state and local taxes pay the bulk of local infrastructure.


----------



## Barb

saveliberty said:


> We are also discussing small business owners, not the top 1%.  Don't let that stop you Barb.



They aren't treated the same by the right and those who have bought their own red carpet to those who write government policy and tax code, although they ARE used for political cover. But don't let THAT stop you, SL.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are also discussing small business owners, not the top 1%.  Don't let that stop you Barb.
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have confirmation that "zombie" was dishonest in using the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS to show that corporations pay more in federal infrastructure taxes than they benefit from the infrastructure.
> Thank you yet again.
> Murf76, you should gag this guy!!!
Click to expand...


Nope.  We have confirmation that you don't READ, Ed.


----------



## saveliberty

Ed, a liar, stupid or both?  You be the judge.


----------



## Vast LWC

Murf76 said:


> First off... 20%+85% would be 105%.  So, there's a problem right off the top with your math.  But as we saw in Zombie's work-up earlier, even if the top 1% used the infrastructure and national defense exclusively... they're ALREADY paying more than enough for it at 37% of revenue.



Ummm, I said:



> That's because the top 20% of the nation owns 85% of the wealth.  And that's not even including the money they've been hiding overseas.



Where would adding 20 and 85 come into the equation?



Murf76 said:


> None of that answers my question though... Washington has behaved with complete disregard toward its responsibility to spend our money wisely.  We have no budget and no attempt to fix our broken entitlements.  There's no equivocation on the word "_unsustainable_".  It means what it means.  Why should ANYONE have to pony up even one more red cent until politicians do _their_ jobs?
> 
> We all know that wealth is not evenly distributed in this country.  We accept that to some extent, that's just the nature of human beings... some will be more successful than others.  But that doesn't mean that it has to be as lop-sided as it is now.  The thing is though, that it's _your_ ideology which creates the extremes of it.  The more power that you give to politicians and bureaucrats, the more they can USE that power to enrich themselves and their friends.  You CREATE the very crony capitalism that you hate.



No sir.  The right is just as guilty as the left in that regard.

The left wants government to control business.

And the right wants business to control government.

Between the two, they have created a system where all politicians are on the corporate payroll, and all corporations are beholden to government to keep their immoral policies legal.



Murf76 said:


> It's not possible to "redistribute the wealth" by means of government intervention.  It's not possible, because they WILL skim the cream off the top.  That's human nature too.  Greed is as innate to us as compassion.  Go back to kwc57's post #298 and consider that her example of "Jose the Tamale Salesman" could not engage the marketplace in today's business climate.  He wouldn't be able to raise the start-up costs he'd need in order to be properly licensed, inspected, and insured.  His _opportunities_ are not limited by Big Business.  They're limited by politicians and bureaucrats who are often politically _indebted_ to Big Business, or who are useful idiots of the Nanny State.
> 
> It's not Wall Street which writes the rules.  It's the politicians we send to Washington.  Neuter them, and you neuter special influences.  Big, bloated government is where cronyism is born.  It's where opportunities for the poor and middle class are sacrificed.
> LIMIT government, and wealth will redistribute organically as it was meant to.



It IS Wall Street that writes the rules.  They just use politicians as puppets.

And if government were taken out of the equation completely, we would become a nation where corporations could do whatever they want, without any fear of retribution whatsoever.

At least with elected officials supposedly regulating industry, we can vote them out of office.  With corporations, you need to have voting shares in order to have any say at all about what they do.


----------



## Jarhead

Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...

The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.

The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.


----------



## Vast LWC

Jarhead said:


> Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...
> 
> The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.
> 
> The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.



Ummm...  you mean Chapter 11?

Happens all the time.

It's one of the benefits of being a Corporation.


----------



## deaddogseye

Scott Brown has produced a great ad using the Obama and Warren remarks on this point. Even if you accept Obama at his word for his clarification, the disdain for the individual success is so clear especially juxtopposed to the remarks from Kennedy Johnson and Clinton -- and of course the Gipper . Warren's hostility is even more palpable (and when she say the rest of us paid for that she ignores the fact that the people she is attacking have paid the most for all that with their taxes and its a lot of her base who pay nothing for these things but get the benefit.









here is the link - dont know why is doeasnt show up

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqDIjGsBEP8[/ame]


----------



## Barb

Jarhead said:


> Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...
> 
> The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.
> 
> The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.



Fair enough. The day that the community, the employees, and the government don't share the COST and liability of those failures is the day I'll agree with you. 

See, if you try to understand that I'm talking about Trump, and YOU're talking about my father, you will FINALLY understand that we're really NOT having the same conversation, and THEN we might (its a very slim might) start talking TO, rather than AT, or PAST each other. 

I would, believe it or not, like that.


----------



## Jarhead

Vast LWC said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...
> 
> The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.
> 
> The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...  you mean Chapter 11?
> 
> Happens all the time.
> 
> It's one of the benefits of being a Corporation.
Click to expand...


Chapter 11 does not include the community, government or the employees sharing in the losses.

Chapter 11 includes the vendors suffering some losses....something a vendor knows is a possibility when they enter into a business arrangement.

Give me something with meat to debate. Dont just toss out something to punch holes in what I am saying that actually doesnt punch holes in it.

Unless you dont want to debate.


----------



## Jarhead

Barb said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...
> 
> The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.
> 
> The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. The day that the community, the employees, and the government don't share the COST and liability of those failures is the day I'll agree with you.
> 
> See, if you try to understand that I'm talking about Trump, and YOU're talking about my father, you will FINALLY understand that we're really NOT having the same conversation, and THEN we might (its a very slim might) start talking TO, rather than AT, or PAST each other.
> 
> I would, believe it or not, like that.
Click to expand...


Excuse me Barb...but I truly thought we WERE talking to each other...not past each other. I have responded to your posts with respoect as they deserved and I thought you were doing the same.

Yes...I am talking about your Dad...and myself....The trumps of the world make up such a small portion of the business owners in the country.

But as I keep saying...we need them. For example...Trump.....he allows hundreds, if not thousands of real. estate brokers earn nice commissions....he allows copy machine salespeople earn a living when he buys/leases from them...carpet cleaners....elevator mnechanics...etc...etc...etc.

Barb....I dont agree with all you say...I agree with much.

We dont agree on the solution...and we dont agree on the entire problem.

But you are fun to debate.


----------



## Vast LWC

Jarhead said:


> Chapter 11 does not include the community, government or the employees sharing in the losses.
> 
> Chapter 11 includes the vendors suffering some losses....something a vendor knows is a possibility when they enter into a business arrangement.
> 
> Give me something with meat to debate. Dont just toss out something to punch holes in what I am saying that actually doesnt punch holes in it.
> 
> Unless you dont want to debate.



Employees lose their jobs, stocks options, and in many cases, their pensions in Chapter 11.

Vendors lose, obviously, passing the cost of losses to the public in the form of higher prices on their products.

Creditors are forced to raise interest rates when businesses fail, as their risk to profit ratios fall.

In some cases, the government is forced to step in and use taxpayer money to help bail out the failing business.  Often in the form of loans that are never paid back.

There are endless ways business failures effect the community as a whole.

Did you think the missing money from a bankruptcy just disappeared magically with no ill effects on society?


----------



## Jarhead

Vast LWC said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 11 does not include the community, government or the employees sharing in the losses.
> 
> Chapter 11 includes the vendors suffering some losses....something a vendor knows is a possibility when they enter into a business arrangement.
> 
> Give me something with meat to debate. Dont just toss out something to punch holes in what I am saying that actually doesnt punch holes in it.
> 
> Unless you dont want to debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employees lose their jobs, stocks options, and in many cases, their pensions in Chapter 11.
> 
> As does the business owner...plus he/she loses a lot more
> 
> Vendors lose, obviously, passing the cost of losses to the public in the form of higher prices on their products.
> 
> Vendors know this to be a possibility when they engage in a contract..and they pass the loseses on to the consumer as you mentioned.
> 
> Creditors are forced to raise interest rates when businesses fail, as their risk to profit ratios fall.
> 
> A business failing will not create that. An economic disioater will. Not the same thing.
> 
> In some cases, the government is forced to step in and use taxpayer money to help bail out the failing business.  Often in the form of loans that are never paid back.
> 
> THAT IS WHERE I AGREE...but it should never have happened. And never should again.
> 
> There are endless ways business failures effect the community as a whole.
Click to expand...


My responses in red.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your words or a book quotation?  Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.
> 
> In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that.  He _gives_ you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%.  It's just not possible to say that* the business community is profiting* more than they pay.  *At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.  *
> 
> Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty.  Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.  This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.
> 
> We should ALL be pissed about that.  This guy RAN on unity.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the  in your link can deceive a gullible fool like you, but his slick lies have no chance with a Cynic.
> 
> As you can see from the highlighted part, he claims that BUSINESSES benefit 25% but when he tries to lie about BUSINESS overpaying taxes the slick professional deceiver SHIFTS to the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS. If he were honest he would compare the share of CORPORATE taxes paid to the federal government. Corporate taxes account for 7.4% of total federal revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> Capital gains tax	45
> *Corporate income tax	132*
> Individual income tax	794
> Social Security taxes	713
> *Total revenues	1,782*
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ed.  Go read the entire article.  You'll find that he's being overly generous in conceding points to the utterly ridiculous claims of the left.  IOW, for the sake of argument, he takes them at face value.
> 
> Obama's not talking about only raising the corporate rate anyway.  He's talking about raising income taxes which will affect small businesses, typically LLCs and S Corps.  Further, as he kicks out the "third leg of the stool", we find that state and local taxes pay the bulk of local infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Bullshit! He dishonestly limits them to the few examples they gave as if those few examples were the entire litany of benefits corporations get from the government. In Willard's own ad for how completely independent of government corporations are, his star got loans with special terms, which zombie never included, and contracts from the government. So not only does zombie dishonestly overestimate the taxes corporations pay, he dishonestly underestimates the benefits corporations get from government.


----------



## Barb

Jarhead said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...
> 
> The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.
> 
> The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. The day that the community, the employees, and the government don't share the COST and liability of those failures is the day I'll agree with you.
> 
> See, if you try to understand that I'm talking about Trump, and YOU're talking about my father, you will FINALLY understand that we're really NOT having the same conversation, and THEN we might (its a very slim might) start talking TO, rather than AT, or PAST each other.
> 
> I would, believe it or not, like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me Barb...but I truly thought we WERE talking to each other...not past each other. I have responded to your posts with respoect as they deserved and I thought you were doing the same.
> 
> Yes...I am talking about your Dad...and myself....The trumps of the world make up such a small portion of the business owners in the country.
> 
> But as I keep saying...we need them. For example...Trump.....he allows hundreds, if not thousands of real. estate brokers earn nice commissions....he allows copy machine salespeople earn a living when he buys/leases from them...carpet cleaners....elevator mnechanics...etc...etc...etc.
> 
> Barb....I dont agree with all you say...I agree with much.
> 
> We dont agree on the solution...and we dont agree on the entire problem.
> 
> But you are fun to debate.
Click to expand...


My apologies. I really wasn't sure we were having the same conversation. I do agree that the Trumps are a small %, but they make up a huge portion of the debate. Do you know that the Koch brothers own (is the parent company of) FOX News? 

We might need corporations, but not to the degree that they need labor, and not to the degree that they should be writing the policies that are supposed to regulate them. There is a certain reciprocity that men like my father felt, and acted upon, where his employees were concerned. 

As a small businessperson, my father took out a loan to cover payroll every year when the slow season came. He did not pass the risks he rightfully claimed as his own down to his employees, as it has become fashionable for so many companies and multinational corporations to do today. My dad said that the men who worked for him put the food on our table and the roof over our heads, and that he had a responsibility to make sure the people who did so much for us could do the same for their own families. 

That sense of reciprocity, of responsibility, is sneered at in today's business world. In a corporation, it is contrary to the legal construct and fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders! But where is the fiduciary responsibility of long term viability and sustainability where CEOS of publicly traded companies work to gain their quarterly bonuses (for coming out under budget) at the expense of customer service (lowering the chance at repeat business), or the good of the communities they work within and whose economies they need to survive? 

I like to argue with you too. I miss my dad, and we would have these fights. I felt then that we weren't talking about the same things though sometimes, or at least not the same scale of them. Please don't let my frustration with that make you think I'm being snotty to you. I can be snotty...but its usually ABOUT the thing, you know?


----------



## Vast LWC

Jarhead said:


> As does the business owner...plus he/she loses a lot more



Yet they share in the loss, which was what you asked for.



Jarhead said:


> Vendors know this to be a possibility when they engage in a contract..and they pass the loseses on to the consumer as you mentioned.



And thus, the consumer pays too.



Jarhead said:


> A business failing will not create that. An economic disioater will. Not the same thing.



Each failed business makes it's own small contribution to creditor risk ratios.



Jarhead said:


> THAT IS WHERE I AGREE...but it should never have happened. And never should again.



Whether it should or should not happen, it does in fact happen.



Jarhead said:


> My responses in red.


----------



## Foxfyre

It is fine for a small business owner to take out loans to cover payroll in slow times and many, if not most businesses have done so to avoid losing a faithful, loyal, and competent staff.  This, however, is a personal choice that the government should stay completely out of. And however well intended, if the business owner has no reasonable hope or expectation of covering those loans and regaining the profit, he can easily bankrupt hmself in the process, lose all or most of his assets and income producing resources, and then everybody is out of a job.  Lay offs and other adjustments that protect or restore a company's profitability preserves jobs for some and/or makes it possible for a business to hire again when work is avaiable.

I do think people should understand though that the ONLY protection they have for their retirement is to own their own retirement account(s).  If the employees own and control their own retirement account, and the business owners cannot touch them there won't be any scandals of corporate executives raiding the investment accounts and absconding with the money.   If employees are foolish enough to depend on a corporate funded retirement managed by the corporation, they are the ones who choose to take that risk.  And yes, they can lose every dime and they have nobody to blame but themselves.  Just as do those who depend on Social Security that Congress and the President can take away at any time with a simple voice vote should they choose to do so.


----------



## Jarhead

Barb said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. The day that the community, the employees, and the government don't share the COST and liability of those failures is the day I'll agree with you.
> 
> See, if you try to understand that I'm talking about Trump, and YOU're talking about my father, you will FINALLY understand that we're really NOT having the same conversation, and THEN we might (its a very slim might) start talking TO, rather than AT, or PAST each other.
> 
> I would, believe it or not, like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me Barb...but I truly thought we WERE talking to each other...not past each other. I have responded to your posts with respoect as they deserved and I thought you were doing the same.
> 
> Yes...I am talking about your Dad...and myself....The trumps of the world make up such a small portion of the business owners in the country.
> 
> But as I keep saying...we need them. For example...Trump.....he allows hundreds, if not thousands of real. estate brokers earn nice commissions....he allows copy machine salespeople earn a living when he buys/leases from them...carpet cleaners....elevator mnechanics...etc...etc...etc.
> 
> Barb....I dont agree with all you say...I agree with much.
> 
> We dont agree on the solution...and we dont agree on the entire problem.
> 
> But you are fun to debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My apologies. I really wasn't sure we were having the same conversation. I do agree that the Trumps are a small %, but they make up a huge portion of the debate. Do you know that the Koch brothers own (is the parent company of) FOX News?
> 
> We might need corporations, but not to the degree that they need labor, and not to the degree that they should be writing the policies that are supposed to regulate them. There is a certain reciprocity that men like my father felt, and acted upon, where his employees were concerned.
> 
> As a small businessperson, my father took out a loan to cover payroll every year when the slow season came. He did not pass the risks he rightfully claimed as his own down to his employees, as it has become fashionable for so many companies and multinational corporations to do today. My dad said that the men who worked for him put the food on our table and the roof over our heads, and that he had a responsibility to make sure the people who did so much for us could do the same for their own families.
> 
> That sense of reciprocity, of responsibility, is sneered at in today's business world. In a corporation, it is contrary to the legal construct and fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders! But where is the fiduciary responsibility of long term viability and sustainability where CEOS of publicly traded companies work to gain their quarterly bonuses (for coming out under budget) at the expense of customer service (lowering the chance at repeat business), or the good of the communities they work within and whose economies they need to survive?
> 
> I like to argue with you too. I miss my dad, and we would have these fights. I felt then that we weren't talking about the same things though sometimes, or at least not the same scale of them. Please don't let my frustration with that make you think I'm being snotty to you. I can be snotty...but its usually ABOUT the thing, you know?
Click to expand...


I have said numerous times on this site...my employees always came first. I spent one year (2009) earning no income while not laying off a single person. I was able to afford it. I had one employee who was with me for years who earned more than I did for the two subsequent years...she deserved it....anbd she now owns and runs the company.

But larger corporations, on the most part, are public companies. The stockholders dont know the empoloyees nor do they care about them. They care about returns and the executive branch of the company has the responsibility to maximize that return.

Not directed to you when I say this....

But many who "hate" those large corporations for the way they treat their employees actually have stock in those companies through their pensions. More often than not, they will COMPLAIN if their return sucks....ESPECIALLY if they heard that the executive branch opted to take a loss and let the stock tank as opposed to minimizing operating costs.

Sorry you miss your dad....sounds like you learned a lot from him.


----------



## Jarhead

Vast LWC said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> As does the business owner...plus he/she loses a lot more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they share in the loss, which was what you asked for.
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vendors know this to be a possibility when they engage in a contract..and they pass the loseses on to the consumer as you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And thus, the consumer pays too.
> 
> 
> 
> Each failed business makes it's own small contribution to creditor risk ratios.
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> THAT IS WHERE I AGREE...but it should never have happened. And never should again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether it should or should not happen, it does in fact happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> My responses in red.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Fair enough response..

But...but....well......you are ugly and a stupid head.


----------



## Vast LWC

Jarhead said:


> Fair enough response..
> 
> But...but....well......you are ugly and a stupid head.



LOL.  You big jerkface.


----------



## Barb

Foxfyre said:


> It is fine for a small business owner to take out loans to cover payroll in slow times and many, if not most businesses have done so to avoid losing a faithful, loyal, and competent staff.  This, however, is a personal choice that the government should stay completely out of. And however well intended, if the business owner has no reasonable hope or expectation of covering those loans and regaining the profit, he can easily bankrupt hmself in the process, lose all or most of his assets and income producing resources, and then everybody is out of a job.  Lay offs and other adjustments that protect or restore a company's profitability preserves jobs for some and/or makes it possible for a business to hire again when work is avaiable.
> 
> I do think people should understand though that the ONLY protection they have for their retirement is to own their own retirement account(s).  If the employees own and control their own retirement account, and the business owners cannot touch them there won't be any scandals of corporate executives raiding the investment accounts and absconding with the money.   If employees are foolish enough to depend on a corporate funded retirement managed by the corporation, they are the ones who choose to take that risk.  And yes, they can lose every dime and they have nobody to blame but themselves.  Just as do those who depend on Social Security that Congress and the President can take away at any time with a simple voice vote should they choose to do so.



You're a libertarian? 

I ask because they also believe that the rapacious drain on societies jugular is done most efficiently by the private sector,


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vast LWC said:


> Yes, you're right.
> 
> *Presenting the facts, in the exact context they were presented, is a "Liberal Trick".*
> 
> Obama is not "using it as a rationalization" for anything.
> 
> He's pointing out that business owners didn't get there on their own, they had workers, families and communities that supported them.
> 
> *Which is exactly what Romney did in that speech.*
> 
> Apparently, in your Bizarro universe, a "modicum of intelligence" is code for "years worth of right-wing brainwashing".



Presenting the facts doesn't support your argument.

What Romney said is perfectly sensible, coaches around the globe say much the same on a daily basis. 

What you are really trying to do is justify Obama's fuckup. But you fail, because the two are not compatible. We recognize sports as a collaborative effort. There is DIRECT collaboration of coaches, teammates, sponsors, etc. to make an Olympic athlete. We aren't talking Obama taking credit because government built roads that the athlete traveled on, or any other indirect support. 

Now I can fully imagine Barack Obama standing up and declaring that he was the reason for a Michael Phelps win, but most Americans would recognize what a blowhard Obama is. With small business, infrastructure is needed to succeed, no question, but as with Phelps winning a gold medal, that doesn't mean Obama was a key part, or a part at all. Infrastructure is indirect support.

So, Obama's moronic claims are the act of a petty blowhard, attempting to claim success for acts they didn't do. Obama does nothing good for small business, anyone with sense knows this. For him to claim credit, so that he can justify looting those businesses, is beyond the pale.

Your panicked rush to try and create simile with Romney is just more of the desperation of the left who sees it all slipping away.


----------



## Barb

Jarhead said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me Barb...but I truly thought we WERE talking to each other...not past each other. I have responded to your posts with respoect as they deserved and I thought you were doing the same.
> 
> Yes...I am talking about your Dad...and myself....The trumps of the world make up such a small portion of the business owners in the country.
> 
> But as I keep saying...we need them. For example...Trump.....he allows hundreds, if not thousands of real. estate brokers earn nice commissions....he allows copy machine salespeople earn a living when he buys/leases from them...carpet cleaners....elevator mnechanics...etc...etc...etc.
> 
> Barb....I dont agree with all you say...I agree with much.
> 
> We dont agree on the solution...and we dont agree on the entire problem.
> 
> But you are fun to debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies. I really wasn't sure we were having the same conversation. I do agree that the Trumps are a small %, but they make up a huge portion of the debate. Do you know that the Koch brothers own (is the parent company of) FOX News?
> 
> We might need corporations, but not to the degree that they need labor, and not to the degree that they should be writing the policies that are supposed to regulate them. There is a certain reciprocity that men like my father felt, and acted upon, where his employees were concerned.
> 
> As a small businessperson, my father took out a loan to cover payroll every year when the slow season came. He did not pass the risks he rightfully claimed as his own down to his employees, as it has become fashionable for so many companies and multinational corporations to do today. My dad said that the men who worked for him put the food on our table and the roof over our heads, and that he had a responsibility to make sure the people who did so much for us could do the same for their own families.
> 
> That sense of reciprocity, of responsibility, is sneered at in today's business world. In a corporation, it is contrary to the legal construct and fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders! But where is the fiduciary responsibility of long term viability and sustainability where CEOS of publicly traded companies work to gain their quarterly bonuses (for coming out under budget) at the expense of customer service (lowering the chance at repeat business), or the good of the communities they work within and whose economies they need to survive?
> 
> I like to argue with you too. I miss my dad, and we would have these fights. I felt then that we weren't talking about the same things though sometimes, or at least not the same scale of them. Please don't let my frustration with that make you think I'm being snotty to you. I can be snotty...but its usually ABOUT the thing, you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said numerous times on this site...*my employees always came first. *I spent one year (2009) earning no income while not laying off a single person. I was able to afford it. I had one employee who was with me for years who earned more than I did for the two subsequent years...she deserved it....anbd she now owns and runs the company.
> 
> But larger corporations, on the most part, are public companies. *The stockholders dont know the empoloyees nor do they care about them*. They care about returns and the executive branch of the company has the responsibility to maximize that return.
> 
> Not directed to you when I say this....
> 
> But many who "hate" those large corporations for the way they treat their employees actually have stock in those companies through their pensions. More often than not, they will COMPLAIN if their return sucks....ESPECIALLY if they heard that the executive branch opted to take a loss and let the stock tank as opposed to minimizing operating costs.
> 
> Sorry you miss your dad....sounds like you learned a lot from him.
Click to expand...


Meh, we agree about so much...I had a professor who made the same points underlined, and I can't argue with them. Many don't have stock in those companies though, instead, they work for them. My question to one who owned stock in them and defended the practices ON those grounds, after he asked why society should underwrite THEIR well being, was "why should the working poor give a rats ass about your stock portfolio to the expense of THEIR or their families well being?" He was stumped with that. 

I loved my dad. No training in argument is more valuable than that had at the knee of a US Marine.


----------



## Vast LWC

Uncensored2008 said:


> Presenting the facts doesn't support your argument.
> 
> What Romney said is perfectly sensible, coaches around the globe say much the same on a daily basis.
> 
> What you are really trying to do is justify Obama's fuckup. But you fail, because the two are not compatible. We recognize sports as a collaborative effort. There is DIRECT collaboration of coaches, teammates, sponsors, etc. to make an Olympic athlete. We aren't talking Obama taking credit because government built roads that the athlete traveled on, or any other indirect support.
> 
> Now I can fully imagine Barack Obama standing up and declaring that he was the reason for a Michael Phelps win, but most Americans would recognize what a blowhard Obama is. With small business, infrastructure is needed to succeed, no question, but as with Phelps winning a gold medal, that doesn't mean Obama was a key part, or a part at all. Infrastructure is indirect support.
> 
> So, Obama's moronic claims are the act of a petty blowhard, attempting to claim success for acts they didn't do. Obama does nothing good for small business, anyone with sense knows this. For him to claim credit, so that he can justify looting those businesses, is beyond the pale.
> 
> Your panicked rush to try and create simile with Romney is just more of the desperation of the left who sees it all slipping away.



Ahh, I see...

You're now upping the stakes by trying to claim that Obama is somehow claiming that he personally is the reason for the success of businesses everywhere...

ROFL.

The rationalizations just keep getting more fragile by the post.


----------



## Barb

> We recognize sports as a collaborative effort.



The whole "Gipper" meme was lost on you then? SOCIETY, done right, is a collaborative effort.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vast LWC said:


> He was asking the Olympians to share the currency that they were paid in:
> 
> Fame and Glory.




So, Romney got fame and glory from the Olympics?

LOL

Your desperation is palpable. 



> It's the exact same argument.



Except of course, that it isn't.

When Dale Earnhardt wins a race, a lot of the credit goes to the team, they DIRECTLY influence events. 

When Michael Phelps wins a race, the guy who added chlorine to the pool doesn't get credit. Yeah, if the pool were not maintained, the race couldn't happen - still this is an indirect support action. Obama had no influence on the outcome, no matter how desperate you are to justify his fuckup.



> You can rationalize it all you want, but anyone who isn't a brainwashed radical extremist psychopath will see the point, and agree.



Obama is a fucktard, a blowhard. You only serve to make a fool of yourself with your flaccid justifications.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vast LWC said:


> Ahh, I see...
> 
> You're now upping the stakes by trying to claim that Obama is somehow claiming that he personally is the reason for the success of businesses everywhere...



No, that was Obama, not me.



> ROFL.
> 
> The rationalizations just keep getting more fragile by the post.



You're right that this has seriously hurt Obama; you're wrong that your silly justifications are helping your Messiah®.


----------



## Jarhead

Vast LWC said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presenting the facts doesn't support your argument.
> 
> What Romney said is perfectly sensible, coaches around the globe say much the same on a daily basis.
> 
> What you are really trying to do is justify Obama's fuckup. But you fail, because the two are not compatible. We recognize sports as a collaborative effort. There is DIRECT collaboration of coaches, teammates, sponsors, etc. to make an Olympic athlete. We aren't talking Obama taking credit because government built roads that the athlete traveled on, or any other indirect support.
> 
> Now I can fully imagine Barack Obama standing up and declaring that he was the reason for a Michael Phelps win, but most Americans would recognize what a blowhard Obama is. With small business, infrastructure is needed to succeed, no question, but as with Phelps winning a gold medal, that doesn't mean Obama was a key part, or a part at all. Infrastructure is indirect support.
> 
> So, Obama's moronic claims are the act of a petty blowhard, attempting to claim success for acts they didn't do. Obama does nothing good for small business, anyone with sense knows this. For him to claim credit, so that he can justify looting those businesses, is beyond the pale.
> 
> Your panicked rush to try and create simile with Romney is just more of the desperation of the left who sees it all slipping away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, I see...
> 
> You're now upping the stakes by trying to claim that Obama is somehow claiming that he personally is the reason for the success of businesses everywhere...
> 
> ROFL.
> 
> The rationalizations just keep getting more fragile by the post.
Click to expand...


I personally did not see it as Obama taking clain for anything.

I did, however, see it as Obama taking away form business owners the satisdfaction of knoiwing their personal risk was just that....THEIR personal risk.

I never said to myself.."I am successful becuase I am smart"
Nor did I say "I am successful becuase I work hard"

I have said...many times....that I would NOT be successful if I were NOT smart...I would NOT be successful if I did NOT work hard.

and most important...

"I would not be successful if I did not put it all on the line"

Obama characterized business owners as arrogant.....and most of us arent.

It was a poor approach and whereas the criticism may be directed toward the wrong thing....he most certainly deserved the criticsm.


----------



## Vast LWC

Jarhead said:


> I personally did not see it as Obama taking clain for anything.
> 
> I did, however, see it as Obama taking away form business owners the satisdfaction of knoiwing their personal risk was just that....THEIR personal risk.
> 
> I never said to myself.."I am successful becuase I am smart"
> Nor did I say "I am successful becuase I work hard"
> 
> I have said...many times....that I would NOT be successful if I were NOT smart...I would NOT be successful if I did NOT work hard.
> 
> and most important...
> 
> "I would not be successful if I did not put it all on the line"
> 
> Obama characterized business owners as arrogant.....and most of us arent.
> 
> It was a poor approach and whereas the criticism may be directed toward the wrong thing....he most certainly deserved the criticsm.



Alright, I'll accept that.  

For many people, the comment was in bad taste, and perhaps delivered badly.

That's valid.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vast LWC said:


> For many people, the comment was in bad taste, and perhaps delivered badly.
> 
> That's valid.



Wow now that's an understatement. Barry had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. He'll say anything to diminish business so the liberal socialists can tax it or take it over, just like in health care! 

Remember the evil health insurance companies, and forget they do a lousy jobs because liberals made it illegal for them to compete.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Uncensored2008 said:


> When Dale Earnhardt wins a race, a lot of the credit goes to the team, they DIRECTLY influence events.





figures, stupid redneck rightwing bigot bagger moron watches NASCAR


----------



## Murf76

Vast LWC said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off... 20%+85% would be 105%.  So, there's a problem right off the top with your math.  But as we saw in Zombie's work-up earlier, even if the top 1% used the infrastructure and national defense exclusively... they're ALREADY paying more than enough for it at 37% of revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, I said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the top 20% of the nation owns 85% of the wealth.  And that's not even including the money they've been hiding overseas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where would adding 20 and 85 come into the equation?
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that answers my question though... Washington has behaved with complete disregard toward its responsibility to spend our money wisely.  We have no budget and no attempt to fix our broken entitlements.  There's no equivocation on the word "_unsustainable_".  It means what it means.  Why should ANYONE have to pony up even one more red cent until politicians do _their_ jobs?
> 
> We all know that wealth is not evenly distributed in this country.  We accept that to some extent, that's just the nature of human beings... some will be more successful than others.  But that doesn't mean that it has to be as lop-sided as it is now.  The thing is though, that it's _your_ ideology which creates the extremes of it.  The more power that you give to politicians and bureaucrats, the more they can USE that power to enrich themselves and their friends.  You CREATE the very crony capitalism that you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir.  The right is just as guilty as the left in that regard.
> 
> The left wants government to control business.
> 
> And the right wants business to control government.
> 
> Between the two, they have created a system where all politicians are on the corporate payroll, and all corporations are beholden to government to keep their immoral policies legal.
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not possible to "redistribute the wealth" by means of government intervention.  It's not possible, because they WILL skim the cream off the top.  That's human nature too.  Greed is as innate to us as compassion.  Go back to kwc57's post #298 and consider that her example of "Jose the Tamale Salesman" could not engage the marketplace in today's business climate.  He wouldn't be able to raise the start-up costs he'd need in order to be properly licensed, inspected, and insured.  His _opportunities_ are not limited by Big Business.  They're limited by politicians and bureaucrats who are often politically _indebted_ to Big Business, or who are useful idiots of the Nanny State.
> 
> It's not Wall Street which writes the rules.  It's the politicians we send to Washington.  Neuter them, and you neuter special influences.  Big, bloated government is where cronyism is born.  It's where opportunities for the poor and middle class are sacrificed.
> LIMIT government, and wealth will redistribute organically as it was meant to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It IS Wall Street that writes the rules.  They just use politicians as puppets.
> 
> And if government were taken out of the equation completely, we would become a nation where corporations could do whatever they want, without any fear of retribution whatsoever.
> 
> At least with elected officials supposedly regulating industry, we can vote them out of office.  With corporations, you need to have voting shares in order to have any say at all about what they do.
Click to expand...


You have _almost_ arrived upon a revelation.  Almost. 

I'll take your word for 20 and 85 percents.  It's really here nor there as the lop-sided nature of wealth distribution is a given.  The bone of contention is what we do about it.

Here, you say.. 


> The left wants government to control business.
> 
> And the right wants business to control government.


But that is incorrect.  What the right wants is for government to be smaller and limited to it's original constitutional constraints.  When you limit what politicians have available to give, there's less point in buying them.  They have no power to pick winners and losers at that point.

Now, you guys have spent the last couple of years demonizing the Tea Party as agents of the GOP.  But that was never true.  The Tea Party is actually a grass roots, unorganized rising of people who want Limited Government and Responsible Spending.  The fact that Democrats take the brunt of that doesn't mean that RINOs don't get likewise excoriated, as we've seen in the primaries of 2010 and now.

Once you understand that we mean what we say about Limited Government, the rest will make sense to you.  The "straw man" argument that we stand for anarchy is just not true.  It doesn't meet the definition of "limited"  So, we're not talking about letting corporations run roughshod, or allowing entrepreneurs to pollute the environment.

The key to understanding the nature of _unalienable rights_ is to understand that freedom ends at your neighbor's chin.  It's as simple as that.  If you poison a stream on your property... it will cause a predictable loss of rights to other individuals who utilize that stream, thus you would NOT be free to poison the stream.  I did a really long post on _unalienable rights_ the other day, too long to repeat, so I'll link it HERE.




*started this post hours ago, but got interrupted.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

post above says this




> The Tea Party is actually a grass roots, unorganized rising of people who want Limited Government and Responsible Spending.



nothing could be further from the truth, and this isnt a debate, the simple absolute fact is the tea party was created by dick armey and his billionaire owners freedomworks, to rebut healthcare reform

that some idiot white supremacists grabbed onto it, sure, but not grassroots, not in a million years...

again, this isnt debate, you are wrong, there is no question about this...


----------



## The T

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> For many people, the comment was in bad taste, and perhaps delivered badly.
> 
> That's valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow now that's an understatement. Barry had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. He'll say anything to diminish business so the liberal socialists can tax it or take it over, just like in health care!
> 
> Remember the evil health insurance companies, and forget they do a lousy jobs because liberals made it illegal for them to compete.
Click to expand...

 
Obama also had a friend he called 'FRANK' and referred to in his book 22 times.

Frank Marshall Davis...Known Communist...

*The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama&#8217;s Mentor*

*The Communist Part II: Why Obama&#8217;s Mentor Went From Republican to Devout Marxist*

*The Communist Part III: How Obama Discovered &#8216;Hope,&#8216; &#8217;Change&#8216; and &#8217;Forward!&#8217;*


----------



## Murf76

Barb said:


> We recognize sports as a collaborative effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole "Gipper" meme was lost on you then? SOCIETY, done right, is a collaborative effort.
Click to expand...


Too simplistic.  In order for a society to function harmoniously, the natural rights of _Individuals_ MUST be respected.  Otherwise, predictable tumult will result.  The Founders knew that.


----------



## Bfgrn

What has the Marxist in the White House done to this country???


Obama's accomplishments on Fiscal Responsibility

Within days after taking office, he signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. Executive Order -- Economy in Government Contracting | The White House

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. Obama Names Chief Performance Officer : NPR

On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx

He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. Chief Information Officers Council

He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. Gates announces major Pentagon priority shifts - CNN.com http://bit.ly/fz8GAd

Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. President orders debt panel, names chairmen - Feb. 18, 2010







The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## The T

Murf76 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We recognize sports as a collaborative effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole "Gipper" meme was lost on you then? SOCIETY, done right, is a collaborative effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too simplistic. In order for a society to function harmoniously, the natural rights of _Individuals_ MUST be respected. Otherwise, predictable tumult will result. The Founders knew that.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

See The writings of *John Locke*


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We recognize sports as a collaborative effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole "Gipper" meme was lost on you then? SOCIETY, done right, is a collaborative effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too simplistic.  In order for a society to function harmoniously, the natural rights of _Individuals_ MUST be respected.  Otherwise, predictable tumult will result.  The Founders knew that.
Click to expand...

So basically you are saying that Obama got it right!


> The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together*.


----------



## Zander

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwWW2DQS_DU]"The More Context You Get, The Worse It Sounds" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn

Jarhead said:


> But larger corporations, on the most part, are public companies. The stockholders dont know the empoloyees nor do they care about them. They care about returns and the executive branch of the company has the responsibility to maximize that return.



You have pinpointed exactly what is the fatal flaw with the private health insurance industry.

The 'employees' are the patients, and the Wall Street stockholders don't care if they live or die.

I have offered this before, so far not one conservative will watch it.

Profits Before Patients

WENDELL POTTER
With almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter saw for-profit insurers hijack our health care system and put profits before patients.


----------



## Papageorgio

ConzHateUSA said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Dale Earnhardt wins a race, a lot of the credit goes to the team, they DIRECTLY influence events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> figures, stupid redneck rightwing bigot bagger moron watches NASCAR
Click to expand...


 another stupid intolerant left wing bigot, know it all moron makes an ignorant comment.


----------



## rightwinger

Context, conservatives.....context

_.   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&#8217;ve got a business &#8212; you didn&#8217;t build that*. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn&#8217;t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. _

Where did business build roads and bridges?


----------



## Murf76

The T said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole "Gipper" meme was lost on you then? SOCIETY, done right, is a collaborative effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too simplistic. In order for a society to function harmoniously, the natural rights of _Individuals_ MUST be respected. Otherwise, predictable tumult will result. The Founders knew that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> See The writings of *John Locke*
Click to expand...


Exactly.  I just did a really long post on that the other day, linked above.  If people would just take the time and start at the beginning, with the question of "what makes certain rights unalienable"... we wouldn't have the horrible division we have in this country.  It's not enough to read a copy of the U.S. Constitution.  We have to _think_ about what it means and why it says what it does.


----------



## The T

Zander said:


> "The More Context You Get, The Worse It Sounds" - YouTube


 
And now he's backpeddling. Too late for him. He's pissed off the American electorate.


----------



## Dr.House

All of a sudden context matters to liberals...


Barry says what he says and libs say he didn't...  

That'll play well in Peoria....


----------



## The T

rightwinger said:


> Context, conservatives.....context
> 
> _. 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. _
> 
> Where did business build roads and bridges?


 
Go back and re look Sewerboy. 

Nicde try. Obama screwed himself. And this won't be the last time. He has a string of hits. THIS TIME he took off the last mask.


----------



## edthecynic

Zander said:


> "The More Context You Get, The Worse It Sounds" - YouTube


Again the worthless lying Romney scum left out this most important contextual part: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together*." Romney scum can't stop themselves from lying just like their lying leader.


----------



## Murf76

rightwinger said:


> Context, conservatives.....context
> 
> _.   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. _
> 
> Where did business build roads and bridges?



When they pay their share and more of the taxes.  We've been through this... again, and again, and again.  These people aren't getting something for nothing.  They're ALREADY paying.  The "context" is that Obama wants more.  And the worst part of it is... that giving him more wouldn't be a drop in the bucket and he KNOWS it.  This is just a political game to him in order to create division and solidify his base.
How sick is that?


----------



## kaz

edthecynic said:


> Again the worthless lying Romney scum left out this most important contextual part: "The point is, is that when we succeed, *we succeed because of our individual initiative*, but *also because we do things together*." Romney scum can't stop themselves from lying just like their lying leader.



You've never been on a team before, have you Mr. Ed?  I for one say thanks!


----------



## The T

Murf76 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too simplistic. In order for a society to function harmoniously, the natural rights of _Individuals_ MUST be respected. Otherwise, predictable tumult will result. The Founders knew that.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> See The writings of *John Locke*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. I just did a really long post on that the other day, linked above. If people would just take the time and start at the beginning, with the question of "what makes certain rights unalienable"... we wouldn't have the horrible division we have in this country. It's not enough to read a copy of the U.S. Constitution. We have to _think_ about what it means and why it says what it does.
Click to expand...

 
And why the Constitution took as long as it did to ratify and everything they considered to protect Liberty.

People don't understand that just because the Revolution was over...a new nation was born...and that was it.

Long way from it. The Founders went back to the Greeks and Romans...

They were taking the best parts of history and trying something that had never been done in the history of mankind. They were very careful.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Context, conservatives.....context
> 
> _.   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. _
> 
> Where did business build roads and bridges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When they pay their share and more of the taxes.  We've been through this... again, and again, and again.*  These people aren't getting something for nothing.  They're ALREADY paying.  The "context" is that Obama wants more.  And the worst part of it is... that giving him more wouldn't be a drop in the bucket and he KNOWS it.  This is just a political game to him in order to create division and solidify his base.
> How sick is that?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that bullshit has been shot down over and over and over.

Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
Capital gains tax	45
*Corporate income tax	132*
Individual income tax	794
Social Security taxes	713
*Total revenues	1,782*
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.


----------



## Murf76

The T said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> See The writings of *John Locke*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. I just did a really long post on that the other day, linked above. If people would just take the time and start at the beginning, with the question of "what makes certain rights unalienable"... we wouldn't have the horrible division we have in this country. It's not enough to read a copy of the U.S. Constitution. We have to _think_ about what it means and why it says what it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why the Constitution took as long as it did to ratify and everything they considered to protect Liberty.
> 
> People don't understand that just because the Revolution was over...a new nation was born...and that was it.
> 
> Long way from it. The Founders went back to the Greeks and Romans...
> 
> They were taking the best parts of history and trying something that had never been done in the history of mankind. They were very careful.
Click to expand...


Well, it helped that they didn't have TV and video games to distract them. 
 Books were precious in those day, not only read, but contemplated... some ideas accepted, others discarded.  We need to rediscover that quality in ourselves... before it's too late.


----------



## The T

Murf76 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. I just did a really long post on that the other day, linked above. If people would just take the time and start at the beginning, with the question of "what makes certain rights unalienable"... we wouldn't have the horrible division we have in this country. It's not enough to read a copy of the U.S. Constitution. We have to _think_ about what it means and why it says what it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why the Constitution took as long as it did to ratify and everything they considered to protect Liberty.
> 
> People don't understand that just because the Revolution was over...a new nation was born...and that was it.
> 
> Long way from it. The Founders went back to the Greeks and Romans...
> 
> They were taking the best parts of history and trying something that had never been done in the history of mankind. They were very careful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it helped that they didn't have TV and video games to distract them.
> Books were precious in those day, not only read, but contemplated... some ideas accepted, others discarded. We need to rediscover that quality in ourselves... before it's too late.
Click to expand...

 
Couldn't agree more. Well stated.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Context, conservatives.....context
> 
> _.   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. _
> 
> Where did business build roads and bridges?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When they pay their share and more of the taxes.  We've been through this... again, and again, and again.*  These people aren't getting something for nothing.  They're ALREADY paying.  The "context" is that Obama wants more.  And the worst part of it is... that giving him more wouldn't be a drop in the bucket and he KNOWS it.  This is just a political game to him in order to create division and solidify his base.
> How sick is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and that bullshit has been shot down over and over and over.
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> Capital gains tax	45
> *Corporate income tax	132*
> Individual income tax	794
> Social Security taxes	713
> *Total revenues	1,782*
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
Click to expand...


LLCs and S Corps, Ed.  I'm trying to be patient, but I'm wearing thin with you.  We've been here before.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Context, conservatives.....context
> 
> _.   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. _
> 
> Where did business build roads and bridges?



The business didn't build the Staples store down the street.  nevertheless, they couldn't operate if it wasn't for stores like that.  If Staples isn't entitled to anything more than the price of the items it sells, then why is the government entitled to anything more than the cost of providing the services is supplies?


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When they pay their share and more of the taxes.  We've been through this... again, and again, and again.*  These people aren't getting something for nothing.  They're ALREADY paying.  The "context" is that Obama wants more.  And the worst part of it is... that giving him more wouldn't be a drop in the bucket and he KNOWS it.  This is just a political game to him in order to create division and solidify his base.
> How sick is that?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and that bullshit has been shot down over and over and over.
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> Capital gains tax	45
> *Corporate income tax	132*
> Individual income tax	794
> Social Security taxes	713
> *Total revenues	1,782*
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LLCs and S Corps, Ed.  I'm trying to be patient, but I'm wearing thin with you.  We've been here before.
Click to expand...

All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."

Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.


----------



## Mac1958

.

*"I'm always struck by people who think, 'well it must be 'cause I was just so smart'.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'.  Let me tell you something.  There are a whole bunch of hard working people out there'."*

How do you know what a business person is thinking, Mr President?

How many business owners have you actually heard say "I'm so smart" or "I work harder than anybody"?, Mr President?  Precisely?  After working with a few hundred of them, I never have, not once.   You just made this shit up to appeal to people who, for the most part, have no idea what it's like.

This all a lovely straw man argument, but his mockery above has nothing to do with roads and bridges.  Not a thing.

But keep diverting, it seems to be working, that's politics, huh?

.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

The T said:


> Obama also had a friend he called 'FRANK' and referred to in his book 22 times.
> 
> Frank Marshall Davis...Known Communist...



Imagine if Romney had a bunch of Nazi friends in his past? The liberals would be berserko crazy, but a communist is fine, after all the liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb.

We are socialists, we are enemies of todays capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions. ~ Adolf Hitler, May 1st, 1927





Through Frank Marshall Davis,( Communist Party number: 47544) Obama had an admitted deep and prolonged relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. 
But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."


----------



## Papageorgio

Dr.House said:


> All of a sudden context matters to liberals...
> 
> 
> Barry says what he says and libs say he didn't...
> 
> That'll play well in Peoria....



Context only matters to liberals when libbies talk but in this case, even in context, Obama reveals his lack of appreciation for small business and the risks they take.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and that bullshit has been shot down over and over and over.
> 
> Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
> Capital gains tax	45
> *Corporate income tax	132*
> Individual income tax	794
> Social Security taxes	713
> *Total revenues	1,782*
> Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
> Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LLCs and S Corps, Ed.  I'm trying to be patient, but I'm wearing thin with you.  We've been here before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.
Click to expand...


It's not 'pontification', Ed.  It's patience.  I come here to talk... not to fight with people.  Talking is actually fun when one doesn't make a chore of it.  And while I enjoy talking with the like-minded, debating opposing views is also entertaining.   But less so, when people keep repeating the same lame misunderstanding of the situation time after time.

Obama's not just trying to raise taxes on corporations.  When he's talking to most of these small business people, he's talking income tax.


----------



## The T

Papageorgio said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of a sudden context matters to liberals...
> 
> 
> Barry says what he says and libs say he didn't...
> 
> That'll play well in Peoria....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Context only matters to liberals when libbies talk but in this case, even in context, Obama reveals his lack of appreciation for small business and the risks they take.
Click to expand...

 
Seeing as though Obama hasn't taken any real risk...and considers those that DO an enemy.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. "YOU DIDN"T BUILD THAT!
2. SOME ONE ELSE DID!
3. Obama's last words in this election.
4. YOU DIDN"T BUILD THAT!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## ABikerSailor

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> *"I'm always struck by people who think, 'well it must be 'cause I was just so smart'.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'.  Let me tell you something.  There are a whole bunch of hard working people out there'."*
> 
> How do you know what a business person is thinking, Mr President?
> 
> How many business owners have you actually heard say "I'm so smart" or "I work harder than anybody"?, Mr President?  Precisely?  After working with a few hundred of them, I never have, not once.   You just made this shit up to appeal to people who, for the most part, have no idea what it's like.
> 
> This all a lovely straw man argument, but his mockery above has nothing to do with roads and bridges.  Not a thing.
> 
> But keep diverting, it seems to be working, that's politics, huh?
> 
> .



I can give you an example of one rich person who states both those things regularly and even has a television show..........................Donald the Chump.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ABikerSailor said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> *"I'm always struck by people who think, 'well it must be 'cause I was just so smart'.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'.  Let me tell you something.  There are a whole bunch of hard working people out there'."*
> 
> How do you know what a business person is thinking, Mr President?
> 
> How many business owners have you actually heard say "I'm so smart" or "I work harder than anybody"?, Mr President?  Precisely?  After working with a few hundred of them, I never have, not once.   You just made this shit up to appeal to people who, for the most part, have no idea what it's like.
> 
> This all a lovely straw man argument, but his mockery above has nothing to do with roads and bridges.  Not a thing.
> 
> But keep diverting, it seems to be working, that's politics, huh?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you an example of one rich person who states both those things regularly and even has a television show..........................Donald the Chump.
Click to expand...


are you giving one because there is only one???


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LLCs and S Corps, Ed.  I'm trying to be patient, but I'm wearing thin with you.  We've been here before.
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'pontification', Ed.  It's patience.  I come here to talk... not to fight with people.  Talking is actually fun when one doesn't make a chore of it.  And while I enjoy talking with the like-minded, debating opposing views is also entertaining.   But less so, when people keep repeating the same lame misunderstanding of the situation time after time.
> 
> *Obama's not just trying to raise taxes on corporations.  When he's talking to most of these small business people, he's talking income tax.*
Click to expand...

Translation: I checked and found out that only about 3% of small businesses net over $250,000 and would be hit by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. 

Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact that corporations pay only 7.4% of federal revenue and wage earners pay 84.6%.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.



Total BS from EdtheLiar.  Corporations contribute over half an employees Social Security and Medicare, so the percentage should be at least 9% higher.  Then there's the little matter of corporate tax which is paid AGAIN by the individuals who own the company.  It is a double tax in most cases.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total BS from EdtheLiar.  Corporations contribute over half an employees Social Security and Medicare, so the percentage should be at least 9% higher.  Then there's the little matter of corporate tax which is paid AGAIN by the individuals who own the company.  It is a double tax in most cases.
Click to expand...

Total BS from savepuberty. The government counts the corporate half of SS as the wage earner's INCOME.



> Source: Congressional Budget Office.
> Notes: Income categories are defined by ranking all people by their comprehensive household income adjusted for household
> size--that is, divided by the square root of the household's size. (A household consists of the people who share a housing
> unit, regardless of their relationships.) Quintiles, or fifths, of the income distribution contain equal numbers of people.
> *Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income* plus income from other sources. *Pretax cash income is*
> the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital
> gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and *the
> employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes*) and employee contri-
> butions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-
> paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assis-
> tance). Households with negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but are included in the totals.



And the corporate tax is hardly a double tax, and for too many corporations it is not even a single tax!!!!!

Representation Without Taxation | U.S. PIRG

REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION

Fortune 500 Companies that Spend Big on Lobbying and Avoid Taxes
RELEASED BY: U.S. PIRG EDUCATION FUND  RELEASE DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2012 

snip/

280 profitable Fortune 500 companies collectively paid an effective federal income tax rate of 18.5 percent, about half of the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate, while receiving $223 billion in tax subsidies.

These corporations include most of the Fortune 500 companies that were consistently profitable from 2008 through 2010. Collectively they paid $250.8 billion in federal income taxes on a total of $1,352.8 billion in U.S. profits. If they had paid the statutory 35 percent tax on their profits, they would have paid an extra $223 billion. There are thousands of perfectly legal ways that corporations, with the help of armies of high-paid lawyers and accountants, can reduce their tax burden

These 280 companies spent a total of $2 billion lobbying on tax and other issues between 2008 and 2010.

We also identify the &#8220;Dirty Thirty&#8221; companies that were especially aggressive at dodging taxes and lobbying Congress. These companies so deftly exploited carve outs and loopholes in the tax code that all but one of them enjoyed a negative tax rate over the three year period of the study, while spending nearly half a billion dollars to lobby Congress on issues including tax policy. Altogether they collected $10.6 billion in tax rebates from the federal government, while skirting a total of $67.9 billion in taxes they would have paid had they paid the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

Ordinary American taxpayers and small businesses must pick up the tab when major corporations avoid their taxes. Spread out over every individual tax filer in America, the taxes avoided by the Dirty Thirty breaks down to an average of $481 per taxpayer.

Exploiting offshore tax havens &#8211; an example of tax dodging at its worst.

Loopholes that allow corporations to avoid taxes by shifting profits offshore are particularly egregious. At least 22 of the dirty thirty have reported subsidiaries in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands. Since profit artificially shifted offshore is often counted as &#8220;foreign&#8221; profits, this corporate tax data doesn&#8217;t reflect the amount lost due to tax havens. All told, offshore tax havens cost American taxpayers an estimated $100 billion in lost revenue every year. At least 83 of the nation&#8217;s top 100 publicly traded corporations have subsidiaries in tax haven countries. 

snip/


----------



## flacaltenn

rightwinger said:


> Context, conservatives.....context
> 
> _.   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. _
> 
> Where did business build roads and bridges?



I know a LOT of bridges that have $6 and $8 dollar tolls. All paid by companies and employees.. NOT GIVEN by the government. Same with gas taxes, trucking tariffs, and various other methods of funding.. ALL paid for LARGELY by business and business related taxes and fees. Obama wants you to IGNORE the source of the funding for these things and who creates the cash stream to finance them. As tho they are GIFTS from the benevolent guy behind the Oz curtain.. 

Of course "bridges to nowhere" are quite popular as monuments to Government personalities that want to be immortalized at the taxpayers expense. You build a "bridge to nowhere" and they likely won't come and pay for it..


----------



## ABikerSailor

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> *"I'm always struck by people who think, 'well it must be 'cause I was just so smart'.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'.  Let me tell you something.  There are a whole bunch of hard working people out there'."*
> 
> How do you know what a business person is thinking, Mr President?
> 
> How many business owners have you actually heard say "I'm so smart" or "I work harder than anybody"?, Mr President?  Precisely?  After working with a few hundred of them, I never have, not once.   You just made this shit up to appeal to people who, for the most part, have no idea what it's like.
> 
> This all a lovely straw man argument, but his mockery above has nothing to do with roads and bridges.  Not a thing.
> 
> But keep diverting, it seems to be working, that's politics, huh?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you an example of one rich person who states both those things regularly and even has a television show..........................Donald the Chump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you giving one because there is only one???
Click to expand...


Do you need more?  I'm pretty sure I can find them.  And those are just the public ones.

Wanna talk about the Winklevoss twins?


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> Then there's the little matter of corporate tax which is paid AGAIN by the individuals who own the company.  It is a double tax in most cases.


And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.


----------



## Barb

Our Candidates Come In Two Flavors: Dishonest And Insultingly Dishonest

Love Lewis Black


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LLCs and S Corps, Ed.  I'm trying to be patient, but I'm wearing thin with you.  We've been here before.
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'pontification', Ed.  It's patience.  I come here to talk... not to fight with people.  Talking is actually fun when one doesn't make a chore of it.  And while I enjoy talking with the like-minded, debating opposing views is also entertaining.   But less so, when people keep repeating the same lame misunderstanding of the situation time after time.
> 
> Obama's not just trying to raise taxes on corporations.  When he's talking to most of these small business people, he's talking income tax.
Click to expand...


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan



Obama Unveils Proposal to Cut Corporate Tax Rate

THE PRESIDENTS FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESS TAX REFORM

Introduction

Americas system of business taxation is in need of reform. The United States has a relatively narrow corporate tax base compared to other countriesa tax base reduced by loopholes, tax expenditures, and tax planning. This is combined with a statutory corporate tax rate that will soon be the highest among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate, the U.S. tax system is uncompetitive and inefficient. The system distorts choices such as where to produce, what to invest in, how to finance a business, and what business form to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and investment in the United States while allowing firms to benefit from incentives to locate production and shift profits overseas. The system is also too complicatedespecially for Americas small businesses.

For these reasons, the President is committed to reform that will support the competitiveness of American businesseslarge and smalland increase incentives to invest and hire in the United States by lowering rates, cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity, while being fiscally responsible.

This report presents the Presidents Framework for business tax reform. In laying out this Framework, the President recognizes that tax reform will take time, require work on a bipartisan basis, and benefit from additional feedback from stakeholders and experts. To start that process, this report outlines what the President believes should be five key elements of business tax reform.


PRESIDENT OBAMAS FIVE ELEMENTS OF BUSINESS TAX REFORM

I. Eliminate dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, broaden the base and cut the corporate tax rate to spur growth in America: The Framework would eliminate dozens of different tax expenditures and fundamentally reform the business tax base to reduce distortions that hurt productivity and growth. It would reinvest these savings to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment in America.

II. Strengthen American manufacturing and innovation: The Framework would refocus the manufacturing deduction and use the savings to reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent, while encouraging greater research and development and the production of clean energy.

III. Strengthen the international tax system, including establishing a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to encourage domestic investment: Our tax system should not give companies an incentive to locate production overseas or engage in accounting games to shift profits abroad, eroding the U.S. tax base. Introducing a minimum tax on foreign earnings would help address these problems and discourage a global race to the bottom in tax rates.

IV. Simplify and cut taxes for Americas small businesses: Tax reform should make tax filing simpler for small businesses and entrepreneurs so that they can focus on growing their businesses rather than filling out tax returns.

V. Restore fiscal responsibility and not add a dime to the deficit: Business tax reform should be fully paid for and lead to greater fiscal responsibility than our current business tax system by either eliminating or making permanent and fully paying for temporary tax provisions now in the tax code.


----------



## Mac1958

ABikerSailor said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> *"I'm always struck by people who think, 'well it must be 'cause I was just so smart'.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'.  Let me tell you something.  There are a whole bunch of hard working people out there'."*
> 
> How do you know what a business person is thinking, Mr President?
> 
> How many business owners have you actually heard say "I'm so smart" or "I work harder than anybody"?, Mr President?  Precisely?  After working with a few hundred of them, I never have, not once.   You just made this shit up to appeal to people who, for the most part, have no idea what it's like.
> 
> This all a lovely straw man argument, but his mockery above has nothing to do with roads and bridges.  Not a thing.
> 
> But keep diverting, it seems to be working, that's politics, huh?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you an example of one rich person who states both those things regularly and even has a television show..........................Donald the Chump.
Click to expand...



Marketing, very effective marketing.  But let's even give you that.  But if we have to go that far for examples, then I think my point is made.  99.9999% of American business owners don't think that way.  Obama created a straw man to rip up, that's intellectually dishonest, and that's what pissed me off.

.


----------



## Article 15

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Many of us who don't like what Obama said began losing this argument when they tried to respond to the "roads and bridges" straw man.  A masterful job of diversion by the Left.
> 
> .



You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."

Thomas Paine


----------



## Mac1958

Article 15 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Many of us who don't like what Obama said began losing this argument when they tried to respond to the "roads and bridges" straw man.  A masterful job of diversion by the Left.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.
> 
> "Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
> 
> Thomas Paine
Click to expand...



"I'm always struck by people who think, 'well it must be 'cause I was just so smart'. There are a lot of smart people out there. 'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'. Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hard working people out there'."

Barack Obama

.


----------



## Article 15

Mac1958 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Many of us who don't like what Obama said began losing this argument when they tried to respond to the "roads and bridges" straw man.  A masterful job of diversion by the Left.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.
> 
> "Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm always struck by people who think, 'well it must be 'cause I was just so smart'. There are a lot of smart people out there. 'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'. Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hard working people out there'."
> 
> Barack Obama
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## Mac1958

Article 15 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.
> 
> "Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm always struck by people who think, 'well it must be 'cause I was just so smart'. There are a lot of smart people out there. 'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'. Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hard working people out there'."
> 
> Barack Obama
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...



I made my point at 4:32, a few posts up.  This isn't about roads or bridges, it's not about property, it's not about civilization.  It's about politics.

.


----------



## Article 15

Mac1958 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm always struck by people who think, 'well it must be 'cause I was just so smart'. There are a lot of smart people out there. 'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'. Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hard working people out there'."
> 
> Barack Obama
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made my point at 4:32, a few posts up.  This isn't about roads or bridges, it's not about property, it's not about civilization.  It's about politics.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's always about politics on one level or another.  It doesn't make what Obama is said any less true.

If you want to prove him wrong find yourself an Island that has never seen humans, move there with nothing, start your business and let us know how that works out for you.


----------



## Mac1958

Article 15 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made my point at 4:32, a few posts up.  This isn't about roads or bridges, it's not about property, it's not about civilization.  It's about politics.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always about politics on one level or another.  It doesn't make what Obama is said any less true.
> 
> If you want to prove him wrong find yourself an Island that has never seen humans, move there with nothing, start your business and let us know how that works out for you.
Click to expand...



So, just for the record then, you agree with Obama that business owners think their success is because they are "so smart" and because they "worked harder than anyone else."  

Those are his words, verbatim, and you agree with them.  Correct?

.


----------



## Article 15

Mac1958 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made my point at 4:32, a few posts up.  This isn't about roads or bridges, it's not about property, it's not about civilization.  It's about politics.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always about politics on one level or another.  It doesn't make what Obama is said any less true.
> 
> If you want to prove him wrong find yourself an Island that has never seen humans, move there with nothing, start your business and let us know how that works out for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, just for the record then, you agree with Obama that business owners think their success is because they are "so smart" and because they "worked harder than anyone else."
> 
> Those are his words, verbatim, and you agree with them.  Correct?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Sure, I think that some of them do.  I didn't read anything in that quote where he said they all do.


----------



## Mac1958

Article 15 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always about politics on one level or another.  It doesn't make what Obama is said any less true.
> 
> If you want to prove him wrong find yourself an Island that has never seen humans, move there with nothing, start your business and let us know how that works out for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, just for the record then, you agree with Obama that business owners think their success is because they are "so smart" and because they "worked harder than anyone else."
> 
> Those are his words, verbatim, and you agree with them.  Correct?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, I think that some of them do.  I didn't read anything in that quote where he said they all do.
Click to expand...




His words, again:  "I'm always struck by people who think..."

Always, must happen often.

People who think, very impressive mind-reading there.

The guy knows absolutely nothing about this, and he was playing to a crowd who also does not.  That's politics-playing at its worst, and I don't like being used as a pawn in the game, by either side, ever, period.

I don't expect you to agree on this.  But that was my point.

.


----------



## Article 15

Mac1958 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, just for the record then, you agree with Obama that business owners think their success is because they are "so smart" and because they "worked harder than anyone else."
> 
> Those are his words, verbatim, and you agree with them.  Correct?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I think that some of them do.  I didn't read anything in that quote where he said they all do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *His words, again:  "I'm always struck by people who think..."
> 
> Always, must happen often.*
> 
> People who think, very impressive mind-reading there.
> 
> The guy knows absolutely nothing about this, and he was playing to a crowd who also does not.  That's politics-playing at its worst, and I don't like being used as a pawn in the game, by either side, ever, period.
> 
> I don't expect you to agree on this.  But that was my point.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Always....could happen every day, could happen once a year.

The guy is spot on.

Deal.


----------



## rightwinger

Mac1958 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm always struck by people who think, 'well it must be 'cause I was just so smart'. There are a lot of smart people out there. 'It must be because I worked harder than anybody else'. Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hard working people out there'."
> 
> Barack Obama
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made my point at 4:32, a few posts up.  This isn't about roads or bridges, it's not about property, it's not about civilization.  It's about politics.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


This dust up is all about roads and bridges

Business owners think they built them without any help


----------



## Mac1958

.

And they pretend they don't dislike business owners.

Perfect.

.


----------



## Article 15

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> And they pretend they don't dislike business owners.
> 
> Perfect.
> 
> .



Looks like the Captain Non-partisan has been reduced to making silly partisan statements.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Just reading your posts, this doesn't take much effort on my part.

And being independent does not mean that I don't have strong opinions.  They're just not based on politics, that's all.  I get to be honest at all times, spin and diversion are too much work for me.

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Glad Dems have finally stepped out of their NeoMarxists closet. Please run against US Small business

Embrace your Inner Mao


----------



## Article 15

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Just reading your posts, this doesn't take much effort on my part.
> 
> And being independent does not mean that I don't have strong opinions.  They're just not based on politics, that's all.  I get to be honest at all times, spin and diversion are too much work for me.
> 
> .



"And they pretend they don't dislike business owners."

That's right out of the right wing nut brigade field manual.


----------



## Stephanie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Glad Dems have finally stepped out of their NeoMarxists closet. Please run against US Small business
> 
> Embrace your Inner Mao



Obama stepped in it big time with this speech..

I think it's great four months before the election

Keep talking Obama


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.



Those weren't businesses Obama was talking about are they.  Oh, and it was Obama who gave Solyndra $.5 B.  Might want to pick your battles more carefully.  You have lost on every count so far.


----------



## Listening

Article 15 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Many of us who don't like what Obama said began losing this argument when they tried to respond to the "roads and bridges" straw man.  A masterful job of diversion by the Left.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.
> 
> "Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
> 
> Thomas Paine
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, that does not speak to Obama's comments.

47% of the nation currently does not pay any federal income tax.  If we "do things together", then he should be pushing to put a minimum income tax on all people.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> Then there's the little matter of corporate tax which is paid AGAIN by the individuals who own the company.  It is a double tax in most cases.





saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those weren't businesses Obama was talking about are they.  Oh, and it was Obama who gave Solyndra $.5 B.  Might want to pick your battles more carefully.  You have lost on every count so far.
Click to expand...

Couldn't help but notice you edited out your stupid claim that corporations who have a NEGATIVE tax rate are "double taxed" that the chart was a reply to and then you desperately tried to change the subject.


----------



## edthecynic

Listening said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Many of us who don't like what Obama said began losing this argument when they tried to respond to the "roads and bridges" straw man.  A masterful job of diversion by the Left.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.
> 
> "Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that does not speak to Obama's comments.
> 
> 47% of the nation currently does not pay any federal income tax.  If we "do things together", then he should be pushing to put a minimum income tax on all people.
Click to expand...

Hold on a minute there Slick! The Bush tax cuts doubled the number of people who pay no income tax and the GOP and the Right want to make those tax cuts permanent. Are you now saying the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire? Are you now saying it is good to raise taxes on the poor in a recession?


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's the little matter of corporate tax which is paid AGAIN by the individuals who own the company.  It is a double tax in most cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those weren't businesses Obama was talking about are they.  Oh, and it was Obama who gave Solyndra $.5 B.  Might want to pick your battles more carefully.  You have lost on every count so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Couldn't help but notice you edited out your stupid claim that corporations who have a NEGATIVE tax rate are "double taxed" that the chart was a reply to and then you desperately tried to change the subject.
Click to expand...


You are the one who changed the subject, which was the point of my post.  I tend to keep posts short, so I usually just keep one I'm responding to.  BTW, I never said what you claim, but we are used to your lies EdtheLiar.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:
			
		

> Hold on a minute there Slick! The Bush tax cuts doubled the number of people who pay no income tax and the GOP and the Right want to make those tax cuts permanent. Are you now saying the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire? Are you now saying it is good to raise taxes on the poor in a recession?



Obama wants to make things fair, he said so.  Seems you and Obama can't see fair.  The reference was to middle class not paying in as much.  Again, you have no shame for lying.


----------



## edthecynic

Listening said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Many of us who don't like what Obama said began losing this argument when they tried to respond to the "roads and bridges" straw man.  A masterful job of diversion by the Left.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.
> 
> "Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that does not speak to Obama's comments.
> 
> *47% of the nation currently does not pay any federal income tax.  If we "do things together", then he should be pushing to put a minimum income tax on all people*.
Click to expand...




saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on a minute there Slick! The Bush tax cuts doubled the number of people who pay no income tax and the GOP and the Right want to make those tax cuts permanent. Are you now saying the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire? Are you now saying it is good to raise taxes on the poor in a recession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama wants to make things fair, he said so.  Seems you and Obama can't see fair. * The reference was to middle class not paying in as much.*  Again, you have no shame for lying.
Click to expand...

Again you dishonestly edit out the post I was replying to. Have you no shame??

Obviously the post I replied to said nothing about the middle class, exposing you as the liar once again.


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'pontification', Ed.  It's patience.  I come here to talk... not to fight with people.  Talking is actually fun when one doesn't make a chore of it.  And while I enjoy talking with the like-minded, debating opposing views is also entertaining.   But less so, when people keep repeating the same lame misunderstanding of the situation time after time.
> 
> *Obama's not just trying to raise taxes on corporations.  When he's talking to most of these small business people, he's talking income tax.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I checked and found out that only about 3% of small businesses net over $250,000 and would be hit by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
> 
> Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact that corporations pay only 7.4% of federal revenue and wage earners pay 84.6%.
Click to expand...


It's a BS statistic, Ed.  And on more than one front too.


> How many businesses that will face higher taxes is not the economically meaningful statistic here. What is meaningful is (1) how many people earning over $200,000 have business income and (2) how much business income will be taxed at a higher rate.
> 
> While S-Corporations and partnerships earning over $200,000 [1] a year may represent a small percent of all personal income tax returns &#8211; just 1.2% in 2010 according to the IRS, they represent nearly 5% of adjusted gross income (AGI) in the U.S.  More importantly, S-Corporations and partnerships earning over $200,000 a year represented more than 97% of all income earned by these entities in 2010 due to net business losses at lower income levels.
> 
> (cont...)Size Matters - Why "Just" Taxing 3% of Small Businesses is Misleading | Tax Foundation


So, basically anybody that's actually making any money in their small business gets a tax hike.  

And this 7.9% figure you keep giving me is meaningless as well.  Corporations the size of GE and in bed with the Obama administration are paying nothing.  What has he done about closing those loopholes?... not a damn thing.  That must be pretty devastating for guys like you who froth at the mouth at the mere mention of the word "corporation".  Your hero is closeted up with such as Big Pharma and you toddle out to the polls in worship of him.

Of course, that would be your beef, not mine.  I'm wily enough to know that the onerous taxation of business in nothing more than a hidden consumer tax.  The government hikes tax rates; the businesses hike prices.  So, no matter how much greed and envy you folks on the left are possessed of... the rich will be rich and the poor will be poor and we in the middle will be squeezed.  And you fight like rabid dogs over the only remedy to that situation, which would be LIMITING the scope and power of government.

You know, the sad part of all of this back and forth on "taxing the rich" is that it's all just an election gimmick from your Dear Leader anyway.  Raising taxes on only "the rich" nets the government about 28 billion next year.  They've got a deficit of over a trillion expected.  Not much to plug the hole with on our sinking ship, is it?  
If he goes ahead and lets the Bush Tax Cuts expire on everyone though... that'll bring him about 300 billion, still not enough, but a nice chunk of change that'll take him two-thirds of the way or so to servicing our national debt for a year.

But he's not got the balls to look into that camera and raise taxes on everyone, does he?  Let me answer that for you... No.  He doesn't.

So why is it that Republicans don't want those taxes raised on ANYONE right now?  Obama and his minions are out there telling us it'll only affect 3% of small businesses.  We KNOW that it's just a measly 28 billion in revenue, so why are they fighting it?.... 
....because they know something you don't.  They know why Keynes worked for Reagan but didn't work for Obama.

Imagine the economy as a plate spinning on a stick, kind of like what performers used to do at circuses and vaudeville shows.  The plate slows, wobbles, and the performer gives it a little nudge with his finger... and it spins faster.

The influx of government cash to the economy is kind of like that little nudge.  But other forces are at work, making that plate spin and keeping it from wobbling.  Cash in the hands of consumers raises Demand, Demand raises Production, Production raises Jobs, Jobs raise Cash... which sustains Demand.  And the plate spins.

But just as things like centrifugal force and gravity work on the plate unseen, so too do necessary but invisible forces work on the economy... _consumer confidence, predictability, optimism_. Ronald Reagan exuded these things, not only in his demeanor with the American People, but in his policies.  Barack Obama is the polar opposite, negative, threatening, unpredictable.  Obamacare, Card Check, Cap-and-Trade, higher taxes, onerous regulatory law, etc.... all undermine those hidden, but necessary, invisible forces.  

He's got to go.  It's the only way our economy can recover.  Mitt Romney might not be Ronald Reagan.  No one is.  But he's not going to go out of his way to present himself as a threat to the American people or to the economy we depend upon.  And... he does understand how it works, not only in the abstract, but in detail.  Step one, when you've been knocked off your feet, is to get back up.  Obama's not going to let that happen.


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> Go back and re look Sewerboy.
> 
> Nicde try. Obama screwed himself. And this won't be the last time. He has a string of hits. THIS TIME he took off the last mask.



Yes, he sure did.

This was intended as just the typical class warfare that Obama is known for. He wanted to stir his mindless followers up with red meat, get them hating, which is the standard mode of an Obamabot.

But in this digital world, things get out, and his words flowed to the sentient Americans. Now his war on business, including small business, is hitting home. The message is "this guy doesn't just want to rob Walmart, Microsoft (but Apple is off the table, Algore is on the board) and Whirlpool, he wants to strong arm the mom and pop shops as well." Obama wants to take the bread out of the mouths of small business owners and that means a lot of regular people are threatened by him.


----------



## flacaltenn

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's the little matter of corporate tax which is paid AGAIN by the individuals who own the company.  It is a double tax in most cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those weren't businesses Obama was talking about are they.  Oh, and it was Obama who gave Solyndra $.5 B.  Might want to pick your battles more carefully.  You have lost on every count so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Couldn't help but notice you edited out your stupid claim that corporations who have a NEGATIVE tax rate are "double taxed" that the chart was a reply to and then you desperately tried to change the subject.
Click to expand...


Why is it that the anti-corporate left put up charts like this and PRETEND that they have NO IDEA why GE and all these (primarily energy companies) pay negative taxes.. Certainly they are still TAXED at outrageous rates -- they just recieve massive CANDY from the govt that feeds them to produce goods that they would have produced anyway WITHOUT the subsidies. GE gets GREEN candy invented and protected by the eco-nut wing of the left. 
They get $125 for every f'ing washer/dryer they sell to SAVE THE EARTH. They get $75 tax break for every f'ing dishwasher. And MASSIVE tax breaks for their wind turbine, and biomass programs. 

So they run those cute "green as a tree frog" commercials and serve as ADVISORS to the Prez so that the ECO-Snacks keep coming.. 

It's really no mystery.. Has NOTHING to do with their Tax Rate. But you knew that -- you just hate corporations in general -- even when they are getting rich doing your political agendas..


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.



Is that right, edtheliar?

So 84.6% of all federal revenue is from income tax on wage earners?






Wait a minute, income taxes don't even make up 50% of the federal revenue stream. How could income tax on wages be 84.6% then?

Oh, that's right - you're a fucking liar - you're a leftist and you'll say anything to promote your shameful party. Like all Obamabots, you don't have so much as a shred of integrity..


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and re look Sewerboy.
> 
> Nicde try. Obama screwed himself. And this won't be the last time. He has a string of hits. THIS TIME he took off the last mask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he sure did.
> 
> This was intended as just the typical class warfare that Obama is known for. He wanted to stir his mindless followers up with red meat, get them hating, which is the standard mode of an Obamabot.
> 
> But in this digital world, things get out, and his words flowed to the sentient Americans. Now his war on business, including small business, is hitting home. The message is "this guy doesn't just want to rob Walmart, Microsoft (but Apple is off the table, Algore is on the board) and Whirlpool, he wants to strong arm the mom and pop shops as well." Obama wants to take the bread out of the mouths of small business owners and that means a lot of regular people are threatened by him.
Click to expand...


And seriously folks, it was probably a Freudian slip on the part of the President, but he did let the cat out of the bag and showed his true colors.

If the free market lovers of this country, most especially those of us who see our ever more bloated and self serving government as a hindrance rather than a help to the average citizen's freedoms and prosperity, don't keep this alive and fresh in the mind of the electorate, we are all fools.

Don't let them change the subject.


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.



Say edtheliar, #2 on your list is GENERAL ELECTRIC, you know, the folk that own a 70% stake of Barack Obama...


----------



## Meister

I think we need to outlaw teleprompters, we get to see the real person when teleprompters aren't around.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Article 15 said:


> You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.



Obama Akbar indeed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Article 15 said:


> And?



Obama's a fuckwad. Why did you need to ask?


----------



## kaz

Vast LWC said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just another stupid liberal trick.  Yes, business owners and Olympians didn't do what they did in a bubble.  There are two fundamental differences between them.
> 
> 1)  Obama is using it as a rationalization to take away from the business owner that which they built.  Other people helped you, so we're taking your money.  Romney is taking nothing from the Olympians, he's just saying to appreciate how much they helped you.
> 
> 2)  Obama's not even advocating the people who actually helped the business owner.  He's just saying someone helped you, so I'm taking it and giving it to someone else.  Romney is advocating the people who actually did help Olympians.
> 
> It's just one of the stupid games liberals like to play.  Here are things that sound similar, but actually are clearly not to someone with even a modicum of intelligence.  So it's the same.  Yeah.  I'd say nice try, but it wasn't it was lame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right.
> 
> *Presenting the facts, in the exact context they were presented, is a "Liberal Trick".*
> 
> Obama is not "using it as a rationalization" for anything.
> 
> He's pointing out that business owners didn't get there on their own, they had workers, families and communities that supported them.
> 
> *Which is exactly what Romney did in that speech.*
> 
> Apparently, in your Bizarro universe, a "modicum of intelligence" is code for "years worth of right-wing brainwashing".
Click to expand...


Re-reading my post, I already gave you a pretty good description of how they are different.  What's not clear is in what possible way they are the same.  Romney was helping athletes and telling them to appreciate others.  Obama is crushing small business owners.  But he says the same words and you say it's no difference, he just appreciates us darn it.  It has nothing to do with wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone but us, escalating our unemployment taxes, throttling us with the cost of Obamacare.  Just because Obama's not taking our money and giving it to the people who helped us, he's giving it to the people he wants to help him, doesn't mean he doesn't have a soft spot in his heart for us.  He just wants to help us out, and to think otherwise is "bizzaro world."  Gotcha, I understand now...


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just another stupid liberal trick.  Yes, business owners and Olympians didn't do what they did in a bubble.  There are two fundamental differences between them.
> 
> 1)  Obama is using it as a rationalization to take away from the business owner that which they built.  Other people helped you, so we're taking your money.  Romney is taking nothing from the Olympians, he's just saying to appreciate how much they helped you.
> 
> 2)  Obama's not even advocating the people who actually helped the business owner.  He's just saying someone helped you, so I'm taking it and giving it to someone else.  Romney is advocating the people who actually did help Olympians.
> 
> It's just one of the stupid games liberals like to play.  Here are things that sound similar, but actually are clearly not to someone with even a modicum of intelligence.  So it's the same.  Yeah.  I'd say nice try, but it wasn't it was lame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right.
> 
> *Presenting the facts, in the exact context they were presented, is a "Liberal Trick".*
> 
> Obama is not "using it as a rationalization" for anything.
> 
> He's pointing out that business owners didn't get there on their own, they had workers, families and communities that supported them.
> 
> *Which is exactly what Romney did in that speech.*
> 
> Apparently, in your Bizarro universe, a "modicum of intelligence" is code for "years worth of right-wing brainwashing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Re-reading my post, I already gave you a pretty good description of how they are different.  What's not clear is in what possible way they are the same.  Romney was helping athletes and telling them to appreciate others.  Obama is crushing small business owners.  But he says the same words and you say it's no difference, he just appreciates us darn it.  It has nothing to do with wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone but us, escalating our unemployment taxes, throttling us with the cost of Obamacare.  Just because Obama's not taking our money and giving it to the people who helped us, he's giving it to the people he wants to help him, doesn't mean he doesn't have a soft spot in his heart for us.  He just wants to help us out, and to think otherwise is "bizzaro world."  Gotcha, I understand now...
Click to expand...


Yes the differences are quite astonishing.  To rephrase yet once again:

Romney:   Appreciate those who gave you encouragement and funding and moral support and mentoring to make it possible for you to reach for your dream of an Olympic medal.  (No suggestion that anybody other than the athlete put in the effort to earn that medal or deserves any part of it.)

Obama:  You owe those who did stuff that now benefits you, and therefore everybody deserves a cut of whatever you accomplish.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Uncensored2008 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's a fuckwad. Why did you need to ask?
Click to expand...


god help us, 4.5 billion year old planet and some of the inhabitants are still as dumb as cavemen


----------



## Listening

edthecynic said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.
> 
> "Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
> 
> Thomas Paine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that does not speak to Obama's comments.
> 
> 47% of the nation currently does not pay any federal income tax.  If we "do things together", then he should be pushing to put a minimum income tax on all people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on a minute there Slick! The Bush tax cuts doubled the number of people who pay no income tax and the GOP and the Right want to make those tax cuts permanent. Are you now saying the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire? Are you now saying it is good to raise taxes on the poor in a recession?
Click to expand...


I can wait.

Once Obama is out and the recession has ended, then we can put a minimum federal income tax of 2% on everyone.  No loopholes to go to zero.  You can get down to 2%, but that is it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> god help us, 4.5 billion year old planet and some of the inhabitants are still as dumb as cavemen



You being dumb as a caveman doesn't alter the fact that Obama is a fuckwad.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

what explains Obama's dismissive remark "you didn't build that".....?  

this article explains how it comes from the culture of affirmative action and is the racial variant of Marx's fundamental concepts of the base and superstructure, concepts from which the entire Marxist critique of civilization emanates. 

Articles: You Didn't Build It...because I Didn't Earn It


----------



## Foxfyre

ScreamingEagle said:


> what explains Obama's dismissive remark "you didn't build that".....?
> 
> this article explains how it comes from the culture of affirmative action and is the racial variant of Marx's fundamental concepts of the base and superstructure, concepts from which the entire Marxist critique of civilization emanates.
> 
> Articles: You Didn't Build It...because I Didn't Earn It



In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate.  But take the whole pathetic speech in full context and the message is clear.  Other people have done stuff that benefits you and therefore deserve to share in what you earn.  That is a highlighted page right out of the Communist Manifesto.

There was absolutely no acknowledgment that without your business, no infrastructure would be needed, there would be no funding for it, or that you are benefitting anybody else in any way and therefore are entitled to the fruit of your own labor.  That would be contrary to the Marxist doctrine.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re-reading my post, I already gave you a pretty good description of how they are different.  What's not clear is in what possible way they are the same.  Romney was helping athletes and telling them to appreciate others.  Obama is crushing small business owners.  But he says the same words and you say it's no difference, he just appreciates us darn it.  It has nothing to do with wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone but us, escalating our unemployment taxes, throttling us with the cost of Obamacare.  Just because Obama's not taking our money and giving it to the people who helped us, he's giving it to the people he wants to help him, doesn't mean he doesn't have a soft spot in his heart for us.  He just wants to help us out, and to think otherwise is "bizzaro world."  Gotcha, I understand now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the differences are quite astonishing.  To rephrase yet once again:
> 
> Romney:   Appreciate those who gave you encouragement and funding and moral support and mentoring to make it possible for you to reach for your dream of an Olympic medal.  (No suggestion that anybody other than the athlete put in the effort to earn that medal or deserves any part of it.)
> 
> Obama:  You owe those who did stuff that now benefits you, and therefore everybody deserves a cut of whatever you accomplish.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  I'm one of the rich, cock sucking bastards Obama, LWC and the left hate so much.  Yet:

1)  I can barely pay my bills.  Why?   I'm three years into my business and growing, every available dollar goes back into my business.  Yeah, eventually I want to start taking money out, but I'm a few years from that and I'm still in double down mode.  So Obama raises taxes on me by not extending the Bush Tax cuts, and guess what happens, go to part two.

2)  I have three times the employees I had just two years ago.  I'm working on filling three more positions and I'm in the process of looking at two more deals to acquire and grow.  Raise my taxes and just subtract jobs, I can only put back into the business that which I have.  And again, I barely pay my bills now.

3)  I cancelled my group insurance plan and that of every business I acquire.  My costs were out of control.  Literally, I have no control.  Half of everyone's insurance, regardless of their performance was killing me.  Obamacare is going to make it worse.  I replaced it with an HRA, everyone gets up to $200 and that's it.  My professional staff all took it.  A lot of my hourly staff didn't and are uninsured now.  Which is ... exactly ... Obama's plan.  Drive employers out of insurance and then ... da da da da ... government steps in and we get single payer.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate



I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion.  But when I heard it, I completely reversed.  It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business.  He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it.  At least that was my take.


----------



## flacaltenn

Foxfyre said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what explains Obama's dismissive remark "you didn't build that".....?
> 
> this article explains how it comes from the culture of affirmative action and is the racial variant of Marx's fundamental concepts of the base and superstructure, concepts from which the entire Marxist critique of civilization emanates.
> 
> Articles: You Didn't Build It...because I Didn't Earn It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate.  But take the whole pathetic speech in full context and the message is clear.  Other people have done stuff that benefits you and therefore deserve to share in what you earn.  That is a highlighted page right out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> There was absolutely no acknowledgment that without your business, no infrastructure would be needed, there would be no funding for it, or that you are benefitting anybody else in any way and therefore are entitled to the fruit of your own labor.  That would be contrary to the Marxist doctrine.
Click to expand...


I strongly disagree that his remarks were limited to acknowledging the role that infrastructure plays. The proof of that is in the remarks about "being smart" --- THERES A LOT OF SMART PEOPLE! or "working hard" --- A LOT OF FOLKS WORK HARD.. 

Which is standard leftist memes to try and equate the amount of sweat with the relative VALUE of that work. And demean the very importance differences in the contributions made to a venture. Steve Jobs was ESSENTIAL to Apple. That's why they drew him BACK to Apple. The guys who clean windows at Apple MAY be smart and they MAY sweat a lot -- but they are a lot more interchangeable than the folks that are driven and focused on the success of the venture. There is NOT an equality of sweat equity in a cardiac cath lab. There is NOT a credit for a smart burger flipper. 

It's when folks volunteer for leadership positions in these business ventures that all that juvenile Obama spouting fails badly to describe real world contributions.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion.  But when I heard it, I completely reversed.  It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business.  He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it.  At least that was my take.
Click to expand...


Oh I agree that was his intent with the speech, but I think he didn't intend it to be interpreted that way with the "You didn't built that" line which I think was a Freudian slip.  I do think he thought that would be attached to the infrastructure thing.  If he had not been dissing and diminishing business owners with the whole speech, it probably would have been accepted that he didn't intend it the way it has been interpreted.

But anybody with a clue knows that the entire speech was to emphasize that business owners don't deserve their profits and because business owners take advantage of what others have done, everybody is entitled to what the business owners earn.

THAT is what we need to make damn sure nobody forgets between now and November.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion.  But when I heard it, I completely reversed.  It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business.  He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it.  At least that was my take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I agree that was his intent with the speech, but I think he didn't intend it to be interpreted that way with the "You didn't built that" line which I think was a Freudian slip.  I do think he thought that would be attached to the infrastructure thing.  If he had not been dissing and diminishing business owners with the whole speech, it probably would have been accepted that he didn't intend it the way it has been interpreted.
> 
> But anybody with a clue knows that the entire speech was to emphasize that business owners don't deserve their profits and because business owners take advantage of what others have done, everybody is entitled to what the business owners earn.
> 
> THAT is what we need to make damn sure nobody forgets between now and November.
Click to expand...


Agreed, and well put.  What he meant by "that" really isn't the issue.  What you're saying about the speech is.  And accurately so.

Two fundamental differences between Romney and Obama are that:

1)  Romney wasn't asking for anything, just telling them to appreciate the support they got.  Obama is asking for something.  Mo money, mo money, mo money.

2)  Obama isn't asking for mo money for the people who helped us business owners, he's asking for money for people who help Obama.

There really is nothing the same other then some of the words they used.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion. But when I heard it, I completely reversed. It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business. He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it. At least that was my take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I agree that was his intent with the speech, but I think he didn't intend it to be interpreted that way with the "You didn't built that" line which I think was a Freudian slip. I do think he thought that would be attached to the infrastructure thing. If he had not been dissing and diminishing business owners with the whole speech, it probably would have been accepted that he didn't intend it the way it has been interpreted.
> 
> But anybody with a clue knows that the entire speech was to emphasize that business owners don't deserve their profits and because business owners take advantage of what others have done, everybody is entitled to what the business owners earn.
> 
> THAT is what we need to make damn sure nobody forgets between now and November.
Click to expand...

 
It's a complete and total attack on the individual and individual achievement.


----------



## Murf76

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion.  But when I heard it, I completely reversed.  It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business.  He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it.  At least that was my take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I agree that was his intent with the speech, but I think he didn't intend it to be interpreted that way with the "You didn't built that" line which I think was a Freudian slip.  I do think he thought that would be attached to the infrastructure thing.  If he had not been dissing and diminishing business owners with the whole speech, it probably would have been accepted that he didn't intend it the way it has been interpreted.
> 
> But anybody with a clue knows that the entire speech was to emphasize that business owners don't deserve their profits and because business owners take advantage of what others have done, everybody is entitled to what the business owners earn.
> 
> THAT is what we need to make damn sure nobody forgets between now and November.
Click to expand...


Even if Obama had succeeded in attaching his ridiculous comments to infrastructure... he'd still be WRONG.  That's the comedy of this thing.  These businesses pay their way.  They pay their taxes just like they pay their other bills.  Their debt to society and its infrastructure is PAID, and then some. 

What this guy did was to infer a vested public interest in PRIVATE businesses.  He's suggesting they owe him something. And it's just not true, not in any way.  They don't owe him anything.
They did, in fact, build those businesses by themselves.


----------



## The T

Murf76 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion. But when I heard it, I completely reversed. It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business. He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it. At least that was my take.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I agree that was his intent with the speech, but I think he didn't intend it to be interpreted that way with the "You didn't built that" line which I think was a Freudian slip. I do think he thought that would be attached to the infrastructure thing. If he had not been dissing and diminishing business owners with the whole speech, it probably would have been accepted that he didn't intend it the way it has been interpreted.
> 
> But anybody with a clue knows that the entire speech was to emphasize that business owners don't deserve their profits and because business owners take advantage of what others have done, everybody is entitled to what the business owners earn.
> 
> THAT is what we need to make damn sure nobody forgets between now and November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if Obama had succeeded in attaching his ridiculous comments to infrastructure... he'd still be WRONG. That's the comedy of this thing. These businesses pay their way. They pay their taxes just like they pay their other bills. Their debt to society and its infrastructure is PAID, and then some.
> 
> What this guy did was to infer a vested public interest in PRIVATE businesses. He's suggesting that And it's just not true, not in any way. They don't owe him anything.
> They did, in fact, build those businesses by themselves.
Click to expand...

 
And the infrastructure he claims he was speaking about would have never been built without those businesses being successful. If the business failed government would have no incoming taxes to pay for that infrastructure.

This whole issue is fast becoming convoluted and perverted by the left.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Leave Barack alone!  He was just looking for his "fair share" of gratitude from those business folks!


----------



## The T

Zoom-boing said:


> Leave Barack alone! He was just looking for his "fair share" of gratitude from those business folks!


 
He got to where he was 100% by the sweat of others and belives that is the way it has to be. Remember 'Fundamental Transformation'...nobody gets anywhere without government input/blessing or else.


----------



## oreo

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion.  But when I heard it, I completely reversed.  It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business.  He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it.  At least that was my take.
Click to expand...


The point is that everyone benefits from roads and infrastructure. Employees benefit--even generations of welfare recipients benefit from infrastructure.  EVERYONE DOES.  Yet Obama chose to *single out SMALL BUSINESS owners* in this country to JUSTIFY his raising taxes on the most innovative--risk taking--hardest working people on the planet--that are still considered the largest employer in this nation--telling THEM--they didn't build their business's by themselves--_"they had help."_--






"If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people need to run from"--Barack Obama.


----------



## Murf76

oreo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion.  But when I heard it, I completely reversed.  It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business.  He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it.  At least that was my take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that everyone benefits from roads and infrastructure. Employees benefit--even generations of welfare recipients benefit from infrastructure.  EVERYONE DOES.  Yet Obama chose to *single out SMALL BUSINESS owners* in this country to JUSTIFY his raising taxes on the most innovative--risk taking--hardest working people on the planet--that are still considered the largest employer in this nation--telling THEM--they didn't build their business's by themselves--_"they had help."_--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people need to run from"--Barack Obama.
Click to expand...


Yup.  I expect his handlers will be bringing back the teleprompter now.


----------



## The T

oreo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion. But when I heard it, I completely reversed. It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business. He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it. At least that was my take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that everyone benefits from roads and infrastructure. Employees benefit--even generations of welfare recipients benefit from infrastructure. EVERYONE DOES. Yet Obama chose to *single out SMALL BUSINESS owners* in this country to JUSTIFY his raising taxes on the most innovative--risk taking--hardest working people on the planet--that are still considered the largest employer in this nation--telling THEM--they didn't build their business's by themselves--_"they had help."_--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people need to run from"--Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

 
Remember this though? Obama is speaking to welfare people...he's telling them that they have been robbed by 'successful people' and they should be angry. It wasn't by anything they did...and thier failure to exercise thier liberty...but those whom claim to be _successful_ stole it all from them.

Obama is preaching 180 degrees backward what the Founders built.

Edit: The other day remember Obama stated that 'We tried it thier way...it doesn't work'...

What he fails to add is that it was government tinkering with what WAS working for 'equal outcome' result.


----------



## Mac1958

The T said:


> .







.


----------



## saveliberty

I really didn't think of it til now, but there's also an implied threat to small business owners.  Government is watching and we want MORE.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

oreo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion.  But when I heard it, I completely reversed.  It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business.  He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it.  At least that was my take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that everyone benefits from roads and infrastructure. Employees benefit--even generations of welfare recipients benefit from infrastructure.  EVERYONE DOES.  Yet Obama chose to *single out SMALL BUSINESS owners* in this country to JUSTIFY his raising taxes on the most innovative--risk taking--hardest working people on the planet--that are still considered the largest employer in this nation--telling THEM--they didn't build their business's by themselves--_"they had help."_--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people need to run from"--Barack Obama.
Click to expand...


Barack Obama certainly didn't become a success on his own......he should call himself the First Affirmative Action President........


----------



## The T

saveliberty said:


> I really didn't think of it til now, but there's also an implied threat to small business owners. Government is watching and we want MORE.


 
Obama telegraphed to ALL private business. 'What you have isn't yours and WE are going to take it by any means...'


----------



## Foxfyre

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what explains Obama's dismissive remark "you didn't build that".....?
> 
> this article explains how it comes from the culture of affirmative action and is the racial variant of Marx's fundamental concepts of the base and superstructure, concepts from which the entire Marxist critique of civilization emanates.
> 
> Articles: You Didn't Build It...because I Didn't Earn It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate.  But take the whole pathetic speech in full context and the message is clear.  Other people have done stuff that benefits you and therefore deserve to share in what you earn.  That is a highlighted page right out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> There was absolutely no acknowledgment that without your business, no infrastructure would be needed, there would be no funding for it, or that you are benefitting anybody else in any way and therefore are entitled to the fruit of your own labor.  That would be contrary to the Marxist doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree that his remarks were limited to acknowledging the role that infrastructure plays. The proof of that is in the remarks about "being smart" --- THERES A LOT OF SMART PEOPLE! or "working hard" --- A LOT OF FOLKS WORK HARD..
> 
> Which is standard leftist memes to try and equate the amount of sweat with the relative VALUE of that work. And demean the very importance differences in the contributions made to a venture. Steve Jobs was ESSENTIAL to Apple. That's why they drew him BACK to Apple. The guys who clean windows at Apple MAY be smart and they MAY sweat a lot -- but they are a lot more interchangeable than the folks that are driven and focused on the success of the venture. There is NOT an equality of sweat equity in a cardiac cath lab. There is NOT a credit for a smart burger flipper.
> 
> It's when folks volunteer for leadership positions in these business ventures that all that juvenile Obama spouting fails badly to describe real world contributions.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your passion and don't disagree with your context.  But I still think the "You didn't build that" line was intended specifically to address the infrastructure and not the business within the context of the speech.  Nevertheless, the entire speech was clearly intended to minimize the contribution of the entreprenour and the business owner and to entitle the non achievers to the profits of the achievers.

But you are absolutely correct that the skill set of the CEO of a successful business is something few people possess.  And that is why the CEO is worth so much more money than is the janitor who was born into the same world and into the same infrastructure as the CEO.  The janitor might be just as intelligent and might work just as many hours and expend just as much or more energy as the CEO, but for whatever reason he did not choose to prepare himself in the necessary skill sets, he did not take the same risks, and he was not willing to take on the same responsibilities.

Very few people can do what the successful CEO can do which gives him/her ability to command a high salary.  Many many people can do what the janitor does which limits his ability to command more than others are willing to work for.  Gold is rare and therefore valuable.  Lead is plentiful and therefore cheap.   Both, however, are important to and contribute to the whole, but in different ways.  One is not better than the other, but different values are placed on their contribution to the whole.


----------



## Murf76

The T said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion. But when I heard it, I completely reversed. It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business. He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it. At least that was my take.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that everyone benefits from roads and infrastructure. Employees benefit--even generations of welfare recipients benefit from infrastructure. EVERYONE DOES. Yet Obama chose to *single out SMALL BUSINESS owners* in this country to JUSTIFY his raising taxes on the most innovative--risk taking--hardest working people on the planet--that are still considered the largest employer in this nation--telling THEM--they didn't build their business's by themselves--_"they had help."_--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people need to run from"--Barack Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember this though? Obama is speaking to welfare people...he's telling them that they have been robbed by 'successful people' and they should be angry. It wasn't by anything they did...and thier failure to exercise thier liberty...but those whom claim to be _successful_ stole it all from them.
> 
> Obama is preaching 180 degrees backward what the Founders built.
Click to expand...


And he ran on _Unity_.  How funny is that?  Not ha-ha funny, of course, but more of an 'OMG! WHAT THE HELL DID WE DRINK LAST NIGHT?' kind of funny. 

It just makes sense that he's at a 180 with the Founders though.  What the left wants is essentially FDR's Second Bill of Rights, but that can't exist in tandem with our first Bill of Rights.  Since one is _positive (what the government must do FOR you)_ and the other is _negative (what the government can't do TO you)_, you can only have one or the other.  Any "right" which depends upon the labor or property (money) of others is NOT a natural, unalienable right.  We are self-fruitful in our unalienable rights.  We don't NEED anyone else in which to exercise them.

It's what they have to give up... EVERYTHING that we've held dear and made us an "exceptional" nation, that they don't understand is in the balance here.  They think it's possible to meld the two, because we've been dabbling in that sort of thing for decades.  But they don't see the slippery slope before us.


----------



## The T

Murf76 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that everyone benefits from roads and infrastructure. Employees benefit--even generations of welfare recipients benefit from infrastructure. EVERYONE DOES. Yet Obama chose to *single out SMALL BUSINESS owners* in this country to JUSTIFY his raising taxes on the most innovative--risk taking--hardest working people on the planet--that are still considered the largest employer in this nation--telling THEM--they didn't build their business's by themselves--_"they had help."_--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people need to run from"--Barack Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this though? Obama is speaking to welfare people...he's telling them that they have been robbed by 'successful people' and they should be angry. It wasn't by anything they did...and thier failure to exercise thier liberty...but those whom claim to be _successful_ stole it all from them.
> 
> Obama is preaching 180 degrees backward what the Founders built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he ran on _Unity_. How funny is that? Not ha-ha funny, of course, but more of an 'OMG! WHAT THE HELL DID WE DRINK LAST NIGHT?' kind of funny.
> 
> It just makes sense that he's at a 180 with the Founders though. What the left wants is essentially FDR's Second Bill of Rights, but that can't exist in tandem with our first Bill of Rights. Since one is _positive (what the government must do FOR you)_ and the other is _negative (what the government can't do TO you)_, you can only have one or the other. Any "right" which depends upon the labor or property (money) of others is NOT a natural, unalienable right. We are self-fruitful in our unalienable rights. We don't NEED anyone else in which to exercise them.
> 
> It's what they have to give up... EVERYTHING that we've held dear and made us an "exceptional" nation, that they don't understand is in the balance here. They think it's possible to meld the two, because we've been dabbling in that sort of thing for decades. But they don't see the slippery slope before us.
Click to expand...

 
Indeed. The Founders by what they did in this great experiment forced them to be all in, thier lives, thier very fortunes were on the line...not unlike those whom practice thier very liberty right now in the form of business owners with the Government breathing down thier necks waiting for them to do or say the wrong thing and nail them for it.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Foxfyre said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate.  But take the whole pathetic speech in full context and the message is clear.  Other people have done stuff that benefits you and therefore deserve to share in what you earn.  That is a highlighted page right out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> There was absolutely no acknowledgment that without your business, no infrastructure would be needed, there would be no funding for it, or that you are benefitting anybody else in any way and therefore are entitled to the fruit of your own labor.  That would be contrary to the Marxist doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree that his remarks were limited to acknowledging the role that infrastructure plays. The proof of that is in the remarks about "being smart" --- THERES A LOT OF SMART PEOPLE! or "working hard" --- A LOT OF FOLKS WORK HARD..
> 
> Which is standard leftist memes to try and equate the amount of sweat with the relative VALUE of that work. And demean the very importance differences in the contributions made to a venture. Steve Jobs was ESSENTIAL to Apple. That's why they drew him BACK to Apple. The guys who clean windows at Apple MAY be smart and they MAY sweat a lot -- but they are a lot more interchangeable than the folks that are driven and focused on the success of the venture. There is NOT an equality of sweat equity in a cardiac cath lab. There is NOT a credit for a smart burger flipper.
> 
> It's when folks volunteer for leadership positions in these business ventures that all that juvenile Obama spouting fails badly to describe real world contributions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your passion and don't disagree with your context.  But I still think the "You didn't build that" line was intended specifically to address the infrastructure and not the business within the context of the speech.  Nevertheless, the entire speech was clearly intended to minimize the contribution of the entreprenour and the business owner and to entitle the non achievers to the profits of the achievers.
> 
> But you are absolutely correct that the skill set of the CEO of a successful business is something few people possess.  And that is why the CEO is worth so much more money than is the janitor who was born into the same world and into the same infrastructure as the CEO.  The janitor might be just as intelligent and might work just as many hours and expend just as much or more energy as the CEO, but for whatever reason he did not choose to prepare himself in the necessary skill sets, he did not take the same risks, and he was not willing to take on the same responsibilities.
> 
> Very few people can do what the successful CEO can do which gives him/her ability to command a high salary.  Many many people can do what the janitor does which limits his ability to command more than others are willing to work for.  Gold is rare and therefore valuable.  Lead is plentiful and therefore cheap.   Both, however, are important to and contribute to the whole, but in different ways.  One is not better than the other, but different values are placed on their contribution to the whole.
Click to expand...


hmm.....according to Obama dogma.....Obama should be getting the same minimum wages just like all the intelligent hardworking janitors and others who "built" this country.....i say we should revise his pay immediately....


----------



## Zoom-boing




----------



## The T

*Obama has announced to the world that HE is the* King Tyrant* and HE will make sure government Takes from those that worked for what they have and give it to those that didn't.*


----------



## flacaltenn

Murf76 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion.  But when I heard it, I completely reversed.  It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business.  He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it.  At least that was my take.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I agree that was his intent with the speech, but I think he didn't intend it to be interpreted that way with the "You didn't built that" line which I think was a Freudian slip.  I do think he thought that would be attached to the infrastructure thing.  If he had not been dissing and diminishing business owners with the whole speech, it probably would have been accepted that he didn't intend it the way it has been interpreted.
> 
> But anybody with a clue knows that the entire speech was to emphasize that business owners don't deserve their profits and because business owners take advantage of what others have done, everybody is entitled to what the business owners earn.
> 
> THAT is what we need to make damn sure nobody forgets between now and November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if Obama had succeeded in attaching his ridiculous comments to infrastructure... he'd still be WRONG.  That's the comedy of this thing.  These businesses pay their way.  They pay their taxes just like they pay their other bills.  Their debt to society and its infrastructure is PAID, and then some.
> 
> What this guy did was to infer a vested public interest in PRIVATE businesses.  He's suggesting they owe him something. And it's just not true, not in any way.  They don't owe him anything.
> They did, in fact, build those businesses by themselves.
Click to expand...


Here's the Infrastructure that we're supposed to believe was gratuitously provided to us by Obama.. 






Just to emphasize Murph's last comments there. The "help" did not come well organized or even free of charge.


----------



## The T

flacaltenn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I agree that was his intent with the speech, but I think he didn't intend it to be interpreted that way with the "You didn't built that" line which I think was a Freudian slip. I do think he thought that would be attached to the infrastructure thing. If he had not been dissing and diminishing business owners with the whole speech, it probably would have been accepted that he didn't intend it the way it has been interpreted.
> 
> But anybody with a clue knows that the entire speech was to emphasize that business owners don't deserve their profits and because business owners take advantage of what others have done, everybody is entitled to what the business owners earn.
> 
> THAT is what we need to make damn sure nobody forgets between now and November.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if Obama had succeeded in attaching his ridiculous comments to infrastructure... he'd still be WRONG. That's the comedy of this thing. These businesses pay their way. They pay their taxes just like they pay their other bills. Their debt to society and its infrastructure is PAID, and then some.
> 
> What this guy did was to infer a vested public interest in PRIVATE businesses. He's suggesting they owe him something. And it's just not true, not in any way. They don't owe him anything.
> They did, in fact, build those businesses by themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the Infrastructure that we're supposed to believe was gratuitously provided to us by Obama..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to emphasize Murph's last comments there. The "help" did not come well organized or even free of charge.
Click to expand...

 

Toll roads are the worst. taxpayer money builds them...Government extracts money for thier use, and even when it's been paid back...they continue to extract tolls...thier excuse? 'Maintenance'...

But wait a minute? Isn't that what gas taxes are for?


----------



## flacaltenn

The T said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if Obama had succeeded in attaching his ridiculous comments to infrastructure... he'd still be WRONG. That's the comedy of this thing. These businesses pay their way. They pay their taxes just like they pay their other bills. Their debt to society and its infrastructure is PAID, and then some.
> 
> What this guy did was to infer a vested public interest in PRIVATE businesses. He's suggesting they owe him something. And it's just not true, not in any way. They don't owe him anything.
> They did, in fact, build those businesses by themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the Infrastructure that we're supposed to believe was gratuitously provided to us by Obama..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to emphasize Murph's last comments there. The "help" did not come well organized or even free of charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Toll roads are the worst. taxpayer money builds them...Government extracts money for thier use, and even when it's been paid back...they continue to extract tolls...thier excuse? 'Maintenance'...
> 
> But wait a minute? Isn't that what gas taxes are for?
Click to expand...


I know that in Silicon Valley EVERYONE sat in traffic. 1.5 hours a day wasted to go 30 miles. That was BOTH the CEOs and the WINDOWWASHERS.. The socialist dream of equal service and outcomes for everyone.. 

All the while watching an empty "commuter" lane reserved for earth-saving eco-nauts.


----------



## The T

flacaltenn said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the Infrastructure that we're supposed to believe was gratuitously provided to us by Obama..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to emphasize Murph's last comments there. The "help" did not come well organized or even free of charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toll roads are the worst. taxpayer money builds them...Government extracts money for thier use, and even when it's been paid back...they continue to extract tolls...thier excuse? 'Maintenance'...
> 
> But wait a minute? Isn't that what gas taxes are for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that in Silicon Valley EVERYONE sat in traffic. 1.5 hours a day wasted to go 30 miles. That was BOTH the CEOs and the WINDOWWASHERS.. The socialist dream of equal service and outcomes for everyone..
> 
> All the while watching an empty "commuter" lane reserved for earth-saving eco-nauts.
Click to expand...

 
The people are being fleeced at every turn. Obama has all but admitted it in the open by word and deed.

He better start packing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> One is not better than the other, but different values are placed on their contribution to the whole.



You are being polite. When WW 2 started FDR dropped the socialist BS, booted the liberals from positions of responsibility, and appointed the top business people in the country with the know how to produce enough armaments to save civilization on earth. A CEO is better than a janitor. We risk our lives by not recognizing and rewarding their talent. This is not to say we cant be polite to janitors.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ConzHateUSA said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's a fuckwad. Why did you need to ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> god help us, 4.5 billion year old planet and some of the inhabitants are still as dumb as cavemen
Click to expand...


Yeah, but fortunately, you have a god-given right to be that dumb, and conservatives are willing to defend your rights no matter how much you annoy us.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Foxfyre said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what explains Obama's dismissive remark "you didn't build that".....?
> 
> this article explains how it comes from the culture of affirmative action and is the racial variant of Marx's fundamental concepts of the base and superstructure, concepts from which the entire Marxist critique of civilization emanates.
> 
> Articles: You Didn't Build It...because I Didn't Earn It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate.  But take the whole pathetic speech in full context and the message is clear.  Other people have done stuff that benefits you and therefore deserve to share in what you earn.  That is a highlighted page right out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> There was absolutely no acknowledgment that without your business, no infrastructure would be needed, there would be no funding for it, or that you are benefitting anybody else in any way and therefore are entitled to the fruit of your own labor.  That would be contrary to the Marxist doctrine.
Click to expand...


I don't honestly give a damn if he meant their businesses or the infrastructure with his "you didn't build that" remark.  He's wrong either way.

First of all, new roads and bridges get built all the time, and they're always paid for by tax dollars, which business owners most certainly do pay.  Second of all, the existing roads and bridges have to be repaired, maintained, and even rebuilt on a regular basis, which is ALSO paid for by tax dollars, ie. by CURRENT-DAY business owners.  IF Obama is saying that the roads were generously given to us by long-ago, dead taxpayers, he's wrong, because they continue to cost tax money, and always will.  If, as I believe, Obama is saying that "the government" generously gave us roads and bridges, then he's wrong, because he needs to track that back to who funds the government, which would be the people he's scolding for not wanting to "give something back".


----------



## The T

Cecilie1200 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what explains Obama's dismissive remark "you didn't build that".....?
> 
> this article explains how it comes from the culture of affirmative action and is the racial variant of Marx's fundamental concepts of the base and superstructure, concepts from which the entire Marxist critique of civilization emanates.
> 
> Articles: You Didn't Build It...because I Didn't Earn It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate. But take the whole pathetic speech in full context and the message is clear. Other people have done stuff that benefits you and therefore deserve to share in what you earn. That is a highlighted page right out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> There was absolutely no acknowledgment that without your business, no infrastructure would be needed, there would be no funding for it, or that you are benefitting anybody else in any way and therefore are entitled to the fruit of your own labor. That would be contrary to the Marxist doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't honestly give a damn if he meant their businesses or the infrastructure with his "you didn't build that" remark. He's wrong either way.
> 
> First of all, new roads and bridges get built all the time, and they're always paid for by tax dollars, which business owners most certainly do pay. Second of all, the existing roads and bridges have to be repaired, maintained, and even rebuilt on a regular basis, which is ALSO paid for by tax dollars, ie. by CURRENT-DAY business owners. IF Obama is saying that the roads were generously given to us by long-ago, dead taxpayers, he's wrong, because they continue to cost tax money, and always will. If, as I believe, Obama is saying that "the government" generously gave us roads and bridges, then he's wrong, because he needs to track that back to who funds the government, which would be the people he's scolding for not wanting to "give something back".
Click to expand...

 

Indeed. The people are Always giving. Government that produces nothing has an appetite that can't be quenched. Thjis is another example of Obama admitting the Nefarious track/tact that government has reached...

Control...and TYRANNY.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> therefore deserve to share in what you earn.  That is a highlighted page right out of the Communist Manifesto.



yes and it makes no sense.

1) the guy who build the road got paid what he was worth by free people in free transactions and so did Gates; so why does Gates not deserve some more from what the guy who build the road got paid?

If Gates earned more its because free people wanted to pay him more. Imagine if Marxist's reversed the incentives so that government eliminates pay based on free transactions. You'd have the USSR all over again.

There is no possible conclusion other than that liberals are just plain dumb.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Cecilie1200 said:


> First of all, new roads and bridges get built all the time, and they're always paid for by tax dollars, which business owners most certainly do pay.  .



Great point! If the top 1% pay 38% of all Federal income taxes
(more than any nation on earth)  they paid for the roads too! 

So how does BO claim the top 1% are so indebted by virtue of using the roads they paid for???

It could only make sense to a liberal.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to Obama, he probably did intend to mean that the business owner didn't build the infrastructure that allows the business to operate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that for a long time because I read the speech and when you read it that's the logical conclusion.  But when I heard it, I completely reversed.  It's very clear when he's talking that he's saying business owners didn't build their business.  He's chastising business owners and telling them they didn't do it.  At least that was my take.
Click to expand...


I think the phrase "You didn't build that" specifically referred to roads and bridges, but I know the point of saying it, and of the whole speech, was to tell business owners that they didn't really build their own businesses.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Zoom-boing said:


> Leave Barack alone!  He was just looking for his "fair share" of gratitude from those business folks!



Problem is, he's been getting his REAL fair share of gratitude, and he doesn't like it.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

continued racism and ignorance from scared shitless old white baggers


----------



## The T

Cecilie1200 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave Barack alone! He was just looking for his "fair share" of gratitude from those business folks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, he's been getting his REAL fair share of gratitude, and he doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

 

thorough LACk of donations to where he has to solicit Weddings, Barmitzvahs...or what ever else...Now that Michelle Obama is Pregnant?

They're raffling off chances for people to be present when barack is told about it. What's next/ Name the baby for a donation?

*&#8216;Denny&#8217; got another letter from Obama.. but is it real?*

*^^Just watch the video...*

Makes you wonder how low these people will stoop to solicit for funds...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Blah people, we hate the Blah people


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> continued racism and ignorance from scared shitless old white baggers


 
Get lost racist twerp.


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> thorough LACk of donations to where he has to solicit Weddings, Barmitzvahs...or what ever else...Now that Michelle Obama is Pregnant?
> 
> They're raffling off chances for people to be present when barack is told about it. What's next/ Name the baby for a donation?
> 
> 
> Makes you wonder how low these people will stoop to solicit for funds...



After Barack came out of the closet?

I'd pay to see Michelle explain who the father was....


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> continued racism and ignorance from scared shitless old white baggers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get lost racist twerp.
Click to expand...


ahh, did my observation of your pure hate of someone based solely on the color of their skin bother you?

if you dont like being called what you are, change

you have that ability, i suppose if I believed what many believe, that you baggers have permanent brain damage and cant change, I wouldnt be here

knowing that the human race will not go forward as long as people as full of hate and ignorance as you are in it, I assume there must be a way to fix you...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Uncensored2008 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> thorough LACk of donations to where he has to solicit Weddings, Barmitzvahs...or what ever else...Now that Michelle Obama is Pregnant?
> 
> They're raffling off chances for people to be present when barack is told about it. What's next/ Name the baby for a donation?
> 
> 
> Makes you wonder how low these people will stoop to solicit for funds...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Barack came out of the closet?
> 
> I'd pay to see Michelle explain who the father was....
Click to expand...


see, pure, 100%, absolute racism...it is as if we were back in Jim Crow days...


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> thorough LACk of donations to where he has to solicit Weddings, Barmitzvahs...or what ever else...Now that Michelle Obama is Pregnant?
> 
> They're raffling off chances for people to be present when barack is told about it. What's next/ Name the baby for a donation?
> 
> 
> Makes you wonder how low these people will stoop to solicit for funds...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Barack came out of the closet?
> 
> I'd pay to see Michelle explain who the father was....
Click to expand...

 
Just boggles the mind. Did Barack tell Michelle and his daughters they are being PUNISHED with a baby?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> see, pure, 100%, absolute racism...it is as if we were back in Jim Crow days...



Fuck off, troll.


----------



## Uncensored2008

The T said:


> Just boggles the mind. Did Barack tell Michelle and his daughters they are being PUNISHED with a baby?



Well, Mushy Michey isn't actually pregnant.. this is all just satire.

Barry is still gay, though.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Uncensored2008 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> see, pure, 100%, absolute racism...it is as if we were back in Jim Crow days...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off, troll.
Click to expand...


100%, unadulterated, pure racism...hatred based solely on the color of someones skin

and we will expose you horrible disgusting people every day until you are all gone


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> baggers have permanent brain damage ...




why would anyone think  those who share the philosophy of our Founders, about freedom from liberal government, have permanent brain damage?

It amounts to childlike school yard name calling and once again shows the liberal IQ perfectly.


----------



## saveliberty

I improved ConzHateUSA's IQ by 10 points.  Put him on ignore.  lol


----------



## ConzHateUSA

saveliberty said:


> I improved ConzHateUSA's IQ by 10 points.  Put him on ignore.  lol



sure you did  

Look, I understand why someone filled with ignorance and hate, who wets their pants at the mere mention of Obama, would not want to hear the truth, I truly do


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> baggers have permanent brain damage ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would anyone think  those who share the philosophy of our Founders, about freedom from liberal government, have permanent brain damage?
> 
> It amounts to childlike school yard name calling and once again shows the liberal IQ perfectly.
Click to expand...


I think your pure hatred for the conservative we know as Obama, is irrational and racist, well I know that, but for you to see it, I am not sure how to make that happen


----------



## The T

saveliberty said:


> I improved ConzHateUSA's IQ by 10 points. Put him on ignore. lol


 
Make that 20%


----------



## kaz

Uncensored2008 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just boggles the mind. Did Barack tell Michelle and his daughters they are being PUNISHED with a baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Mushy Michey isn't actually pregnant.. this is all just satire.
> 
> Barry is still gay, though.
Click to expand...


Thank you.  I thought I was the only one who noticed that.


----------



## Zoom-boing

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.


----------



## The T

kaz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just boggles the mind. Did Barack tell Michelle and his daughters they are being PUNISHED with a baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Mushy Michey isn't actually pregnant.. this is all just satire.
> 
> Barry is still gay, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I thought I was the only one who noticed that.
Click to expand...

 
Spoof actually. Illustrating absurdity...


----------



## kaz

The T said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Mushy Michey isn't actually pregnant.. this is all just satire.
> 
> Barry is still gay, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I thought I was the only one who noticed that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoof actually. Illustrating absurdity...
Click to expand...


You misspelled it, it's poof


----------



## flacaltenn

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> baggers have permanent brain damage ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would anyone think  those who share the philosophy of our Founders, about freedom from liberal government, have permanent brain damage?
> 
> It amounts to childlike school yard name calling and once again shows the liberal IQ perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your pure hatred for the conservative we know as Obama, is irrational and racist, well I know that, but for you to see it, I am not sure how to make that happen
Click to expand...


I think we establish in this thread that you're not commenting on - how COMPLETELY RATIONAL our rejection of your Dear Leader actually is.. And as far as "racist" goes -- I venture to guess that all these Con posters would pay real money and FLOCK to lectures by Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Allen Keyes, Herman Cain and DOZENs of other Con heroes that just happen to be black men.. Matter of Fact, since Buckley died, seems to this Libertarian like black men are the Brains and Conscience of the Con movement. Isn't that true CONZHATE?

Now be a good troll and say something stupid.... Or maybe --- you actually want to comment on how badly Dear Leader stepped in it with his "unguarded leftist moment".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> I think your pure hatred for the conservative we know as Obama, is irrational and racist,



Why irrational when he's the President most opposed to our Founder's values as noted by his voting to the left of Bernie Sanders, an open socialist?

Racist? Playing the race card because you have no character and nothing to say does not make anyone feel guilty as you insanely imagine, but it does make you look like a low life on top of being a liberal.


----------



## The T

kaz said:


> the t said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you. I thought i was the only one who noticed that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spoof actually. Illustrating absurdity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you misspelled it, it's poof
Click to expand...

 
+1


----------



## The T

flacaltenn said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would anyone think those who share the philosophy of our Founders, about freedom from liberal government, have permanent brain damage?
> 
> It amounts to childlike school yard name calling and once again shows the liberal IQ perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think your pure hatred for the conservative we know as Obama, is irrational and racist, well I know that, but for you to see it, I am not sure how to make that happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we establish in this thread that you're not commenting on - how COMPLETELY RATIONAL our rejection of your Dear Leader actually is.. And as far as "racist" goes -- I venture to guess that all these Con posters would pay real money and FLOCK to lectures by Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Allen Keyes, Herman Cain and DOZENs of other Con heroes that just happen to be black men.. Matter of Fact, since Buckley died, seems to this Libertarian like black men are the Brains and Conscience of the Con movement. Isn't that true CONZHATE?
> 
> Now be a good troll and say something stupid.... Or maybe --- you actually want to comment on how badly Dear Leader stepped in it with his "unguarded leftist moment".
Click to expand...

 
How long before we get the 'Uncle Tom' speech where the aforementioned get thrown under the bus by the rube you address?

Dey isn't on da plantaion mastah Bob! Dey be bad fowks dat don't know how good dey got it!


----------



## Cecilie1200

flacaltenn said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would anyone think  those who share the philosophy of our Founders, about freedom from liberal government, have permanent brain damage?
> 
> It amounts to childlike school yard name calling and once again shows the liberal IQ perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think your pure hatred for the conservative we know as Obama, is irrational and racist, well I know that, but for you to see it, I am not sure how to make that happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we establish in this thread that you're not commenting on - how COMPLETELY RATIONAL our rejection of your Dear Leader actually is.. And as far as "racist" goes -- I venture to guess that all these Con posters would pay real money and FLOCK to lectures by Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Allen Keyes, Herman Cain and DOZENs of other Con heroes that just happen to be black men.. Matter of Fact, since Buckley died, seems to this Libertarian like black men are the Brains and Conscience of the Con movement. Isn't that true CONZHATE?
> 
> Now be a good troll and say something stupid.... Or maybe --- you actually want to comment on how badly Dear Leader stepped in it with his "unguarded leftist moment".
Click to expand...


I have purchased every book that Thomas Sowell has ever written, and regularly read both his columns and Walter Williams'.  Unlike HateUSA, who mentions race in virtually ever post, I don't give a rat's ass what color someone's skin is.  I have a lot more in common with an intelligent, educated black person than I ever will with an ignorant, illiterate white person.


----------



## flacaltenn

the t said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conzhateusa said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think your pure hatred for the conservative we know as obama, is irrational and racist, well i know that, but for you to see it, i am not sure how to make that happen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think we establish in this thread that you're not commenting on - how completely rational our rejection of your dear leader actually is.. And as far as "racist" goes -- i venture to guess that all these con posters would pay real money and flock to lectures by thomas sowell, walter williams, allen keyes, herman cain and dozens of other con heroes that just happen to be black men.. Matter of fact, since buckley died, seems to this libertarian like black men are the brains and conscience of the con movement. Isn't that true conzhate?
> 
> Now be a good troll and say something stupid.... Or maybe --- you actually want to comment on how badly dear leader stepped in it with his "unguarded leftist moment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how long before we get the 'uncle tom' speech where the aforementioned get thrown under the bus by the rube you address?
> 
> Dey isn't on da plantaion mastah bob! Dey be bad fowks dat don't know how good dey got it!
Click to expand...


4, 3, 2, 1 ------   :

No fun if it doesn't happen..


----------



## The T

flacaltenn said:


> the t said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think we establish in this thread that you're not commenting on - how completely rational our rejection of your dear leader actually is.. And as far as "racist" goes -- i venture to guess that all these con posters would pay real money and flock to lectures by thomas sowell, walter williams, allen keyes, herman cain and dozens of other con heroes that just happen to be black men.. Matter of fact, since buckley died, seems to this libertarian like black men are the brains and conscience of the con movement. Isn't that true conzhate?
> 
> Now be a good troll and say something stupid.... Or maybe --- you actually want to comment on how badly dear leader stepped in it with his "unguarded leftist moment".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how long before we get the 'uncle tom' speech where the aforementioned get thrown under the bus by the rube you address?
> 
> Dey isn't on da plantaion mastah bob! Dey be bad fowks dat don't know how good dey got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4, 3, 2, 1 ------ :d
Click to expand...

 
+1


----------



## The T

Cecilie1200 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your pure hatred for the conservative we know as Obama, is irrational and racist, well I know that, but for you to see it, I am not sure how to make that happen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we establish in this thread that you're not commenting on - how COMPLETELY RATIONAL our rejection of your Dear Leader actually is.. And as far as "racist" goes -- I venture to guess that all these Con posters would pay real money and FLOCK to lectures by Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Allen Keyes, Herman Cain and DOZENs of other Con heroes that just happen to be black men.. Matter of Fact, since Buckley died, seems to this Libertarian like black men are the Brains and Conscience of the Con movement. Isn't that true CONZHATE?
> 
> Now be a good troll and say something stupid.... Or maybe --- you actually want to comment on how badly Dear Leader stepped in it with his "unguarded leftist moment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have purchased every book that Thomas Sowell has ever written, and regularly read both his columns and Walter Williams'. Unlike HateUSA, who mentions race in virtually ever post, I don't give a rat's ass what color someone's skin is. I have a lot more in common with an intelligent, educated black person than I ever will with an ignorant, illiterate white person.
Click to expand...

 
Thomas Sowell, And Walter Williams are a dangerous combination.

I listen every time Mr. Williams is on for Limbaugh...because Mr. Sowell is SURE to be there speaking with him.

Great radio...and a great Combination for America!


----------



## edthecynic

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right, edtheliar?
> 
> So 84.6% of all federal revenue is from income tax on wage earners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wait a minute, income taxes don't even make up 50% of the federal revenue stream. How could income tax on wages be 84.6% then?*
> 
> Oh, that's right - you're a fucking liar - you're a leftist and you'll say anything to promote your shameful party. Like all Obamabots, you don't have so much as a shred of integrity..
Click to expand...

Notice how a professional liar creates a Straw Man to support their lie. Nowhere did I say income taxes make up 84% of the federal revenue stream. I said WAGE EARNERS paid 84% of the federal income stream. Wage earners pay a lot more than just income taxes, which you would know if you had ever worked even one job in your entire life, you lazy fuck. Your own chart shows wage earners paying 82% of the federal income stream, so sue me for the 2%.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right, edtheliar?
> 
> So 84.6% of all federal revenue is from income tax on wage earners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wait a minute, income taxes don't even make up 50% of the federal revenue stream. How could income tax on wages be 84.6% then?*
> 
> Oh, that's right - you're a fucking liar - you're a leftist and you'll say anything to promote your shameful party. Like all Obamabots, you don't have so much as a shred of integrity..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how a professional liar creates a Straw Man to support their lie. Nowhere did I say income taxes make up 84% of the federal revenue stream. I said WAGE EARNERS paid 84% of the federal income stream. Wage earners pay a lot more than just income taxes, which you would know if you had ever worked even one job in your entire life, you lazy fuck. Your own chart shows wage earners paying 82% of the federal income stream, so sue me for the 2%.
Click to expand...


Over half of payroll taxes are paid by the employer you lying dimwit.


----------



## Norman

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right, edtheliar?
> 
> So 84.6% of all federal revenue is from income tax on wage earners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wait a minute, income taxes don't even make up 50% of the federal revenue stream. How could income tax on wages be 84.6% then?*
> 
> Oh, that's right - you're a fucking liar - you're a leftist and you'll say anything to promote your shameful party. Like all Obamabots, you don't have so much as a shred of integrity..
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how a professional liar creates a Straw Man to support their lie. Nowhere did I say income taxes make up 84% of the federal revenue stream. I said WAGE EARNERS paid 84% of the federal income stream. Wage earners pay a lot more than just income taxes, which you would know if you had ever worked even one job in your entire life, you lazy fuck. Your own chart shows wage earners paying 82% of the federal income stream, so sue me for the 2%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over half of payroll taxes are paid by the employer you lying dimwit.
Click to expand...


And lot of business owners also pay themselves in wages AFAIK. Thus paying income taxes. However employees also pay corporate taxes.

Not that this isn't completely pointless...


----------



## saveliberty

Well, which one of you is going to bring up did we build a road?  lol


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'pontification', Ed.  It's patience.  I come here to talk... not to fight with people.  Talking is actually fun when one doesn't make a chore of it.  And while I enjoy talking with the like-minded, debating opposing views is also entertaining.   But less so, when people keep repeating the same lame misunderstanding of the situation time after time.
> 
> Obama's not just trying to raise taxes on corporations.  When he's talking to most of these small business people, he's talking income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Unveils Proposal to Cut Corporate Tax Rate
> 
> THE PRESIDENTS FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESS TAX REFORM
> 
> Introduction
> 
> Americas system of business taxation is in need of reform. The United States has a relatively narrow corporate tax base compared to other countriesa tax base reduced by loopholes, tax expenditures, and tax planning. This is combined with a statutory corporate tax rate that will soon be the highest among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate, the U.S. tax system is uncompetitive and inefficient. The system distorts choices such as where to produce, what to invest in, how to finance a business, and what business form to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and investment in the United States while allowing firms to benefit from incentives to locate production and shift profits overseas. The system is also too complicatedespecially for Americas small businesses.
> 
> For these reasons, the President is committed to reform that will support the competitiveness of American businesseslarge and smalland increase incentives to invest and hire in the United States by lowering rates, cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity, while being fiscally responsible.
> 
> This report presents the Presidents Framework for business tax reform. In laying out this Framework, the President recognizes that tax reform will take time, require work on a bipartisan basis, and benefit from additional feedback from stakeholders and experts. To start that process, this report outlines what the President believes should be five key elements of business tax reform.
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT OBAMAS FIVE ELEMENTS OF BUSINESS TAX REFORM
> 
> I. Eliminate dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, broaden the base and cut the corporate tax rate to spur growth in America: The Framework would eliminate dozens of different tax expenditures and fundamentally reform the business tax base to reduce distortions that hurt productivity and growth. It would reinvest these savings to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment in America.
> 
> II. Strengthen American manufacturing and innovation: The Framework would refocus the manufacturing deduction and use the savings to reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent, while encouraging greater research and development and the production of clean energy.
> 
> III. Strengthen the international tax system, including establishing a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to encourage domestic investment: Our tax system should not give companies an incentive to locate production overseas or engage in accounting games to shift profits abroad, eroding the U.S. tax base. Introducing a minimum tax on foreign earnings would help address these problems and discourage a global race to the bottom in tax rates.
> 
> IV. Simplify and cut taxes for Americas small businesses: Tax reform should make tax filing simpler for small businesses and entrepreneurs so that they can focus on growing their businesses rather than filling out tax returns.
> 
> V. Restore fiscal responsibility and not add a dime to the deficit: Business tax reform should be fully paid for and lead to greater fiscal responsibility than our current business tax system by either eliminating or making permanent and fully paying for temporary tax provisions now in the tax code.
Click to expand...


Make no mistake - the left does NOT want tax reform in any capacity, especially Barack Obama, because the more complicated the code, the more they can hide their taxes (like the endless taxes in Obamacare) and keep the vicious cycle of tax and spend until we are the full Communist state they dream of - where the government controls 100% of the nations wealth and 100% of the people.


----------



## saveliberty

How close is Obama to the 500,000 green energy jobs creation number today?  Great business plan Obama.  Not.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right, edtheliar?
> 
> So 84.6% of all federal revenue is from income tax on wage earners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wait a minute, income taxes don't even make up 50% of the federal revenue stream. How could income tax on wages be 84.6% then?*
> 
> Oh, that's right - you're a fucking liar - you're a leftist and you'll say anything to promote your shameful party. Like all Obamabots, you don't have so much as a shred of integrity..
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how a professional liar creates a Straw Man to support their lie. Nowhere did I say income taxes make up 84% of the federal revenue stream. I said WAGE EARNERS paid 84% of the federal income stream. Wage earners pay a lot more than just income taxes, which you would know if you had ever worked even one job in your entire life, you lazy fuck. Your own chart shows wage earners paying 82% of the federal income stream, so sue me for the 2%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over half of payroll taxes are paid by the employer you lying dimwit.
Click to expand...

The government counts the employer's payments as the wage earners income.



> Source: Congressional Budget Office.
> 
> Notes: Income categories are defined by ranking all people by their comprehensive household income adjusted for household
> size--that is, divided by the square root of the household's size. (A household consists of the people who share a housing
> unit, regardless of their relationships.) Quintiles, or fifths, of the income distribution contain equal numbers of people.
> 
> *Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income* plus income from other sources. *Pretax cash income is
> the sum of* wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital
> gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes* and the
> employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes*) and employee contri-
> butions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-
> paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assis-
> tance). Households with negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but are included in the totals.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> For these reasons, the President is committed to reform that will support the competitiveness of American businesses



We have corporate taxes only because liberals lack the ability to understand the business tax  and so get some Marxist satisfaction in feeling  they are getting even with corporations  by taxing them. It is a blatant example of pandering to the perfect ignorance of liberals.

Common sense will tell you that corporate taxes are expenses like any other that are passed on to customers like any other expenses. A business is a tax collector , not a tax payer, but that is way way over a liberal's head. The business tax should be eliminated as a huge waste of time and effort and efficiency. 

GE for example has 1000 tax professionals all of whom  could be fired if the tax was eliminated allowing GE to lower its prices and become more competitive. Plus, most companies do whatever is necessary to avoid the tax like moving off shore and then keeping profits and jobs off shore to avoid the liberal tax man who should not be there at all except to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how a professional liar creates a Straw Man to support their lie. Nowhere did I say income taxes make up 84% of the federal revenue stream. I said WAGE EARNERS paid 84% of the federal income stream. Wage earners pay a lot more than just income taxes, which you would know if you had ever worked even one job in your entire life, you lazy fuck. Your own chart shows wage earners paying 82% of the federal income stream, so sue me for the 2%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over half of payroll taxes are paid by the employer you lying dimwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government counts the employer's payments as the wage earners income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: Congressional Budget Office.
> 
> Notes: Income categories are defined by ranking all people by their comprehensive household income adjusted for household
> size--that is, divided by the square root of the household's size. (A household consists of the people who share a housing
> unit, regardless of their relationships.) Quintiles, or fifths, of the income distribution contain equal numbers of people.
> 
> *Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income* plus income from other sources. *Pretax cash income is
> the sum of* wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital
> gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes* and the
> employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes*) and employee contri-
> butions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-
> paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assis-
> tance). Households with negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but are included in the totals.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That is for comprehensive household income, not your chart.


----------



## Londoner

Rottweiler said:


> Sorry asshole, *you're* the *mooch* who wants to live off us hard working conservatives. You're the one who wants government to take what we earn and give it to your lazy, sorry, stupid ass.



You're missing something fundamental because your framework for contextualization has been overly influenced by the demographic which owns your information sources.

When FDR bailed out the Reagan family by giving Ron's father a government job (paid for by higher taxes on the surplus capital of the wealthy), he wasn't giving the Reagan's a hand out. He was allocating capital to something more profitable than the derivatives market. He was using "after market" policies to invest in the upward mobility of the middle class. 

The result was the 40th president of the United States.

Had FDR seen the Reagan family as welfare queens - had he seen Reagan's father as a lazy mooch looking for a handout - the great conservative resurgence that flowered in 1980 would have never happened. Carter and Ford were practically identical from a policy perspective. 

You need to turn off talk radio and research information that hasn't been prepared in a political think tank.

(FDR wasn't giving the Reagan's a hand out, he was investing in them)

(There are much better arguments against postwar liberalism than the one you've used. If you want to "defeat" the other side, you need to master the most defensible arguments for their policies, none of which has been stated in this thread. You can do better. FYI: I'm not trying to be snarky.)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Londoner said:


> (FDR wasn't giving the Reagan's a hand out, he was investing in them)



Yes but the liberals have created huge ghettos of dependency, to buy votes, that go on and on over many generations. The liberal Great Society amounted to a near genocide against American blacks.

Is that really over your head?

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Londoner

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> (FDR wasn't giving the Reagan's a hand out, he was investing in them)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the liberals have created huge ghettos of dependency, to buy votes, that go on and on over many generations. The liberal Great Society amounted to a near genocide against American blacks.
> 
> Is that really over your head?
> 
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...


Which is interesting, because Reagan actually supported FDR passionately.. which is why he campaigned for Truman and did more to save Social Security than any post FDR president. In fact, if Reagan were alive today, the war on SS would never have gotten off the ground.


----------



## flacaltenn

Londoner said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry asshole, *you're* the *mooch* who wants to live off us hard working conservatives. You're the one who wants government to take what we earn and give it to your lazy, sorry, stupid ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing something fundamental because your framework for contextualization has been overly influenced by the demographic which owns your information sources.
> 
> When FDR bailed out the Reagan family by giving Ron's father a government job (paid for by higher taxes on the surplus capital of the wealthy), he wasn't giving the Reagan's a hand out. He was allocating capital to something more profitable than the derivatives market. He was using "after market" policies to invest in the upward mobility of the middle class.
> 
> The result was the 40th president of the United States.
> 
> Had FDR seen the Reagan family as welfare queens - had he seen Reagan's father as a lazy mooch looking for a handout - the great conservative resurgence that flowered in 1980 would have never happened. Carter and Ford were practically identical from a policy perspective.
> 
> You need to turn off talk radio and research information that hasn't been prepared in a political think tank.
> 
> (FDR wasn't giving the Reagan's a hand out, he was investing in them)
> 
> (There are much better arguments against postwar liberalism than the one you've used. If you want to "defeat" the other side, you need to master the most defensible arguments for their policies, none of which has been stated in this thread. You can do better. FYI: I'm not trying to be snarky.)
Click to expand...


Don't you have some meat pies to sell to the tourists there in London? Why is it ONLY REAGAN that cooks your mash.. Let's do Thatcher for a change eh?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Londoner said:


> Which is interesting, because Reagan actually supported FDR passionately..



too stupid! they were perfect opposites!! It is almost impossible that anyone could be so dumb about Reagan!!




Londoner said:


> which is why he campaigned for Truman and did more to save Social Security than any post FDR president. In fact, if Reagan were alive today, the war on SS would never have gotten off the ground.




Reagan wanted to privatize retirement, but never had opportunity 
Social Security was always more tar baby than Teflon for Reagan. He told me when he was governor of California that Barry Goldwaters campaign had demonstrated that Republicans could not safely discuss the issue, but Reagan could not stop talking about it. I have no doubt that he shared the view that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme. He was intrigued with the idea of a voluntary plan that would have allowed workers to make their own investments. This idea would have undermined the system by depriving Social Security of the contributions of millions of the nations highest-paid workers. In 1976 he said that Social Security could have made a provision for those who could do better on their own and suggested that such recipients be allowed to leave the program upon showing that they had made provisions for their non-earning years. This declaration sent shudders through the ranks of Reagans political advisers, who knew his true feelings about Social Security. 
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 243 , Jul 2, 1991 

Suggested in 1975 to make social security voluntary 
In 1975, Reagan suggested ways to make social security voluntary. The demography of Florida made that as dangerous a position as Reagan could adopt on domestic matters. [Based on that issue], Ford beat Reagan [in the Florida primary in 1976] with 53% of the general vote, but with a crushing 60% of voters over sixty-five. 
Source: Reagans America, by Garry Wills, p. 329 , Jul 2, 1987 


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, very slow??


----------



## Bfgrn

Mac1958 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, just for the record then, you agree with Obama that business owners think their success is because they are "so smart" and because they "worked harder than anyone else."
> 
> Those are his words, verbatim, and you agree with them.  Correct?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I think that some of them do.  I didn't read anything in that quote where he said they all do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His words, again:  "I'm always struck by people who think..."
> 
> Always, must happen often.
> 
> People who think, very impressive mind-reading there.
> 
> *The guy knows absolutely nothing about this, and he was playing to a crowd who also does not. * That's politics-playing at its worst, and I don't like being used as a pawn in the game, by either side, ever, period.
> 
> I don't expect you to agree on this.  But that was my point.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You just explained WHY Obama made his comments. It is a sickness that has manifested in the conservative movement, the Ayn Rand social Darwinism that is destroying our society. A civil society is not a jungle.


----------



## Londoner

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is interesting, because Reagan actually supported FDR passionately..
Click to expand...


Might be good to divide Reagan into his Democrat/Republican phases. Reagan was a New Dealer to the core _until_ he landed in the top tax bracket in 1954 with his massive Warner Brothers checks. 

But his support of the Left, FDR, and the New Deal is without question. In his autobiography "Where's the rest of me?" - which Nancy tried to re-publish but Norquist and Legacy Project crushed - he supports FDR massively. He definitely grew disillusioned under Truman but he was an ardent Cold Warrior, which use to be the province of the Left, who wanted to save the world using Washington. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M]Reagan Campaigns for Truman in 1948 - YouTube[/ame]



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Yes but the liberals have created huge ghettos of dependency, to buy votes, that go on and on over many generations. The liberal Great Society amounted to a near genocide against American blacks.



It's interesting to see how LBJ and Reagan handled the "black problem". LBJ used the War on Poverty to help lift them up whereas Reagan used the War on Drugs to cage them. Both policies failed.

(Look at the rate of black incarceration under Reagan's War on Drugs. It will blow your mind. The War on Drugs gave Washington and the states more power to incarcerate the superfluous - people laid low by circumstance (slavery). The USA has the highest prison population by an unbelievable margin - and the proportion of blacks to whites is beyond belief. This is the natural consequence of unwinding a welfare state. When you get rid of safety nets and disposses entire races or classes, you better build cages. So much of government is dealing with either the dependents or have-nots. White people had/have much higher pot consumption, but as property owners with accumulated wealth, they have more to lose and more of an incentive to follow the law)

Regardless . . . be careful with the Right's construction of Reagan. Seriously, the Reagan Legacy Project created by Norquist was designed to create a symbolic Reagan - a leader as meaningful and important to the Right as FDR was to the Left. Norquist literally drained Reagan of all his moderate and Leftist elements. For God's sake, Reagan passed the most liberal abortion policy as governor of California (where he was in EVERY position to stop it. He got in bed with the Moral Majority so he could consolidate the South and Heartland. Much of his supposed social conservatism was pure opportunism. It was a way to win elections by creating a powerful rightwing populism that appealed to the poor. Please turn off talk radio).


----------



## clevergirl

Liberal's are incapable of personal success- just ask Obama


----------



## Murf76

Londoner said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is interesting, because Reagan actually supported FDR passionately..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might be good to divide Reagan into his Democrat/Republican phases. Reagan was a New Dealer to the core _until_ he landed in the top tax bracket in 1954 with his massive Warner Brothers checks.
> 
> But his support of the Left, FDR, and the New Deal is without question. In his autobiography "Where's the rest of me?" - which Nancy tried to re-publish but Norquist and Legacy Project crushed - he supports FDR massively. He definitely grew disillusioned under Truman but he was an ardent Cold Warrior, which used to be the province of the Left, which wanted to save the world from Washington.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M]Reagan Campaigns for Truman in 1948 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the liberals have created huge ghettos of dependency, to buy votes, that go on and on over many generations. The liberal Great Society amounted to a near genocide against American blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting to see how LBJ and Reagan handled the "black problem". LBJ used the War on Poverty to save them whereas Reagan used the War on Drugs to cage them.
> 
> (Look at the rate of black incarceration under Reagan's War on Drugs. It will blow your mind. The War on Drugs gave Washington and the states more power to incarcerate the superfluous - people laid low by circumstance (slavery), poor genes, and choice. The USA has the highest prison population by an unbelievable margin. This is the natural consequence of unwinding a welfare state. When you get rid of safety nets and disposses entire races or classes, you better build cages. So much of government is dealing with either the dependents or have-nots. White people had/have much higher pot consumption, but as property owners with accumulated wealth, they are less disruptive. The need for social control is much less for people who benefit from the status quo)
> 
> Regardless . . . be careful with the Right's construction of Reagan. Seriously, the Reagan Legacy Project created by Norquist was designed to create a symbolic Reagan - a leader as meaningful and important to the Right as FDR was to the Left. Norquist literally drained Reagan of all his moderate and Leftist elements. For God's sake, he passed the most liberal abortion policy as governor of California (where he was in EVERY position to stop it. He got in bed with the Moral Majority so he could consolidate the South and Heartland. Much of his supposed social conservatism was pure opportunism. It was a way for his anti-tax supporters to win elections. Please turn off talk radio).
Click to expand...


Ahhhh... I get it now.  Deftly played race card.  Not the usual frothing, liberal screech of "YOU'RE A RACIST!!!" whenever a political debate isn't going their way.  
Nicely done.


----------



## Londoner

There is a reason why people on the right don't know that Reagan passed the most liberal abortion policy in history, along with the greatest amnesty bill in history. 

The rightwing voter has been 100% captured by propaganda. I'm not saying the Left is any better; I'm just saying that the Right knows nothing about the real Reagan.


----------



## thereisnospoon

saveliberty said:


> How close is Obama to the 500,000 green energy jobs creation number today?  Great business plan Obama.  Not.



I thought is was five MILLION....No 50 MILLION green jobs.


----------



## Londoner

Murf76 said:


> Ahhhh... I get it now.  Deftly played race card.  Not the usual frothing, liberal screech of "YOU'RE A RACIST!!!" whenever a political debate isn't going their way.
> Nicely done.



Not race at all. It was purely based on a need to manage the have nots. I don't think the Right is that racist. They hated Clinton more than Obama, and would easily support Condi Rice.  

The Right uses the race card in order to shut down debate. Whenever a society is faced with a dispossessed population - be they red, white or yellow, they are faced with having to manage them socially. This is done through Welfare or prison beds.


----------



## Bfgrn

Londoner said:


> There is a reason why people on the right don't know that Reagan passed the most liberal abortion policy in history, along with the greatest amnesty bill in history.
> 
> The rightwing voter has been 100% captured by propaganda. I'm not saying the Left is any better; I'm just saying that the Right knows nothing about the real Reagan.



Or anything about FDR.

FDR was not a a "tax-and-spend" liberal, Roosevelt was in fact deeply committed to a balanced budget. He presented Congress with the Economy Act, a bill that put the federal government on a spending diet by cutting the salaries of federal employees, scaling back defense spending, and reducing veterans' pensions.


----------



## Foxfyre

If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.

The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..


----------



## Londoner

Bfgrn said:


> Or anything about FDR.
> 
> FDR was not a a "tax-and-spend" liberal, Roosevelt was in fact deeply committed to a balanced budget. He presented Congress with the Economy Act, a bill that put the federal government on a spending diet by cutting the salaries of federal employees, scaling back defense spending, and reducing veterans' pensions.



Agreed. The reason the nation slipped back into a full on depression in the late 30s was because FDR transitioned back to austerity and balanced budgets too soon. He believed in balanced budgets way more than Reagan, who was the original deficit spender. He made Carter look like Milton Friedman.

FDR got lucky with WWII. Indeed, It took the largest government spending project in world history to end the depression - WWII, specifically the massive _government_ money deployed for war manufacturing. The entire nation was put back to work. More importantly . . . because consumers had jobs and money-for-consumption, investment capital finally had the consumer base to justify taking risks and putting even more people back to work. FDR was also a pro-war democrat. He and Truman believed in the use of American military power. They were both opposed by conservative isolationists who didn't think Washington had the competence or budget to manage the the globe. How times have changed. [It's funny though. Today's Republicans know none of this. They have literally been 100% educated by an overlapping web of think tanks and media outlets which is centrally controlled by movement conservatism, i.e., big government. Psst: help]


----------



## LilOlLady

*Mitt Romney says entrepreneurs need government to start businesses*
*Jul 18, 2012*

Things like investing in roads and bridges, creating fire departments and police forces, and having public schools. In other words, the *exact same things *that Mitt Romney talked about today. But *don't expect President Obama to demand an apology from Romney for stealing his words*. After all, there's still that whole Obamneycare thing they need to work out.
Daily Kos: Mitt Romney says entrepreneurs need government to start businesses


----------



## Bfgrn

Londoner said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is interesting, because Reagan actually supported FDR passionately..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might be good to divide Reagan into his Democrat/Republican phases. Reagan was a New Dealer to the core _until_ he landed in the top tax bracket in 1954 with his massive Warner Brothers checks.
> 
> But his support of the Left, FDR, and the New Deal is without question. In his autobiography "Where's the rest of me?" - which Nancy tried to re-publish but Norquist and Legacy Project crushed - he supports FDR massively. He definitely grew disillusioned under Truman but he was an ardent Cold Warrior, which used to be the province of the Left, which wanted to save the world from Washington.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M]Reagan Campaigns for Truman in 1948 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the liberals have created huge ghettos of dependency, to buy votes, that go on and on over many generations. The liberal Great Society amounted to a near genocide against American blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting to see how LBJ and Reagan handled the "black problem". LBJ used the War on Poverty to help lift them up whereas Reagan used the War on Drugs to cage them. Both policies failed.
> 
> (Look at the rate of black incarceration under Reagan's War on Drugs. It will blow your mind. The War on Drugs gave Washington and the states more power to incarcerate the superfluous - people laid low by circumstance (slavery), poor genes, and choice. The USA has the highest prison population by an unbelievable margin - and the proportion of blacks to whites is beyond belief. This is the natural consequence of unwinding a welfare state. When you get rid of safety nets and disposses entire races or classes, you better build cages. So much of government is dealing with either the dependents or have-nots. White people had/have much higher pot consumption, but as property owners with accumulated wealth, they are less disruptive. The need for social control is much less for people who benefit from the status quo)
> 
> Regardless . . . be careful with the Right's construction of Reagan. Seriously, the Reagan Legacy Project created by Norquist was designed to create a symbolic Reagan - a leader as meaningful and important to the Right as FDR was to the Left. Norquist literally drained Reagan of all his moderate and Leftist elements. For God's sake, Reagan passed the most liberal abortion policy as governor of California (where he was in EVERY position to stop it. He got in bed with the Moral Majority so he could consolidate the South and Heartland. Much of his supposed social conservatism was pure opportunism. It was a way to win elections by creating a powerful rightwing populism that appealed to the poor. Please turn off talk radio).
Click to expand...


I agree the war on drugs has been a huge failure. But it started with Richard Nixon. Reagan brought us a second wave of regressive policies. The United States has less than 5% of the world&#8217;s population. But it has almost 25% of the world&#8217;s prisoners.

On the other hand, the war on poverty was a success, despite the fact Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam. The war on poverty was based on a design conservatives should get behind. But, as you said: The rightwing voter has been 100% captured by propaganda. 



Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty.

The war on poverty was a New Frontier idea. In 1961, Kennedy took office and put together a Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime. Surplus funds were put to work for job, housing and education programs. President Kennedy had on his agenda a war on poverty and this was the beginning. Kennedy died in Dallas but not his desire to attack poverty.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished. 

To address some of the players in the conservative fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment. 

The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

    Communication design
    Drafting
    Electronic assembly
    Machine appliance repair
    Machining
    Welding
    Manufacturing technology
    Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

    Automobile technician
    General services technician
    Collision repair and refinish
    Heavy construction equipment mechanic
    Diesel mechanic
    Medium/heavy truck repair
    Electronics tech
    Stationary engineering

Construction

    Bricklaying
    Carpentry
    Cement masonry
    Concrete and terrazzo
    Construction craft laborer
    Electrical
    Electrical overhead line
    Facilities maintenance
    Floor covering
    Glazing
    HVAC
    Industrial engineering technician
    Licensed electrician (bilingual)
    Mechanical engineering technician
    Painting
    Plastering
    Plumbing
    Roto-Rooter plumbing
    Tile setting

Extension programs

    Advanced Career Training (ACT)
    General Educational Development (GED)
    Commercial driver's license (CDL)
    Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
    High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

    Accounting services
    Business management
    Clerical occupations
    Legal secretary
    Insurance and financial services
    Marketing
    Medical insurance specialist
    Office administration
    Paralegal
    Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

    Clinical medical assistant
    Dental assistant
    EKG technician
    Emergency medical technician
    Exercise/massage therapy
    Hemodialysis technician
    Licensed practical/vocational nurse
    Medical office support
    Nurse assistant/home health aide
    Opticianry
    Pharmacy technician
    Phlebotomy
    Physical therapy assistant
    Rehabilitation therapy
    Rehabilitation technician
    Registered nurse
    Respiratory therapy
    Sterile processing
    Surgical technician

Homeland security

    Corrections officer
    Seamanship
    Security and protective services

Hospitality

    Culinary arts
    Hotel and lodging

Information technology

    A+ Microsoft MSCE
    Computer Networking/Cisco
    Computer systems administrator
    Computer support specialist
    Computer technician
    Integrated system tech
    Network cable installation
    Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

    Forest conservation and urban forestry
    Firefighting
    Wastewater
    Landscaping

Retail sales and services

    Behavioral health aide
    Criminal justice
    Child development
    Residential advisor
    Cosmetology
    Retail sales

Transportation

    Asphalt paving
    Material and distribution operations
    Clerical occupations
    Heavy equipment operations
    Roustabout operator
    Heavy truck driving
    TCU administrative clerk


----------



## flacaltenn

The most overt effort I've ever witnessed to hijack a thread and destroy the embarrassment.. 

FDR? Reagan? Give me some relevence to the OP or go start a WPA-Lovers Thread..


----------



## Londoner

Foxfyre said:


> If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.
> 
> The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..



You have to try and get your information from other sources. And I'm not talking about getting your information from the Left, which would be equally as bad.

Obama was referring to the modern industrial base of this country, upon which capital depends. The Hoover Dam, the interstate system, the energy grids, water treatment and delivery, the postwar build-up of rural and suburban America - the incredible wealth of infrastructure that was created through taxation and the government allocation of capital.  Great Republican presidents like Eisenhower put our noble veterans to work building the infrastructure of the modern industrial state upon which commerce depends. Much of the technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA. 

The big banks crave FDIC insurance, which allows them to take greater risks with capital. Thousands of profitable businesses have depended  deeply on government subsidies and bailouts. The entire property system depends on a vigorous and powerful law enforcement network (controlled and funded by the public). Do you know how much money it costs to fund just the legal infrastructure that safeguards just one futures market? Do you know how much Boeing and commercial aviation depended on government subsidies? Commerce  and the profits made therein have always depended on a complicated partnership between government and the private sector. Not one penny of profit in the Southwest would be possible without the Hooever Dam. You need to study these things without repeating talk radio cliches. [There are great arguments against the Left, but none of them come from the think tanks and media sources on the right]. 

Do you understand the multiplier effect - the profit - made possible by Eisenhower's Interstate? Obama was inelegantly referring to the wider nexus of infrastructure upon which capital depends. 

My friend did some of his Ph.D research in the outskirts of Nairobi. He lived in a building which had constant electrical fires because there were no regulations or codes for electrical lines. Also, the wasn't a sufficient system of roads to move consumers and goods. There was no insurance system which businesses _need_ to protect their investments. Lacking infrastructure, business cannot invest in many parts of the world. In the outskirts of Nairobi, investments are too easily destroyed or stolen because of zero law enforcement. Here is what you don't understand. Profit depends on the codes and law enforcement provided by the public, managed by government. Capital craves the modern industrial state. Commerce would be IMPOSSIBLE without these things. Profit makers depend on others. This doesn't mean that they should not earn a profit for the amount they add to the equation. It only means that the current anti-tax revolution ignores the infrastructure upon which profit so deeply depends. 

Turn off talk radio. You have been lied to.


----------



## Murf76

Londoner said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.
> 
> The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and get your information from other sources. And I'm not talking about getting your information from the Left, which would be equally as bad.
> 
> Obama was referring to the modern industrial base of this country, upon which capital depends. The Hoover Dam, the interstate system, the energy grids, water treatment and delivery, the postwar build-up of rural and suburban America - the incredible wealth of infrastructure that was created through taxation and the government allocation of capital.  Great Republican presidents like Eisenhower put our noble veterans to work building the infrastructure of the modern industrial state upon which commerce depends. Much of the technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA.
> 
> The big banks crave FDIC insurance, which allows them to take greater risks with capital. Thousands of profitable businesses have depended  deeply on government subsidies and bailouts. The entire property system depends on a vigorous and powerful law enforcement network (controlled and funded by the public). Do you know how much money it costs to fund just the legal infrastructure that safeguards just one futures market? Do you know how much Boeing and commercial aviation depended on government subsidies? Commerce  and the profits made therein have always depended on a complicated partnership between government and the private sector. Not one penny of profit in the Southwest would be possible without the Hooever Dam. You need to study these things without repeating talk radio cliches. [There are great arguments against the Left, but none of them come from the think tanks and media sources on the right].
> 
> Do you understand the multiplier effect - the profit - made possible by Eisenhower's Interstate? Obama was inelegantly referring to the wider nexus of infrastructure upon which capital depends.
> 
> My friend did some of his Ph.D research in the outskirts of Nairobi. He lived in a building which had constant electrical fires because there were no regulations or codes for laying electrical lines. For this reason, business cannot invest in this part of the world. Their property - their goods - would be destroyed in a fire, or stolen because of zero law enforcement. Here is what you don't understand. Profit depends on the codes and law enforcement provided by the public, managed by government. Capital craves the modern industrial state. Commerce would be IMPOSSIBLE without these things. Profit makers depend on others. This doesn't mean that they should not earn a profit for the amount they add to the equation. It only means that the current anti-tax revolution ignores the infrastructure upon which profit so deeply depends.
> 
> Turn off talk radio. You have been lied to.
Click to expand...


Which might all be interesting points if these businesses didn't ALREADY PAY TAXES.  They do it continually, paying every kind of federal, state, local tax you can imagine.  They PAY for their use of the infrastructure just like they pay any other business expense... and then some.  They've already paid their debt to a decent society.  They don't owe anything extra to Obama and his electoral ambitions.

It's a long thread, but we've already covered this ground... repeatedly.


----------



## Londoner

flacaltenn said:


> The most overt effort I've ever witnessed to hijack a thread and destroy the embarrassment..
> 
> FDR? Reagan? Give me some relevence to the OP or go start a WPA-Lovers Thread..



FDR and Reagan, IMO, symbolize the different philosophies at stake. 

Reagan's myopic individualism completely overlooks the massive dependency of commerce on the state, and the machinations of government. The profits of Big Oil were massively dependent on the Pentagon Budget. Stabilizing the  middle east is one of the more expensive American ventures in its history. Or you can widen the optic to take in the entire global system of capital. Many of the corporations at the heart of the American economy depend on resources and labor from dangerous parts of the developing world - they need a big strong Pentagon to protect their supply chains. Reagan never made any rhetorical overtures to the massive dependence profit makers had on defense, and subsidies, and bailouts, and FDIC insurance, and infrastructure. He didn't talk about the great things government did for capital. He used idiot-cliches to describe the relationship between government and commerce - and those cliches now sustain an entire generation of people who get 100% of their information from government, i.e., movement conservatism. 

FDR, on the other hand, believed that government and commerce depended deeply on each other. His followers like Truman (and even Eisenhower) believed that it was government's job to subsidize the great technological research of [things like] the space program which blossomed under Kennedy. You should research the relationship between the Cold War Pentagon/NASA and the 80s consumer electronics boom. FDR saved Reagan's father because he believed that all Americans were in it together. He believed that profit makers and commerce depended on infrastructure and systems which the public subsidized - which is why he directed some of those profits to the system which made them possible in the first place. Reagan, on the other hand, believed that the profits would magically trickle down in the form of middle class jobs and expanded living standards. But this never happened. The money trickled into Chinese manufacturing and the middle class was put on credit cards and silly mortgages. Opps. But yes, FDR and Reagan have a lot to say about this topic. 

FDR and Reagan define the opposing views at stake in this thread fairly well.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.
> 
> The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..



No, that is not the 'topic'. That is YOUR polemic, partisan and dishonest propaganda. That is not what the President said.

We are on page 234 of this thread. The topic has been debated ad nauseum. Let me recap and clarify.

The President made a speech, and conservatives and Republicans have taken out of context one line in his speech, and grossly twisted the meaning. They are using it as an attack on Obama. 

Conservatives and Republicans only want you to hear the one line where the President said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," but they don't want you to hear the sentences preceding and following that line that make it clear he was referring to the government infrastructure that helps businesses succeed, not the businesses themselves.


----------



## Vidi

Murf76 said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.
> 
> The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and get your information from other sources. And I'm not talking about getting your information from the Left, which would be equally as bad.
> 
> Obama was referring to the modern industrial base of this country, upon which capital depends. The Hoover Dam, the interstate system, the energy grids, water treatment and delivery, the postwar build-up of rural and suburban America - the incredible wealth of infrastructure that was created through taxation and the government allocation of capital.  Great Republican presidents like Eisenhower put our noble veterans to work building the infrastructure of the modern industrial state upon which commerce depends. Much of the technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA.
> 
> The big banks crave FDIC insurance, which allows them to take greater risks with capital. Thousands of profitable businesses have depended  deeply on government subsidies and bailouts. The entire property system depends on a vigorous and powerful law enforcement network (controlled and funded by the public). Do you know how much money it costs to fund just the legal infrastructure that safeguards just one futures market? Do you know how much Boeing and commercial aviation depended on government subsidies? Commerce  and the profits made therein have always depended on a complicated partnership between government and the private sector. Not one penny of profit in the Southwest would be possible without the Hooever Dam. You need to study these things without repeating talk radio cliches. [There are great arguments against the Left, but none of them come from the think tanks and media sources on the right].
> 
> Do you understand the multiplier effect - the profit - made possible by Eisenhower's Interstate? Obama was inelegantly referring to the wider nexus of infrastructure upon which capital depends.
> 
> My friend did some of his Ph.D research in the outskirts of Nairobi. He lived in a building which had constant electrical fires because there were no regulations or codes for laying electrical lines. For this reason, business cannot invest in this part of the world. Their property - their goods - would be destroyed in a fire, or stolen because of zero law enforcement. Here is what you don't understand. Profit depends on the codes and law enforcement provided by the public, managed by government. Capital craves the modern industrial state. Commerce would be IMPOSSIBLE without these things. Profit makers depend on others. This doesn't mean that they should not earn a profit for the amount they add to the equation. It only means that the current anti-tax revolution ignores the infrastructure upon which profit so deeply depends.
> 
> Turn off talk radio. You have been lied to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which might all be interesting points if these businesses didn't ALREADY PAY TAXES.  They do it continually, paying every kind of federal, state, local tax you can imagine.  They PAY for their use of the infrastructure just like they pay any other business expense... and then some.  They've already paid their debt to a decent society.  They don't owe anything extra to Obama and his electoral ambitions.
> 
> *It's a long thread, but we've already covered this ground... repeatedly*.
Click to expand...



and yet, the same falsehood that they paid into the system is still being expressed.


30 major corporations that paid NOTHING in taxes in the last THREE years.







\



> Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010&#8230;In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies&#8217; &#8220;negative tax rates&#8221; mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years
> 
> 
> http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf



how in the hell can anyone defend Wells Fargo paying NOTHING in taxes after we bailed them out? Thats the very definition of freeloader.


----------



## Londoner

Murf76 said:


> ] They PAY for their use of the infrastructure just like they pay any other business expense... and then some.  They've already paid their debt to a decent society.



This a little bit of a generalization. Corporations require subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks in order to move/keep jobs here. 

The effective tax rates of large corporations and wealthy individuals is far less than the advertised rate. GE is a perfect example. Don't take my word for it. Here is a company that depends deeply on infrastructure and defense, but who sequesters massive amounts of money off shore. The larger the corporation the more it can offset taxes through a maze of shelters, subsidies and tax credits. If you're paying anything close to the top tax rate as a business or individual - if you're not availing yourself of the massive loopholes that have been methodically built into the system over the last 30 years - than you're not only an idiot, you're shareholders will have your head. Everybody knows that the wealthy have successfully won the tax game. This is why they pay 15% on capital gains. The only people who pay full boat are the ones who make their cake from salaries and wages - the ones who can't afford lawyers and politicians. [There, I was as general as you were]


----------



## Bfgrn

Londoner said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.
> 
> The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and get your information from other sources. And I'm not talking about getting your information from the Left, which would be equally as bad.
> 
> Obama was referring to the modern industrial base of this country, upon which capital depends. The Hoover Dam, the interstate system, the energy grids, water treatment and delivery, the postwar build-up of rural and suburban America - the incredible wealth of infrastructure that was created through taxation and the government allocation of capital.  Great Republican presidents like Eisenhower put our noble veterans to work building the infrastructure of the modern industrial state upon which commerce depends. Much of the technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA.
> 
> The big banks crave FDIC insurance, which allows them to take greater risks with capital. Thousands of profitable businesses have depended  deeply on government subsidies and bailouts. The entire property system depends on a vigorous and powerful law enforcement network (controlled and funded by the public). Do you know how much money it costs to fund just the legal infrastructure that safeguards just one futures market? Do you know how much Boeing and commercial aviation depended on government subsidies? Commerce  and the profits made therein have always depended on a complicated partnership between government and the private sector. Not one penny of profit in the Southwest would be possible without the Hooever Dam. You need to study these things without repeating talk radio cliches. [There are great arguments against the Left, but none of them come from the think tanks and media sources on the right].
> 
> Do you understand the multiplier effect - the profit - made possible by Eisenhower's Interstate? Obama was inelegantly referring to the wider nexus of infrastructure upon which capital depends.
> 
> My friend did some of his Ph.D research in the outskirts of Nairobi. He lived in a building which had constant electrical fires because there were no regulations or codes for electrical lines. Also, the wasn't a sufficient system of roads to move consumers and goods. There was no insurance system which businesses _need_ to protect their investments. Lacking infrastructure, business cannot invest in many parts of the world. In the outskirts of Nairobi, investments are too easily destroyed or stolen because of zero law enforcement. Here is what you don't understand. Profit depends on the codes and law enforcement provided by the public, managed by government. Capital craves the modern industrial state. Commerce would be IMPOSSIBLE without these things. Profit makers depend on others. This doesn't mean that they should not earn a profit for the amount they add to the equation. It only means that the current anti-tax revolution ignores the infrastructure upon which profit so deeply depends.
> 
> Turn off talk radio. You have been lied to.
Click to expand...


Another great post Londoner. I wonder if our conservative friends have any understanding of the huge role infrastructure efficiency has on the cost of good and services?


----------



## Dr Grump

clevergirl said:


> Liberal's are incapable of personal success- just ask Obama



Stop trying to be clever, Girl....It's not working for you...


----------



## American_Jihad

*This is GUBMINT help*

13-year-old Holland hot dog vendor shut down by city hall gets generous offer, outpouring of support

Published: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 9:21 PM     Updated: Friday, July 20, 2012, 10:14 AM
 By Garret Ellison 

---
Duszynski, 13, was told by city officials on Tuesday that his cart was in violation of a Holland zoning law that protects existing food businesses downtown against competition from mobile food vendors.

---

The problem is not so much over regulation. The problem is the system makes it difficult to know what all the regulations are. The family thought they had jumped through all the proper hoops and were ready to go, but were tripped up by a separate zoning issue that didn't come up until after they had all the other permits and paper work ready. It would've been better if the government made it easy to know all the regulations that are likely to cause problems ahead of time instead of forcing you to learn them as you go.

---
13-year-old Holland hot dog vendor shut down by city hall gets generous offer, outpouring of support | MLive.com


----------



## Murf76

Londoner said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ] They PAY for their use of the infrastructure just like they pay any other business expense... and then some.  They've already paid their debt to a decent society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This a little bit of a generalization. Corporations require subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks in order to move/keep jobs here.
> 
> The effective tax rates of large corporations and wealthy individuals is far less than the advertised rate. GE is a perfect example. Don't take my word for it. Here is a company that depends deeply on infrastructure and defense, but who sequesters massive amounts of money off shore. The larger the corporation the more it can offset taxes through a maze of shelters, subsidies and tax credits. If you're paying anything close to the top tax rate as a business or individual - if you're not availing yourself of the massive loopholes that have been methodically built into the system over the last 30 years - than you're not only an idiot, you're shareholders will have your head. Everybody knows that the wealthy have successfully won the tax game. This is why they pay 15% on capital gains. The only people who pay full boat are the ones who make their cake from salaries and wages - the ones who can't afford lawyers and politicians. [There, I was as general as you were]
Click to expand...


Hardly a ringing endorsement for Barack Obama, since Jeffrey Immelt's head is so far up his ass he needs an oxygen tube. 
And what exactly has Obama done in the three and a half years he's held office, except lie in bed with Big Pharma and serve as a cash pinata for "green" corporations like Solyndra?

Capital gains are taxed twice. Keep them low, reform tax law toward simplicity and loophole closures.   LIMIT the power of special influences by LIMITING the power of politicians.  When they don't have anything to sell, they're not worth buying.  Next thing you know, crony capitalists will be out of business.

I like the idea of hiring a guy like Mitt Romney.  He knows where the bones are buried.  It's hard to pull a scam on a guy who already knows the game.


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ] They PAY for their use of the infrastructure just like they pay any other business expense... and then some.  They've already paid their debt to a decent society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This a little bit of a generalization. Corporations require subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks in order to move/keep jobs here.
> 
> The effective tax rates of large corporations and wealthy individuals is far less than the advertised rate. GE is a perfect example. Don't take my word for it. Here is a company that depends deeply on infrastructure and defense, but who sequesters massive amounts of money off shore. The larger the corporation the more it can offset taxes through a maze of shelters, subsidies and tax credits. If you're paying anything close to the top tax rate as a business or individual - if you're not availing yourself of the massive loopholes that have been methodically built into the system over the last 30 years - than you're not only an idiot, you're shareholders will have your head. Everybody knows that the wealthy have successfully won the tax game. This is why they pay 15% on capital gains. The only people who pay full boat are the ones who make their cake from salaries and wages - the ones who can't afford lawyers and politicians. [There, I was as general as you were]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a ringing endorsement for Barack Obama, since Jeffrey Immelt's head is so far up his ass he needs an oxygen tube.
> And what exactly has Obama done in the three and a half years he's held office, except lie in bed with Big Pharma and serve as a cash pinata for "green" corporations like Solyndra?
> 
> Capital gains are taxed twice. Keep them low, *reform tax law toward simplicity and loophole closures. *  LIMIT the power of special influences by LIMITING the power of politicians.  When they don't have anything to sell, they're not worth buying.  Next thing you know, crony capitalists will be out of business.
> 
> I like the idea of hiring a guy like Mitt Romney.  He knows where the bones are buried.  It's hard to pull a scam on a guy who already knows the game.
Click to expand...


Maybe you missed this, or maybe you just ignored this because it doesn't fit into your narrative?

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan



Obama Unveils Proposal to Cut Corporate Tax Rate

THE PRESIDENTS FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESS TAX REFORM

Introduction

Americas system of business taxation is in need of reform. The United States has a relatively narrow corporate tax base compared to other countriesa tax base reduced by loopholes, tax expenditures, and tax planning. This is combined with a statutory corporate tax rate that will soon be the highest among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate, the U.S. tax system is uncompetitive and inefficient. The system distorts choices such as where to produce, what to invest in, how to finance a business, and what business form to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and investment in the United States while allowing firms to benefit from incentives to locate production and shift profits overseas. The system is also too complicatedespecially for Americas small businesses.

For these reasons, the President is committed to reform that will support the competitiveness of American businesseslarge and smalland increase incentives to invest and hire in the United States by lowering rates, cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity, while being fiscally responsible.

This report presents the Presidents Framework for business tax reform. In laying out this Framework, the President recognizes that tax reform will take time, require work on a bipartisan basis, and benefit from additional feedback from stakeholders and experts. To start that process, this report outlines what the President believes should be five key elements of business tax reform.


PRESIDENT OBAMAS FIVE ELEMENTS OF BUSINESS TAX REFORM

I. Eliminate dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, broaden the base and cut the corporate tax rate to spur growth in America: The Framework would eliminate dozens of different tax expenditures and fundamentally reform the business tax base to reduce distortions that hurt productivity and growth. It would reinvest these savings to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment in America.

II. Strengthen American manufacturing and innovation: The Framework would refocus the manufacturing deduction and use the savings to reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent, while encouraging greater research and development and the production of clean energy.

III. Strengthen the international tax system, including establishing a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to encourage domestic investment: Our tax system should not give companies an incentive to locate production overseas or engage in accounting games to shift profits abroad, eroding the U.S. tax base. Introducing a minimum tax on foreign earnings would help address these problems and discourage a global race to the bottom in tax rates.

IV. Simplify and cut taxes for Americas small businesses: Tax reform should make tax filing simpler for small businesses and entrepreneurs so that they can focus on growing their businesses rather than filling out tax returns.

V. Restore fiscal responsibility and not add a dime to the deficit: Business tax reform should be fully paid for and lead to greater fiscal responsibility than our current business tax system by either eliminating or making permanent and fully paying for temporary tax provisions now in the tax code.


----------



## Murf76

Bfgrn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> This a little bit of a generalization. Corporations require subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks in order to move/keep jobs here.
> 
> The effective tax rates of large corporations and wealthy individuals is far less than the advertised rate. GE is a perfect example. Don't take my word for it. Here is a company that depends deeply on infrastructure and defense, but who sequesters massive amounts of money off shore. The larger the corporation the more it can offset taxes through a maze of shelters, subsidies and tax credits. If you're paying anything close to the top tax rate as a business or individual - if you're not availing yourself of the massive loopholes that have been methodically built into the system over the last 30 years - than you're not only an idiot, you're shareholders will have your head. Everybody knows that the wealthy have successfully won the tax game. This is why they pay 15% on capital gains. The only people who pay full boat are the ones who make their cake from salaries and wages - the ones who can't afford lawyers and politicians. [There, I was as general as you were]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a ringing endorsement for Barack Obama, since Jeffrey Immelt's head is so far up his ass he needs an oxygen tube.
> And what exactly has Obama done in the three and a half years he's held office, except lie in bed with Big Pharma and serve as a cash pinata for "green" corporations like Solyndra?
> 
> Capital gains are taxed twice. Keep them low, *reform tax law toward simplicity and loophole closures. *  LIMIT the power of special influences by LIMITING the power of politicians.  When they don't have anything to sell, they're not worth buying.  Next thing you know, crony capitalists will be out of business.
> 
> I like the idea of hiring a guy like Mitt Romney.  He knows where the bones are buried.  It's hard to pull a scam on a guy who already knows the game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you missed this, or maybe you just ignored this because it doesn't fit into your narrative?
> 
> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Unveils Proposal to Cut Corporate Tax Rate
> 
> THE PRESIDENTS FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESS TAX REFORM
> 
> Introduction
> 
> Americas system of business taxation is in need of reform. The United States has a relatively narrow corporate tax base compared to other countriesa tax base reduced by loopholes, tax expenditures, and tax planning. This is combined with a statutory corporate tax rate that will soon be the highest among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate, the U.S. tax system is uncompetitive and inefficient. The system distorts choices such as where to produce, what to invest in, how to finance a business, and what business form to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and investment in the United States while allowing firms to benefit from incentives to locate production and shift profits overseas. The system is also too complicatedespecially for Americas small businesses.
> 
> For these reasons, the President is committed to reform that will support the competitiveness of American businesseslarge and smalland increase incentives to invest and hire in the United States by lowering rates, cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity, while being fiscally responsible.
> 
> This report presents the Presidents Framework for business tax reform. In laying out this Framework, the President recognizes that tax reform will take time, require work on a bipartisan basis, and benefit from additional feedback from stakeholders and experts. To start that process, this report outlines what the President believes should be five key elements of business tax reform.
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT OBAMAS FIVE ELEMENTS OF BUSINESS TAX REFORM
> 
> I. Eliminate dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, broaden the base and cut the corporate tax rate to spur growth in America: The Framework would eliminate dozens of different tax expenditures and fundamentally reform the business tax base to reduce distortions that hurt productivity and growth. It would reinvest these savings to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment in America.
> 
> II. Strengthen American manufacturing and innovation: The Framework would refocus the manufacturing deduction and use the savings to reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent, while encouraging greater research and development and the production of clean energy.
> 
> III. Strengthen the international tax system, including establishing a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to encourage domestic investment: Our tax system should not give companies an incentive to locate production overseas or engage in accounting games to shift profits abroad, eroding the U.S. tax base. Introducing a minimum tax on foreign earnings would help address these problems and discourage a global race to the bottom in tax rates.
> 
> IV. Simplify and cut taxes for Americas small businesses: Tax reform should make tax filing simpler for small businesses and entrepreneurs so that they can focus on growing their businesses rather than filling out tax returns.
> 
> V. Restore fiscal responsibility and not add a dime to the deficit: Business tax reform should be fully paid for and lead to greater fiscal responsibility than our current business tax system by either eliminating or making permanent and fully paying for temporary tax provisions now in the tax code.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should head it with the Treasury.gov's plan for excavating Jeffrey Immelt's head from Barack's ass.  Might make it more noticeable.


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a ringing endorsement for Barack Obama, since Jeffrey Immelt's head is so far up his ass he needs an oxygen tube.
> And what exactly has Obama done in the three and a half years he's held office, except lie in bed with Big Pharma and serve as a cash pinata for "green" corporations like Solyndra?
> 
> Capital gains are taxed twice. Keep them low, *reform tax law toward simplicity and loophole closures. *  LIMIT the power of special influences by LIMITING the power of politicians.  When they don't have anything to sell, they're not worth buying.  Next thing you know, crony capitalists will be out of business.
> 
> I like the idea of hiring a guy like Mitt Romney.  He knows where the bones are buried.  It's hard to pull a scam on a guy who already knows the game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you missed this, or maybe you just ignored this because it doesn't fit into your narrative?
> 
> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Unveils Proposal to Cut Corporate Tax Rate
> 
> THE PRESIDENTS FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESS TAX REFORM
> 
> Introduction
> 
> Americas system of business taxation is in need of reform. The United States has a relatively narrow corporate tax base compared to other countriesa tax base reduced by loopholes, tax expenditures, and tax planning. This is combined with a statutory corporate tax rate that will soon be the highest among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate, the U.S. tax system is uncompetitive and inefficient. The system distorts choices such as where to produce, what to invest in, how to finance a business, and what business form to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and investment in the United States while allowing firms to benefit from incentives to locate production and shift profits overseas. The system is also too complicatedespecially for Americas small businesses.
> 
> For these reasons, the President is committed to reform that will support the competitiveness of American businesseslarge and smalland increase incentives to invest and hire in the United States by lowering rates, cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity, while being fiscally responsible.
> 
> This report presents the Presidents Framework for business tax reform. In laying out this Framework, the President recognizes that tax reform will take time, require work on a bipartisan basis, and benefit from additional feedback from stakeholders and experts. To start that process, this report outlines what the President believes should be five key elements of business tax reform.
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT OBAMAS FIVE ELEMENTS OF BUSINESS TAX REFORM
> 
> I. Eliminate dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, broaden the base and cut the corporate tax rate to spur growth in America: The Framework would eliminate dozens of different tax expenditures and fundamentally reform the business tax base to reduce distortions that hurt productivity and growth. It would reinvest these savings to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment in America.
> 
> II. Strengthen American manufacturing and innovation: The Framework would refocus the manufacturing deduction and use the savings to reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent, while encouraging greater research and development and the production of clean energy.
> 
> III. Strengthen the international tax system, including establishing a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to encourage domestic investment: Our tax system should not give companies an incentive to locate production overseas or engage in accounting games to shift profits abroad, eroding the U.S. tax base. Introducing a minimum tax on foreign earnings would help address these problems and discourage a global race to the bottom in tax rates.
> 
> IV. Simplify and cut taxes for Americas small businesses: Tax reform should make tax filing simpler for small businesses and entrepreneurs so that they can focus on growing their businesses rather than filling out tax returns.
> 
> V. Restore fiscal responsibility and not add a dime to the deficit: Business tax reform should be fully paid for and lead to greater fiscal responsibility than our current business tax system by either eliminating or making permanent and fully paying for temporary tax provisions now in the tax code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should head it with the Treasury.gov's plan for excavating Jeffrey Immelt's head from Barack's ass.  Might make it more noticeable.
Click to expand...


WOW, such an intelligent and fact filled reply! I guess my only recourse now is: 'I know you are, but what am I?"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.
> 
> The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not the 'topic'. That is YOUR polemic, partisan and dishonest propaganda. That is not what the President said.
> 
> We are on page 234 of this thread. The topic has been debated ad nauseum. Let me recap and clarify.
> 
> The President made a speech, and conservatives and Republicans have taken out of context one line in his speech, and grossly twisted the meaning. They are using it as an attack on Obama.
> 
> Conservatives and Republicans only want you to hear the one line where the President said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," but they don't want you to hear the sentences preceding and following that line that make it clear he was referring to the government infrastructure that helps businesses succeed, not the businesses themselves.
Click to expand...


No, dipshit, we read the whole frigging speech.  Please read it yourself and tell us what "context" we're supposed to derive from it . . . so we can laugh at your desperate attempts to continue kissing Obama's ass.


----------



## Article 15

Foxfyre said:


> If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.
> 
> The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..



What a dumb fucking post.

Read the following quote:



> "Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
> 
> Thomas Paine



Give it some time to sink in.  

Hopefully, it will keep you from making dumb fucking posts of this nature in the future.


----------



## Bfgrn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.
> 
> The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not the 'topic'. That is YOUR polemic, partisan and dishonest propaganda. That is not what the President said.
> 
> We are on page 234 of this thread. The topic has been debated ad nauseum. Let me recap and clarify.
> 
> The President made a speech, and conservatives and Republicans have taken out of context one line in his speech, and grossly twisted the meaning. They are using it as an attack on Obama.
> 
> Conservatives and Republicans only want you to hear the one line where the President said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," but they don't want you to hear the sentences preceding and following that line that make it clear he was referring to the government infrastructure that helps businesses succeed, not the businesses themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dipshit, we read the whole frigging speech.  Please read it yourself and tell us what "context" we're supposed to derive from it . . . so we can laugh at your desperate attempts to continue kissing Obama's ass.
Click to expand...


Here you go, here is a bigger excerpt, but why don't you try reading the whole speech.

THE PRESIDENT:

Now, one last thing -- one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romneys plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts. 

Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if youre actually saying youre bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and youre still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut.  Thats not a deficit reduction plan.  Thats a deficit expansion plan. 

     Ive got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut -- weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficiently.  (Applause.)  Not every government program works the way its supposed to.  And frankly, government cant solve every problem.  If somebody doesnt want to be helped, government cant always help them.  Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids dont want to learn its hard to teach them.  (Applause.)

     But you know what, Im not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who dont need them.  So Im going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, weve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.

     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. 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. 

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  Thats how we funded the GI Bill.  Thats how we created the middle class.  Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet.  Thats how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for President -- because I still believe in that idea.  Youre not on your own, were in this together.  (Applause.)

So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers -- how do we help them succeed?  How do we make sure that their hard work pays off?  Thats what I've been thinking about the entire time I've been President.

Now, over the next four months, the other side is going to spend more money than we've even seen in history.  And they dont really have a good argument for how they would do better, but they're thinking they can win the election if they just remind people that a lot of people are still out of work, and the economy is not growing as fast as it needs to, and it's all Obama's fault.  Thats basically their pitch.


----------



## chanel

Keep posting it.


----------



## edthecynic

clevergirl said:


> Liberal's are incapable of personal success- just ask Obama


Libs are more financially successful than you lazy CON$ervoFascist slackers. Insanely jealous CON$ insult success and call Libs, " Limousine Liberals." Get off your lazy ass and get a job and you can be as successful as the Libs you envy.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ] They PAY for their use of the infrastructure just like they pay any other business expense... and then some.  They've already paid their debt to a decent society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This a little bit of a generalization. Corporations require subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks in order to move/keep jobs here.
> 
> The effective tax rates of large corporations and wealthy individuals is far less than the advertised rate. GE is a perfect example. Don't take my word for it. Here is a company that depends deeply on infrastructure and defense, but who sequesters massive amounts of money off shore. The larger the corporation the more it can offset taxes through a maze of shelters, subsidies and tax credits. If you're paying anything close to the top tax rate as a business or individual - if you're not availing yourself of the massive loopholes that have been methodically built into the system over the last 30 years - than you're not only an idiot, you're shareholders will have your head. Everybody knows that the wealthy have successfully won the tax game. This is why they pay 15% on capital gains. The only people who pay full boat are the ones who make their cake from salaries and wages - the ones who can't afford lawyers and politicians. [There, I was as general as you were]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a ringing endorsement for Barack Obama, since Jeffrey Immelt's head is so far up his ass he needs an oxygen tube.
> And what exactly has Obama done in the three and a half years he's held office, except lie in bed with Big Pharma and serve as a cash pinata for "green" corporations like Solyndra?
> 
> *Capital gains are taxed twice.* Keep them low, reform tax law toward simplicity and loophole closures.   LIMIT the power of special influences by LIMITING the power of politicians.  When they don't have anything to sell, they're not worth buying.  Next thing you know, crony capitalists will be out of business.
> 
> I like the idea of hiring a guy like Mitt Romney.  He knows where the bones are buried.  It's hard to pull a scam on a guy who already knows the game.
Click to expand...

Capital gains are not taxed twice, and you know it. The gains sit untaxed, many times for years, until they are realized and then only the untaxed gains are taxed at a special lower rate.


----------



## saveliberty

Bfgrn said:


> Here you go, here is a bigger excerpt, but why don't you try reading the whole speech.
> 
> THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> Now, one last thing -- one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romney&#8217;s plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts.
> 
> Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if you&#8217;re actually saying you&#8217;re bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and you&#8217;re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut.  That&#8217;s not a deficit reduction plan.  That&#8217;s a deficit expansion plan.
> 
> I&#8217;ve got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut -- we&#8217;ve already made a trillion dollars&#8217; worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don&#8217;t work, and make government work more efficiently.  (Applause.)  Not every government program works the way it&#8217;s supposed to.  And frankly, government can&#8217;t solve every problem.  If somebody doesn&#8217;t want to be helped, government can&#8217;t always help them.  Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don&#8217;t want to learn it&#8217;s hard to teach them.  (Applause.)
> 
> But you know what, I&#8217;m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don&#8217;t need them.  So I&#8217;m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  We&#8217;ve already made a trillion dollars&#8217; worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and *what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more*.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, we&#8217;ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.
> 
> There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.  They know they didn&#8217;t -- look, if you&#8217;ve been successful, *you didn&#8217;t get there on your own*. I&#8217;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&#8217;ve got a business -- you didn&#8217;t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.*  The Internet didn&#8217;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&#8217;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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That&#8217;s how we funded the GI Bill.  That&#8217;s how we created the middle class.  That&#8217;s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That&#8217;s how we invented the Internet.  That&#8217;s how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that&#8217;s the reason I&#8217;m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea.  You&#8217;re not on your own, we&#8217;re in this together.  (Applause.)
> 
> So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers -- how do we help them succeed?  How do we make sure that their hard work pays off?  That&#8217;s what I've been thinking about the entire time I've been President.
> 
> Now, over the next four months, the other side is going to spend more money than we've even seen in history.  And they don&#8217;t really have a good argument for how they would do better, but they're thinking they can win the election if they just remind people that a lot of people are still out of work, and the economy is not growing as fast as it needs to, and it's all Obama's fault.  That&#8217;s basically their pitch.



Yep, starts out telling us we need to raise taxes on the evil business owners, because they don't deserve credit for building their businesses.  All of this as a ploy to gain the votes of the entitlement crowd he was speaking to and to justify further taxes on business.  Thanks for the link.


----------



## kaz

edthecynic said:


> Capital gains are not taxed twice, and you know it. The gains sit untaxed, many times for years, until they are realized and then only the untaxed gains are taxed at a special lower rate.



The second time they are taxed is as you describe.  The first time was when they were taxed as business tax.  One plus one = ...  Even you can handle this one Edd...


----------



## Mac1958

edthecynic said:


> Capital gains are not taxed twice, and you know it. The gains sit untaxed, many times for years, until they are realized and then only the untaxed gains are taxed at a special lower rate.




Ultimately non-qualified capital gains are taxed twice.  Once at the investor's current marginal rate when the funds that will be invested are initially earned; those funds are then invested.  Then gains are taxed as withdrawn.  While the marginal tax rates applied will be different, and at different times, the fact remains taxation happens twice.  We all know this, right?

The best part is that if those funds are re-invested and sold again and again, the government gets to keep taxing them.  Thank goodness, because our "leaders" have proven to be so responsible with all that money.

.


----------



## saveliberty

Isn't it great?  The American System is "allowing me to thrive".  What happened to my right to the opportunity?


----------



## edthecynic

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not taxed twice, and you know it. The gains sit untaxed, many times for years, until they are realized and then only the untaxed gains are taxed at a special lower rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second time they are taxed is as you describe.  The first time was when they were taxed as business tax.  One plus one = ...  Even you can handle this one Edd...
Click to expand...

You don't pay a business tax when you buy stock. Zero plus one = ... Even you can handle that one kraz...


----------



## edthecynic

Mac1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not taxed twice, and you know it. The gains sit untaxed, many times for years, until they are realized and then only the untaxed gains are taxed at a special lower rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately non-qualified capital gains are taxed twice. * Once at the investor's current marginal rate when the funds that will be invested are initially earned; those funds are then invested.  Then gains are taxed as withdrawn.*  While the marginal tax rates applied will be different, and at different times, the fact remains taxation happens twice.  We all know this, right?
> 
> The best part is that if those funds are re-invested and sold again and again, the government gets to keep taxing them.  Thank goodness, because our "leaders" have proven to be so responsible with all that money.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Whatever is invested is not re-taxed when the GAINS are realized. Whatever was invested is deducted from the sale price and only the gain is taxed. If there is a loss, the investor gets a tax deduction. Nothing is taxed twice. If you had ever bought and sold stock you would know this!!!!


----------



## Vidi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.
> 
> The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not the 'topic'. That is YOUR polemic, partisan and dishonest propaganda. That is not what the President said.
> 
> We are on page 234 of this thread. The topic has been debated ad nauseum. Let me recap and clarify.
> 
> The President made a speech, and conservatives and Republicans have taken out of context one line in his speech, and grossly twisted the meaning. They are using it as an attack on Obama.
> 
> Conservatives and Republicans only want you to hear the one line where the President said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," but they don't want you to hear the sentences preceding and following that line that make it clear he was referring to the government infrastructure that helps businesses succeed, not the businesses themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dipshit, we read the whole frigging speech.  Please read it yourself and tell us what "context" we're supposed to derive from it . . . so we can laugh at your desperate attempts to continue kissing Obama's ass.
Click to expand...



You folks keep on holding your hands over your ears and shouting I CANT HEAR YOU! I CANT HEAR YOU!!!

That seems to be your only response now to the truth you so conveniently ignore because it doesnt fit your OBAMABADMAN narrative.


----------



## Vidi

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not taxed twice, and you know it. The gains sit untaxed, many times for years, until they are realized and then only the untaxed gains are taxed at a special lower rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second time they are taxed is as you describe.  The first time was when they were taxed as business tax.  One plus one = ...  Even you can handle this one Edd...
Click to expand...



5 bucks gets taxed, you invest it in a local lemonade stand, you make 10 bucks. You now get taxed again on the additional 5 dollars NOT the full 10.

But to say the investor class gets taxed twice and its unfair is BULLSHIT! A dollar gets taxed EVERYTIME it changes hands. Income, sales, property ( even when it does change hands ), estate, no matter HOW rich someone is. 

So we ALL get taxed over and over and over and over again. To defend ONLY the investor class youd have to be retarded to claim its "not fair" .


----------



## Uncensored2008

kaz said:


> You misspelled it, it's poof



Or in Barry's case, "poofter."


----------



## Uncensored2008

flacaltenn said:


> I think we establish in this thread that you're not commenting on - how COMPLETELY RATIONAL our rejection of your Dear Leader actually is.. And as far as "racist" goes -- I venture to guess that all these Con posters would pay real money and FLOCK to lectures by Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Allen Keyes, Herman Cain and DOZENs of other Con heroes that just happen to be black men.. Matter of Fact, since Buckley died, seems to this Libertarian like black men are the Brains and Conscience of the Con movement. Isn't that true CONZHATE?
> 
> Now be a good troll and say something stupid.... Or maybe --- you actually want to comment on how badly Dear Leader stepped in it with his "unguarded leftist moment".



Add Larry Elder to that group. The man is brilliant. 

My respect of Ice-T has gone WAY up as well; check this out.

{Anchor Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Channel 4 News: "So do you carry guns routinely at home?"

Ice-T: "Yeah, it's legal in the United States. It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police."

Anchor: "And do you see any link between that and these sorts of (Aurora-type) incidents?"

Ice-T: "No. Nah. Not really. You know what I'm saying, if somebody wants to kill people, you know, they don't need a gun to do it."

Anchor: "It makes it easier, though, doesn't it?"

Ice-T: "Not really. You can strap explosives on your body. They do that all the time."

Anchor: "So when there's the inevitable backlash of the anti-gun lobby, as a result of this instance, as there always is--"

Ice-T: "Well, that's not going to change anything. ... The United States is based on guns."}

Yes, Guns Kill, But How Often Are They Used in Self-Defense? - Larry Elder - Page 1


----------



## Uncensored2008

Cecilie1200 said:


> I have purchased every book that Thomas Sowell has ever written, and regularly read both his columns and Walter Williams'.  Unlike HateUSA, who mentions race in virtually ever post, I don't give a rat's ass what color someone's skin is.  I have a lot more in common with an intelligent, educated black person than I ever will with an ignorant, illiterate white person.



Exactly, and well put.

I get along with smart people, educated people. I have nothing in common with a white dolt, living in a trailer and waiting for the welfare check. I have a LOT in common with a black MBA working up new methods of efficiency.

Skin color means nothing.


----------



## clevergirl

With 41 straight months of unemployment above 8% maybe it&#8217;s time to cut some of this government red tape to help small businesses across America create jobs. In that way government really can help someone create success.


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."
> 
> *Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues,** wage earners 84.6%,* and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right, edtheliar?
> 
> So 84.6% of all federal revenue is from income tax on wage earners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wait a minute, income taxes don't even make up 50% of the federal revenue stream. How could income tax on wages be 84.6% then?*
> 
> Oh, that's right - you're a fucking liar - you're a leftist and you'll say anything to promote your shameful party. Like all Obamabots, you don't have so much as a shred of integrity..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how a professional liar creates a Straw Man to support their lie. Nowhere did I say income taxes make up 84% of the federal revenue stream. I said WAGE EARNERS paid 84% of the federal income stream.
Click to expand...


Other than like, in the highlighted quote from you, that is...

ROFL

You're a hoot, edtheliar.

You don't even know what you post, do you? Someone from one of the hate sites, MoveOn, ThinkProress, etc. emails your thoughts and you paste them here, right?



> Wage earners pay a lot more than just income taxes, which you would know if you had ever worked even one job in your entire life, you lazy fuck. Your own chart shows wage earners paying 82% of the federal income stream, so sue me for the 2%.



Shit fer brains, you lied and got caught. Yeah, no doubt you were just pasting what the hive told you to paste, but you got caught with your dick in the mutt, can't claim you weren't fucking the dog..


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not taxed twice, and you know it. The gains sit untaxed, many times for years, until they are realized and then only the untaxed gains are taxed at a special lower rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately non-qualified capital gains are taxed twice. * Once at the investor's current marginal rate when the funds that will be invested are initially earned; those funds are then invested.  Then gains are taxed as withdrawn.*  While the marginal tax rates applied will be different, and at different times, the fact remains taxation happens twice.  We all know this, right?
> 
> The best part is that if those funds are re-invested and sold again and again, the government gets to keep taxing them.  Thank goodness, because our "leaders" have proven to be so responsible with all that money.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever is invested is not re-taxed when the GAINS are realized. Whatever was invested is deducted from the sale price and only the gain is taxed. If there is a loss, the investor gets a tax deduction. Nothing is taxed twice. If you had ever bought and sold stock you would know this!!!!
Click to expand...


Once again.... you buy your stock with earned income which has already been taxed, then a corporate tax is applied to profits before profits are disbursed, then you pay a capital gains tax.  What's more, inflation isn't adjusted and losses are capped in such a way that you can only write off a small portion.
Capital Gains Taxes Are Much Too High; They Punish Thrifty People for Inflation - Washington DC SCOTUS | Examiner.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> Libs are more financially successful than you lazy CON$ervoFascist slackers. Insanely jealous CON$ insult success and call Libs, " Limousine Liberals." Get off your lazy ass and get a job and you can be as successful as the Libs you envy.



So you're saying that the Bolshevik faction of the democratic party are the "rich?"

Well damn, no wonder Obama wages war against the middle class and small business. Must crush those usurper, eh edtheliar?


----------



## Murf76

Vidi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not the 'topic'. That is YOUR polemic, partisan and dishonest propaganda. That is not what the President said.
> 
> We are on page 234 of this thread. The topic has been debated ad nauseum. Let me recap and clarify.
> 
> The President made a speech, and conservatives and Republicans have taken out of context one line in his speech, and grossly twisted the meaning. They are using it as an attack on Obama.
> 
> Conservatives and Republicans only want you to hear the one line where the President said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," but they don't want you to hear the sentences preceding and following that line that make it clear he was referring to the government infrastructure that helps businesses succeed, not the businesses themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dipshit, we read the whole frigging speech.  Please read it yourself and tell us what "context" we're supposed to derive from it . . . so we can laugh at your desperate attempts to continue kissing Obama's ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You folks keep on holding your hands over your ears and shouting I CANT HEAR YOU! I CANT HEAR YOU!!!
> 
> That seems to be your only response now to the truth you so conveniently ignore because it doesnt fit your OBAMABADMAN narrative.
Click to expand...


Your problem is that everyone HAS heard the speech in it's entirety.  In fact, Mitt Romney posted the entire segment and the lead-up to the damning portion right on his website:
President Obama's Remarks in Roanoke, VA | Mitt Romney for President

There's no amount of "context" which is going to change the meaning of what Obama said.


----------



## clevergirl

Murf76 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, dipshit, we read the whole frigging speech.  Please read it yourself and tell us what "context" we're supposed to derive from it . . . so we can laugh at your desperate attempts to continue kissing Obama's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You folks keep on holding your hands over your ears and shouting I CANT HEAR YOU! I CANT HEAR YOU!!!
> 
> That seems to be your only response now to the truth you so conveniently ignore because it doesnt fit your OBAMABADMAN narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is that everyone HAS heard the speech in it's entirety.  In fact, Mitt Romney posted the entire segment and the lead-up to the damning portion right on his website:
> President Obama's Remarks in Roanoke, VA | Mitt Romney for President
> 
> There's no amount of "context" which is going to change the meaning of what Obama said.
Click to expand...



The liberals have gone from justifying to denying what was said... fucking amazing~


----------



## chanel

1. "He didn't say that"
2. "He didn't mean that"
3. "It was taken out of context"
4.  "It depends on what the definition of "that" is.
5.  RACIST!


----------



## saveliberty

Did the Olympic Committee award a gold medal to Obama yet?


----------



## saveliberty

"Allowed to thrive", think about that one for a while.


----------



## Murf76

saveliberty said:


> Did the Olympic Committee award a gold medal to Obama yet?


----------



## edthecynic

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right, edtheliar?
> 
> So 84.6% of all federal revenue is from income tax on wage earners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wait a minute, income taxes don't even make up 50% of the federal revenue stream. How could income tax on wages be 84.6% then?*
> 
> Oh, that's right - you're a fucking liar - you're a leftist and you'll say anything to promote your shameful party. Like all Obamabots, you don't have so much as a shred of integrity..
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how a professional liar creates a Straw Man to support their lie. Nowhere did I say income taxes make up 84% of the federal revenue stream. I said WAGE EARNERS paid 84% of the federal income stream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Other than like, in the highlighted quote from you, that is...
> *
> ROFL
> 
> You're a hoot, edtheliar.
> 
> You don't even know what you post, do you? Someone from one of the hate sites, MoveOn, ThinkProress, etc. emails your thoughts and you paste them here, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wage earners pay a lot more than just income taxes, which you would know if you had ever worked even one job in your entire life, you lazy fuck. Your own chart shows wage earners paying 82% of the federal income stream, so sue me for the 2%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit fer brains, you lied and got caught. Yeah, no doubt you were just pasting what the hive told you to paste, but you got caught with your dick in the mutt, can't claim you weren't fucking the dog..
Click to expand...

Like I have shown so many times before, when CON$ervoFascists are caught lying they just lie some more.

First you lie about me saying income tax makes up 84% of federal revenues, and when called on your lie, you simply lie about highlighting a quote where I said that 84% of federal revenue comes from income tax that doesn't have the words income tax anywhere in the quote!!!!!

I said 84% of federal revenues come from WAGE EARNERS. WAGE EARNERS pay income taxes and payroll taxes. Your own chart shows income taxes and payroll taxes equal 82% of federal revenue. As I said, sue me for the 2%.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately non-qualified capital gains are taxed twice. * Once at the investor's current marginal rate when the funds that will be invested are initially earned; those funds are then invested.  Then gains are taxed as withdrawn.*  While the marginal tax rates applied will be different, and at different times, the fact remains taxation happens twice.  We all know this, right?
> 
> The best part is that if those funds are re-invested and sold again and again, the government gets to keep taxing them.  Thank goodness, because our "leaders" have proven to be so responsible with all that money.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever is invested is not re-taxed when the GAINS are realized. Whatever was invested is deducted from the sale price and only the gain is taxed. If there is a loss, the investor gets a tax deduction. Nothing is taxed twice. If you had ever bought and sold stock you would know this!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again.... you buy your stock with earned income which has already been taxed, *then a corporate tax is applied to profits before profits are disbursed,* then you pay a capital gains tax.  What's more, inflation isn't adjusted and losses are capped in such a way that you can only write off a small portion.
> Capital Gains Taxes Are Much Too High; They Punish Thrifty People for Inflation - Washington DC SCOTUS | Examiner.com
Click to expand...

Stock holders do not pay corporate taxes, corporations do. That's why they are called CORPORATE TAXES!!!!!!!!!! Capital GAINS are still only taxed once.


----------



## saveliberty

Wage earners don't pay all the payroll taxes in reality, but don't let that get in the way of your lies Ed.


----------



## chanel




----------



## kaz

edthecynic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not taxed twice, and you know it. The gains sit untaxed, many times for years, until they are realized and then only the untaxed gains are taxed at a special lower rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second time they are taxed is as you describe.  The first time was when they were taxed as business tax.  One plus one = ...  Even you can handle this one Edd...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't pay a business tax when you buy stock. Zero plus one = ... Even you can handle that one kraz...
Click to expand...


Um...wow, I didn't dumb it down enough for you?  I'm not surprised.  OK, I'll go another round.

You aren't buying "stock" you are buying a percent of the company.  The stock is a piece of paper.  The company is the investment.  You are entitled to a percent of the earnings of the company.  Those earnings are reduced by the taxes the company pays, that means the value of your stock is reduced by the same portion.  So as a shareholder, a percent owner in the company, you have already paid corporate taxes.  Which means then when you pay taxes on the gain in the stock, you're paying taxes again on the same gain.

So let's try this again, Eddie.  One plus one = ...


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever is invested is not re-taxed when the GAINS are realized. Whatever was invested is deducted from the sale price and only the gain is taxed. If there is a loss, the investor gets a tax deduction. Nothing is taxed twice. If you had ever bought and sold stock you would know this!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again.... you buy your stock with earned income which has already been taxed, *then a corporate tax is applied to profits before profits are disbursed,* then you pay a capital gains tax.  What's more, inflation isn't adjusted and losses are capped in such a way that you can only write off a small portion.
> Capital Gains Taxes Are Much Too High; They Punish Thrifty People for Inflation - Washington DC SCOTUS | Examiner.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stock holders do not pay corporate taxes, corporations do. That's why they are called CORPORATE TAXES!!!!!!!!!! Capital GAINS are still only taxed once.
Click to expand...


Again.... let's say you're a "wage earner", Ed.  Your earnings have already been taxed, and then you decide to go buy a stock with your money.  See how that's working yet?  You're not going to realize any investment income until after the corporate tax has been applied to company profits, and then you're going to pay a capital gains tax when you're finally paid.  

The investors ARE the corporation.  A "corporation" is nothing more than a group acting as a single entity.  That's the very definition of the word.  A stock represents a small share of _ownership_.  Even if you only have one stock, you're part owner of the company.


----------



## kaz

Vidi said:


> 5 bucks gets taxed, you invest it in a local lemonade stand, you make 10 bucks. You now get taxed again on the additional 5 dollars NOT the full 10.



Actually in your example, you skipped a step.  You invest $5 in a lemonade stand and sold $10 worth of product.  

You skipped the part where the the government taxes the lemonade stand, the business itself, $2, so now you have $8.  

Given your $5 investment, you now you made $3, not $5.  Government then taxes the $3 as a capital gain.

And that ignores the payroll taxes for the person who operated the stand, the business taxes for their assets (stand, lemonade jar), sales taxes collected on the lemonade sales, ...


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> Like I have shown so many times before, when CON$ervoFascists are caught lying they just lie some more.



edtheliar, you claimed that wage earners pay 84.6% of federal revenues. Not only is that not true, but income taxes don't even make up 50% of revenues. Employer paid payroll taxes are nearly half of the revenue stream - idiot.



> First you lie about me saying income tax makes up 84% of federal revenues, and when called on your lie, you simply lie about highlighting a quote where I said that 84% of federal revenue comes from income tax that doesn't have the words income tax anywhere in the quote!!!!!



ROFL

You earn the title "edtheliar."



> I said 84% of federal revenues come from WAGE EARNERS.



Stupid fuck, a major portion comes from payroll taxes.



> WAGE EARNERS pay income taxes and payroll taxes.



Uh no, you fucking moron. Payroll taxes are paid by the employer.



> Your own chart shows income taxes and payroll taxes equal 82% of federal revenue. As I said, sue me for the 2%.



So, your defense is that you're not lying, you're just stupid as a pile of bricks?


----------



## chanel

*C.J. Box:   "I don't like you either".*



> I realized, for the first time I can recall, that the President doesn't like me, or people who share my values.  Not that he has simple differences, or thinks I'm misguided.  He doesn't like me, and if you're reading this post on Ricochet he probably doesn't like you, either.  And it isn't mild dislike: it's utter contempt.
> 
> *When has a president -- any president -- so thoroughly shown that he despises at least half the population of the country?*  Not Bush, not Reagan, not even Clinton.
> 
> It's not just about policy or party.  It's personal.


----------



## edthecynic

Murf76 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again.... you buy your stock with earned income which has already been taxed, *then a corporate tax is applied to profits before profits are disbursed,* then you pay a capital gains tax.  What's more, inflation isn't adjusted and losses are capped in such a way that you can only write off a small portion.
> Capital Gains Taxes Are Much Too High; They Punish Thrifty People for Inflation - Washington DC SCOTUS | Examiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> Stock holders do not pay corporate taxes, corporations do. That's why they are called CORPORATE TAXES!!!!!!!!!! Capital GAINS are still only taxed once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.... let's say you're a "wage earner", Ed.  Your earnings have already been taxed, and then you decide to go buy a stock with your money.  See how that's working yet?  You're not going to realize any investment income until after the corporate tax has been applied to company profits, and then you're going to pay a capital gains tax when you're finally paid.
> 
> The investors ARE the corporation.  A "corporation" is nothing more than a group acting as a single entity.  That's the very definition of the word.  A stock represents a small share of _ownership_.  Even if you only have one stock, you're part owner of the company.
Click to expand...

Investors are investors, corporations are corporations. If the two are interchangable then corporations should pay capital gains taxes instead of corporate taxes or both like you say investors do. If they are interchangable why should one be taxed twice while the other is taxed only once????

As was pointed out to you already, a dollar is taxed every time it changes hands. It changes hands when it passes from corporation to investor, if they were the same it would not be changing hands. By your same "logic" wages are taxed at least 3 times. They are taxed when earned, they pay corporate taxes passed on to them in the price of the goods and services, and they pay sales taxes. Wages should be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains since they are taxed more times.


----------



## edthecynic

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have shown so many times before, when CON$ervoFascists are caught lying they just lie some more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edtheliar, you claimed that wage earners pay 84.6% of federal revenues. Not only is that not true, but income taxes don't even make up 50% of revenues. Employer paid payroll taxes are nearly half of the revenue stream - idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you lie about me saying income tax makes up 84% of federal revenues, and when called on your lie, you simply lie about highlighting a quote where I said that 84% of federal revenue comes from income tax that doesn't have the words income tax anywhere in the quote!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You earn the title "edtheliar."
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid fuck, a major portion comes from payroll taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WAGE EARNERS pay income taxes and payroll taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh no, you fucking moron. Payroll taxes are paid by the employer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own chart shows income taxes and payroll taxes equal 82% of federal revenue. As I said, sue me for the 2%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your defense is that you're not lying, you're just stupid as a pile of bricks?
Click to expand...

As I have already shown, the government considers payroll taxes as part of the wage earners income.


----------



## Mac1958

edthecynic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not taxed twice, and you know it. The gains sit untaxed, many times for years, until they are realized and then only the untaxed gains are taxed at a special lower rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately non-qualified capital gains are taxed twice. * Once at the investor's current marginal rate when the funds that will be invested are initially earned; those funds are then invested.  Then gains are taxed as withdrawn.*  While the marginal tax rates applied will be different, and at different times, the fact remains taxation happens twice.  We all know this, right?
> 
> The best part is that if those funds are re-invested and sold again and again, the government gets to keep taxing them.  Thank goodness, because our "leaders" have proven to be so responsible with all that money.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever is invested is not re-taxed when the GAINS are realized. Whatever was invested is deducted from the sale price and only the gain is taxed. If there is a loss, the investor gets a tax deduction. Nothing is taxed twice. If you had ever bought and sold stock you would know this!!!!
Click to expand...



I'm a financial advisor, CFP, ChFC, CLU, thanks.  And you're saying the same thing I am, except for the goofy stuff about double taxation.

As you will see by actually reading my post, gains are taxed.  *In a non-qualified account, money that is invested has already been taxed.*  Non-qualified.   It's taxed before it's invested, gains are taxed after.  Yes, losses are not taxed (big news there), but I am assuming capital gains.

You're playing games.  Just admit it, non-qualified investment gains are taxed twice, or more if re-invested and gains are realized.

.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

But just to make sure that everybody understands, government DID NOT invent infrastructure for the benefit of the people.  Infrastructure happens when the people have been conducting business and find it more efficient and effective to share certain services and infrastructure than when everybody does their own thing.  When the people prosper, the infrastructure is strengtened and is well maintained and expanded.  When the people do not prosper, the infrastructure and necessary government services deteriorate.

The government did not develop the interstate system for the benefit of the businessman.  They developed it as a criticial part of national defense to make it more possible to move troops and equipment should the USA be attacked and to facilitate use of air cover.  The government did not do research on the internet for the benefit of the businessman.  It too was a critical part of national defense and was in fact early on intended to be denied the private sector.  NASA programs were not developed for the benefit of the businessman but again for the purposes of national defense.

The fact that all these efforts would in fact benefit us all was secondary to their intended purposes.

The federal government cannot take credit for the fact that local governments have developed fire and police protection, streets, roads, and other shared services, all because there was already business and commerce happening, not to generate more of it.  And every bit of that business and commerce was the businessman looking to his own interests and simply by doing that, everybody benefits everybody else.

President Obama does not understand how the economy works or what makes it tick.  I suspect however that he is fully aware that deficit spending is the confiscation and redistribution of wealth in the most harmful way imaginaable?


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> As I have already shown, the government considers payroll taxes as part of the wage earners income.



No stupid, they don't. You just are too dull to grasp the distinction between "withholdings" which are taken in accrual from the employee, pending filing, and "payroll taxes" which are entirely paid by the employer.

Here idiot, learn something. (Have that fucktard Obama read it, too.)

Payroll Research


----------



## Full-Auto

Vidi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not taxed twice, and you know it. The gains sit untaxed, many times for years, until they are realized and then only the untaxed gains are taxed at a special lower rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second time they are taxed is as you describe.  The first time was when they were taxed as business tax.  One plus one = ...  Even you can handle this one Edd...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 5 bucks gets taxed, you invest it in a local lemonade stand, you make 10 bucks. You now get taxed again on the additional 5 dollars NOT the full 10.
> 
> But to say the investor class gets taxed twice and its unfair is BULLSHIT! A dollar gets taxed EVERYTIME it changes hands. Income, sales, property ( even when it does change hands ), estate, no matter HOW rich someone is.
> 
> So we ALL get taxed over and over and over and over again. To defend ONLY the investor class youd have to be retarded to claim its "not fair" .
Click to expand...


Your BS notwithstanding.............


Corps pay taxes before distributions.

*FAIL..........*


----------



## Murf76

edthecynic said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stock holders do not pay corporate taxes, corporations do. That's why they are called CORPORATE TAXES!!!!!!!!!! Capital GAINS are still only taxed once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.... let's say you're a "wage earner", Ed.  Your earnings have already been taxed, and then you decide to go buy a stock with your money.  See how that's working yet?  You're not going to realize any investment income until after the corporate tax has been applied to company profits, and then you're going to pay a capital gains tax when you're finally paid.
> 
> The investors ARE the corporation.  A "corporation" is nothing more than a group acting as a single entity.  That's the very definition of the word.  A stock represents a small share of _ownership_.  Even if you only have one stock, you're part owner of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Investors are investors, corporations are corporations. If the two are interchangable then corporations should pay capital gains taxes instead of corporate taxes or both like you say investors do. If they are interchangable why should one be taxed twice while the other is taxed only once????
> 
> As was pointed out to you already, a dollar is taxed every time it changes hands. It changes hands when it passes from corporation to investor, if they were the same it would not be changing hands. By your same "logic" wages are taxed at least 3 times. They are taxed when earned, they pay corporate taxes passed on to them in the price of the goods and services, and they pay sales taxes. Wages should be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains since they are taxed more times.
Click to expand...


Well, that's why it's wrong, Ed.  Tax one or the other, either the corporation or the capital gain... but not both.  And if you are going to tax both, keep both rates low so as to keep people investing and the economy growing.

Ta-dah!


----------



## Foxfyre

it is everybody looking to their own interests that makes the economy purr along and that provides opportunity for everybody.  Take away a lot of the incentive for the businessman to look to his own interests and he isn't going to do as much commerce and industry or he will go elsewhere in order to be allowed to look to his own interests.

Do you think the President understands this?


----------



## Murf76

Foxfyre said:


> it is everybody looking to their own interests that makes the economy purr along and that provides opportunity for everybody.  Take away a lot of the incentive for the businessman to look to his own interests and he isn't going to do as much commerce and industry or he will go elsewhere in order to be allowed to look to his own interests.
> 
> Do you think the President understands this?



Apparently not.  Otherwise he wouldn't have started a pissing contest with the business community, large and small.

He's still trying to get his base fired up, Fox.  It's the end of July already.  By now, the base should be locked up and candidates swinging to center.  But Obama's swinging left.  I'm thinking his private polling is giving him something to worry about.


----------



## Foxfyre

The other thing that the President seems to have no clue about is how wealth is generated..  Despite his line that there are lots of smart people and lots of people work hard--the implication being of course is that those who prosper running businesses can't take any credit for their prosperity--he also is missing the critical component of what makes the economy tick.

ONLY the businessman sticks his neck out and takes serious financial risks.   The laborer generally risks nothing and loses nothing but a pay check if a business fails.  And he can immediately apply for unemployment insurance--that his employer helped fund--and move on to another job when it becomes available.

The businessman foregoes the money he could make working for somebody else.  The businessman risks sometimes everything he has to start up and fuel the business and/or borrows the venture and/or operating capital that he needs to get things up and running.  If he fails due to any reason, he stands to lose the investment he put into it or can be left with serious debt that he will be a long time paying off.  Any who initially invest in his business with hopes of sharing in the profits can also lose everything they invest with no hope of recouping their losses.  But only those who willingly entered into the gamble will take any losses.

The President would have us believe that it is government generosity that drives business and commerce and not innovation, creative thought, vision, and risk taking on the part of the individual.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

It is you that has no clue, stop puking out what Freedomworks and Heritage Foundation tell you to say for krist sake, think for yourself for once


----------



## saveliberty

kaz said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5 bucks gets taxed, you invest it in a local lemonade stand, you make 10 bucks. You now get taxed again on the additional 5 dollars NOT the full 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in your example, you skipped a step.  You invest $5 in a lemonade stand and sold $10 worth of product.
> 
> You skipped the part where the the government taxes the lemonade stand, the business itself, $2, so now you have $8.
> 
> Given your $5 investment, you now you made $3, not $5.  Government then taxes the $3 as a capital gain.
> 
> And that ignores the payroll taxes for the person who operated the stand, the business taxes for their assets (stand, lemonade jar), sales taxes collected on the lemonade sales, ...
Click to expand...


Got a permit for that stand kaz?  Oh, and if you INVESTED the $5 in the business, it becomes the business' money, not yours.  Its taxable income to the business.


----------



## saveliberty

No Foxfyre, Obama said we are ALLOWED to thrive.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> No Foxfyre, Obama said we are ALLOWED to thrive.



And he said it is the government that allows the thriving.


----------



## The T

And why I keep saying Obama has things 180 degrees out of phase with the Founders and true liberty in this Republic. It is WE that _allow_ government to do what they do...and it gotten so bad that Government is taking on the persona of a tyranny with Obama leading the charge.


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> And why I keep saying Obama has things 180 degrees out of phase with the Founders and true liberty in this Republic. It is WE that _allow_ government to do what they do...and it gotten so bad that Government is taking on the persona of a tyranny with Obama leading the charge.



Yup, and without exception, would be dictators have won acquiescence, if not downright help, from the people by assuring them that he has only their welfare and benefit in mind.  And by convincing them that the wealthy and successful are the oppressors and the leeches of society and they must be taken down.


----------



## saveliberty

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Foxfyre, Obama said we are ALLOWED to thrive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he said it is the government that allows the thriving.
Click to expand...


What the government giveth, they can take away.  Lovely threat huh?


----------



## Article 15

Jesus fuck y'all have completely lost it.


----------



## Papageorgio

Well we can see Obama has lost it, why else would he make such an uninformed statement.


----------



## Foxfyre

Article 15 said:


> Jesus fuck y'all have completely lost it.



How so?   Do you really believe all that is evil and greedy and corrupting in the world is found in the activity of the business owner?   Do you honestly believe it is government that makes business prosper?  Or do you think it might be the other way around and it is people prospering in the private sector that makes those in government prosper?

Or do you see as Fearless Leader apparently does that there is no such thing as the private sector?  It ALL belongs to everybody?


----------



## saveliberty

I know that I'm here to remind everyone every day until election day is past...


----------



## The T

Papageorgio said:


> Well we can see Obama has lost it, why else would he make such an uninformed statement.


 
Actually? That was written for him for that event. His problem was that he got off teleprompter and off script and told us what he really thought.


*Lakoff Inspired "You Didn't Build That"*



> ... This narrative is cribbed almost verbatim from the narrative of *George Lakoff, a progressive [liberal] linguistics activist and Professor at Berkeley,"* and he has been advising the Democrats on how to change and use language in order to hide who they really are. That's what it boils down to. Lakoff advises Democrats on how to say things that mask and cover up who they really are.


 
There are a couple videos in the link you might find interesting to further understand the mindest of these people.

Another Link:

*Legal Insurrection: Obama and Warren cribbed build it narrative from progressive Berkeley Professor - William A.Jacobson*


----------



## saveliberty

Lakoff owes Obama for his minute of fame.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mac1958 said:


> "you didn't get their on your own"



Barry was right about that,  the road builder didn't get their on his own, he had to know someone  to get the union job at twice the average pay in the real private economy.

So, the rich pay all the taxes already, plus they pay double taxes to the corrupt unions to build the roads, and still Barry is reminding them that they ought to pay their fair share when they already pay double the cost for roads while the poor pay nothing!

Liberalism is based on pure ignorance and ought to formally be made illegal as the Constitution intended.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you didn't get their on your own"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barry was right about that,  the road builder had to know someone   to get the union job at twice the average pay in real private economy.
> 
> So, the rich pay all the taxesalready, plus they pay double taxes to the corrupt unions to build the roads, and still Barry is reminding them that they ought to pay thier fair share when they already pay 200% of the cost while the poor pay nothing!
Click to expand...


Hey racist, tell me exactly what it is you do for a living?

before you do that, how is ole Willard the worst diplomat in history working out for you mental midgets LOLOLOLOL


----------



## clevergirl

Strassel: Four Little Words - WSJ.com


The four words that will keep on giving~ priceless!


----------



## ConzHateUSA

clevergirl said:


> Strassel: Four Little Words - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> The four words that will keep on giving~ priceless!



too bad racist nazi scum have to take his four words out of context in order to create a story

know who else use to do that a lot?

Joseph Goebbels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enemies of the human race, that is what the baggers are...some of us are very well aware of that and will make sure everyone knows it soon.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> Hey racist,




If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Agree to a legal wager on US MESSAGE BOARD or run away as the low life liberal liar you are.

You are so great for liberalism!!


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey racist,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Agree to a legal wager on US MESSAGE BOARD or run away as the low life liberal liar you are.
> 
> You are so great for liberalism!!
Click to expand...


moron...liar and hypocrite


----------



## The T

saveliberty said:


> Lakoff owes Obama for his minute of fame.


 
Lakoff...rhymes with....


----------



## Article 15

Foxfyre said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus fuck y'all have completely lost it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?   Do you really believe all that is evil and greedy and corrupting in the world is found in the activity of the business owner?   Do you honestly believe it is government that makes business prosper?  Or do you think it might be the other way around and it is people prospering in the private sector that makes those in government prosper?
> 
> Or do you see as Fearless Leader apparently does that there is no such thing as the private sector?  It ALL belongs to everybody?
Click to expand...


How so?

You've taken intellectual dishonesty to new levels with this nonsense.

What you, and other lying douchebags have done, is fabricate this idea that Obama is saying the only reason businesses thrive is because of government/what we collectively provide.  This is a big lie and you guys are in the process of repeating often enough and loud enough to try to make it true.



> The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.



This is the point that Obama was making and he said this immediately following the alleged big scary things that he said.  The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.  It's not funny that you conveniently ignore this, and Mitt Romney saying almost exactly the same thing to the Olympians, and instead fabricate a lie, it's pathetic.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey racist,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Agree to a legal wager on US MESSAGE BOARD or run away as the low life liberal liar you are.
> 
> You are so great for liberalism!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> moron...liar and hypocrite
Click to expand...



If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Agree to a legal wager on US MESSAGE BOARD or run away as the low life liberal liar you are.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Obama stated the obvious and the Willard campaign intentionally took him out of context, which they have done on EVERY issue....

Romney has NOTHING he can run on absolutely NOTHING so he has to LIE about what Obama says

my god, how could romney get 5% of the vote in that case?

answer:  racism


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Agree to a legal wager on US MESSAGE BOARD or run away as the low life liberal liar you are.
> 
> You are so great for liberalism!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moron...liar and hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Agree to a legal wager on US MESSAGE BOARD or run away as the low life liberal liar you are.
Click to expand...


all baggers are liars, hypocrites and racists, every post you post proves it...

you owe me $10,000 times how many posts have you made?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Article 15 said:


> The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.



Barry had two communist parents , voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is beloved by the CPUSA, and just coincidentially is just stating what was obvious to Karl Marx.

As a liberal you lack the IQ to grasp that Barry's creeping communism is a cancer on our society. 

Norman Thomas quotes:  
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of &#8220;infiltration&#8221; advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935: 
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy&#8217;s camp."[4] 

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium 


Buckley endorsed Chambers&#8217; analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but &#8220;revolutionary&#8221; in its nature and intentions, seeking &#8220;a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.&#8221;


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> moron...liar and hypocrite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence of that I'll pay you $10,000. Agree to a legal wager on US MESSAGE BOARD or run away as the low life liberal liar you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all baggers are liars, hypocrites and racists, every post you post proves it...
> 
> you owe me $10,000 times how many posts have you made?
Click to expand...


If you have evidence of [racism]that I'll pay you $10,000. Agree to a legal wager on US MESSAGE BOARD or run away as the low life liberal liar you are.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barry had two communist parents , voted to the left of Bernie Sanders
Click to expand...


well, it is official, you are insane

and cannot prove anything since you are completely insane

my god, i am embarrassed to be in the same country as you

So when you Independents question my comments about how RACIST these liars are, well, dont...

oh and ed the racist, you owe me another $10K

scum...pure scum


----------



## Article 15

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barry had two communist parents , voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is beloved by the CPUSA, and just coincidentially is just stating what was obvious to Karl Marx.
> 
> As a liberal you lack the IQ to grasp that Barry's creeping communism is a cancer on our society.
> 
> Norman Thomas quotes:
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
> 
> 
> This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
> "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4]
> 
> C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
> 
> 
> Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.
Click to expand...


Thanks for sharing, nutter.
*
*pats on head**


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Article 15 said:


> Thanks for sharing, nutter.
> *
> *pats on head**



I know we tend to laugh at these rabid fierce racist scum, but the republiklan party is currently filled with these guys, hell, the baggers in the house and senate are not as smart as some of the baggers on this board,

think about that for a minute


----------



## EriktheRed

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barry had two communist parents , voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is beloved by the CPUSA, and just coincidentially is just stating what was obvious to Karl Marx.
> 
> As a liberal you lack the IQ to grasp that Barry's creeping communism is a cancer on our society.
> 
> Norman Thomas quotes:
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
> 
> 
> This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
> "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4]
> 
> C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
> 
> 
> Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.
Click to expand...


IOW, you can't actually refute the idea put forth by the Prez (and others) that business success has also had help from government.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Of course they cant refute it, they arent that stupid, filled with hate yes, pretty stupid yes, but not that stupid


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barry had two communist parents , voted to the left of Bernie Sanders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, it is official, you are insane
> 
> and cannot prove anything since you are completely insane
> 
> *my god, i am embarrassed to be in the same country as you*
> 
> So when you Independents question my comments about how RACIST these liars are, well, dont...
> 
> oh and ed the racist, you owe me another $10K
> 
> scum...pure scum
Click to expand...


Please get with Franco and book tickets to Cuba.

They will love you there and we will not miss your sorry ass AT ALL.


----------



## Listening

EriktheRed said:


> IOW, you can't actually refute the idea put forth by the Prez (and others) that business success has also had help from government.



Someone in my family starts a travel agency in a small town that has a number of well to do people.

The town is not incorporated.

How did they get help from the government ?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Listening said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you can't actually refute the idea put forth by the Prez (and others) that business success has also had help from government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in my family starts a travel agency in a small town that has a number of well to do people.
> 
> The town is not incorporated.
> 
> How did they get help from the government ?
Click to expand...


dear god...this person actually does not know

and they chose a travel agency   LOL

This is why I say I have one percent left of me willing to hope they can be educated, changed...otherwise the road ahead is very bumpy...


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you can't actually refute the idea put forth by the Prez (and others) that business success has also had help from government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in my family starts a travel agency in a small town that has a number of well to do people.
> 
> The town is not incorporated.
> 
> How did they get help from the government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear god...this person actually does not know
> 
> and they chose a travel agency   LOL
> 
> This is why I say I have one percent left of me willing to hope they can be educated, changed...otherwise the road ahead is very bumpy...
Click to expand...


And the answer is ?

Well, for starters, there was a business license which had to come through some county entity.

It took a lawyer to help fill it out and there was nothing of value in it.  This is a cost thanks to government.

A small building was rented to start as an office......enough for two desks.  The building had been vacant.  The country required several upgrades in order to allow occupancy...none of which mattered or made sense.  That cost was shouldered by the business...not the building owner.  This is a cost thanks to government.

To install telephones in the building cost a small fortune.  Most of it due to the way they had to be installed...thanks to "code"....again, none of which brought value.  Cost due to government.

No sewers...septic tank.

Water supply done through a private firm....for profit.  Regulated by the county.  Firm disclosed that stupid regulations and red tape made the cost of water 10% greater.

Nothing so for that "you didn't build"

But a lot of "you paid for that"


----------



## EriktheRed

Listening said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you can't actually refute the idea put forth by the Prez (and others) that business success has also had help from government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in my family starts a travel agency in a small town that has a number of well to do people.
> 
> The town is not incorporated.
> 
> How did they get help from the government ?
Click to expand...




How do people travel?


----------



## Murf76

Article 15 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus fuck y'all have completely lost it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?   Do you really believe all that is evil and greedy and corrupting in the world is found in the activity of the business owner?   Do you honestly believe it is government that makes business prosper?  Or do you think it might be the other way around and it is people prospering in the private sector that makes those in government prosper?
> 
> Or do you see as Fearless Leader apparently does that there is no such thing as the private sector?  It ALL belongs to everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> You've taken intellectual dishonesty to new levels with this nonsense.
> 
> What you, and other lying douchebags have done, is fabricate this idea that Obama is saying the only reason businesses thrive is because of government/what we collectively provide.  This is a big lie and you guys are in the process of repeating often enough and loud enough to try to make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, [size5]]but also because we do things together[/size5].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the point that Obama was making and he said this immediately following the alleged big scary things that he said.  The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.  It's not funny that you conveniently ignore this, and Mitt Romney saying almost exactly the same thing to the Olympians, and instead fabricate a lie, it's pathetic.
Click to expand...


Yup.  That's where he CONFIRMS that he really said what we thought he said. 

It's the _"...but because we do things together"_ that infers a vested public interest in  private enterprises.  It's just like most other uses of the word "but".   One gives a small concession in an effort to be nice, but then they get to the main point.  So we throw out everything before the word "but".  
ie. I like you, but I think we should see other people. = We should see other people.

When it comes to these businesses though, Obama is still WRONG. There's no "we do thing together" in this.  These people PAY their share of the taxes which create the infrastructure and then some.  They're not free-riders.  They pay as they go.  Obama infers that they owe something.  They don't.  Their debt is paid, and more so than the true "free riders" we have in this country, people who are offsetting what little bit they do pay by taking welfare dollars.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

I have $50 that says she simply wont get it


----------



## ConzHateUSA

racism is so ugly...eh, can we just wait for all the racists to die off naturally?


----------



## Dr.House

EriktheRed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you can't actually refute the idea put forth by the Prez (and others) that business success has also had help from government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in my family starts a travel agency in a small town that has a number of well to do people.
> 
> The town is not incorporated.
> 
> How did they get help from the government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do people travel?
Click to expand...


Along the same roads that didn't help failed businesses...  They didn't get there on their own, huh?  The government helped them fail, right?


----------



## flacaltenn

Article 15 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus fuck y'all have completely lost it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?   Do you really believe all that is evil and greedy and corrupting in the world is found in the activity of the business owner?   Do you honestly believe it is government that makes business prosper?  Or do you think it might be the other way around and it is people prospering in the private sector that makes those in government prosper?
> 
> Or do you see as Fearless Leader apparently does that there is no such thing as the private sector?  It ALL belongs to everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> You've taken intellectual dishonesty to new levels with this nonsense.
> 
> What you, and other lying douchebags have done, is fabricate this idea that Obama is saying the only reason businesses thrive is because of government/what we collectively provide.  This is a big lie and you guys are in the process of repeating often enough and loud enough to try to make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the point that Obama was making and he said this immediately following the alleged big scary things that he said.  The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.  It's not funny that you conveniently ignore this, and Mitt Romney saying almost exactly the same thing to the Olympians, and instead fabricate a lie, it's pathetic.
Click to expand...


You can't disguise the message that Obama believes that all HARD WORK ("A LOT of folks work hard") should have equal value.. A prime tenet of the collectivist idealogy that he was immersed in.. Or that you didn't excel in a business venture because you are smart ("there's a LOT of smart people out there") 

If working HARD was the only determinant for recieving great fortune -- we should take away MicroSoft Excel and force everyone to use pencils and slide rules. 

Or hand out more shovels and less construction equipment. 

This idea that somehow creators, innovators and outstanding performers didn't work harder and smarter than the window washers they hired is the very BASIS of collectivism. 

I have no doubts that some special needs students work REAL HARD. Doesn't mean they get to be valedictorian of the class.

And no -- society doesn't value sweat labor.. They value TALENT, RESOLVE, and Creativity.
That's just the reality of life.. Try to distort that reality -- and you end up defending the indefensible.. 

All hard-working folks do not produce equal value.. Keep up that charade and your class warfare and see what the result of your hard work will be...


----------



## Dr.House

ConzHateUSA said:


> racism is so ugly...eh, can we just wait for all the racists to die off naturally?



When you're gone that'll be one less racist fuckstain in the world...

True Story, Bro...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Again, racist, get an education please

for instance, which american president resided over top tax rates at 70%_________________

35% __________________________


----------



## ConzHateUSA

which president created the EPA _____________


----------



## ConzHateUSA

which right wing org created the individual mandate ________________


----------



## ConzHateUSA

which right wing org and politicians supported carbon tax  ___________________


----------



## ConzHateUSA

which republican politicians supported ending DADT  ___________________


----------



## ConzHateUSA

there are good and long answers to all of these...


----------



## EriktheRed

Dr.House said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in my family starts a travel agency in a small town that has a number of well to do people.
> 
> The town is not incorporated.
> 
> How did they get help from the government ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do people travel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Along the same roads that didn't help failed businesses...  They didn't get there on their own, huh?  The government helped them fail, right?
Click to expand...


You just outdid yourself in stupid.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

I know, they are amazingly stupid...and they think we are just saying that to be argumentative...

how pathetic


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> there are good and long answers to all of these...



Which you don't have.


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> I know, they are amazingly stupid...and they think we are just saying that to be argumentative...
> 
> how pathetic



We will continue the narrative in a bit.

However, we should take time out to establish that assholes go.....they don't get any bigger than you.

You call this a debate ?

Pathetic.


----------



## Dr.House

EriktheRed said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do people travel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Along the same roads that didn't help failed businesses...  They didn't get there on their own, huh?  The government helped them fail, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just outdid yourself in stupid.
Click to expand...


Coming yorom you that means...

Well...

Nothing, actually...

Keep up the good work, though...


----------



## Listening

Which president pushed up the debt 5 billion in less than one term _______________________


----------



## buckeye45_73

boilermaker55 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, business should thank government for not taking more of what isn't theirs in the first place?
> 
> And just who is paying for this "labor and effort of others"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a republican to have such a narcissistic and self-centered point of view.
> They cannot admit that it takes more than an idea to have it work.
> If you think your hard-work alone and your money alone makes a business thrive then you have the narcissistic attitude and reality in now way shape or form can make you see the truth.
Click to expand...

 
Well do tell us what else it takes, oh yeah employees which YOU pay and materials which YOU buy, organization which YOU provide and capital which YOU might provide or somebody else might INVEST in YOU and YOUR idea. So yeah it's pretty much up to YOU to make your business succeed.


----------



## mudwhistle

Listening said:


> Which president pushed up the debt 5 billion in less than one term _______________________



$6 trillion.


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> I have $50 that says she simply wont get it



Moving right along.

This family member attended public school long enough to be abused by a teacher that was both certified and tenured.  Took some time to get them over that one.  Lots of medical costs (which the district did not fully cover) and some lost time......

Education through college was all obtained through private institutions (for profit).

Government cost.  No teacher from the government that helped (only hurt).

Bonding requirements (because of government) were about 4 x what they should have been.  Money had to be borrowed from family at 6% to cover this little goody.  Plus paperwork slowed down opening through the busy season.

More costs due to government.

No road to the building.  Most of the town was built on graded roads...not asphault.  Most of it was intially donated by a wealth benefactor.....no help from the government.

County taxes plus "township" surecharge forced a reduction in margin relative to margins in the "big city" (Phoenix).  More cost from the government.

Now, where is the help ?

We will continue.


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are good and long answers to all of these...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you don't have.
Click to expand...

 
By a long shot.


----------



## flacaltenn

The T said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are good and long answers to all of these...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By a long shot.
Click to expand...


The twit with the wit of garden gnome doesn't do "good" and he cant' go "long"...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

amazing...truly amazing, you guys actually do live in an alternate universe...thank GOD you are the minority

didnt even try to answer one of my questions, not one


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Listening said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are good and long answers to all of these...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you don't have.
Click to expand...


you really dont believe there are answers to these questions 

really?

are you that historically inept?

let me get you started



for instance, which american president resided over top tax rates at 70%______nixon___________

35% ________obama__________________


----------



## ConzHateUSA

which president created the EPA _____nixon________


----------



## ConzHateUSA

which right wing org created the individual mandate ___heritage foundation_____________


----------



## ConzHateUSA

which right wing org and politicians supported carbon tax _____





> _Serious -- and less serious, but surprising -- conservatives and Republicans are beginning to suggest that a tax on carbon might be on the table next year as part of comprehensive tax reform. Carbon taxes fit conservative tax theory: they hit consumption, not savings or investments; are market-perfecting, instead of distorting; and are easy to collect._____________




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/time-to-tax-carbon-pollution_b_1703503.html


----------



## ConzHateUSA

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19cong.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Game


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Set


----------



## ConzHateUSA

*MATCH*



Who's Next


----------



## Rozman

So when businesses succeed it's all because of government..
Who's fault is it when they fail?....

Does Obama and his big government lackeys take responsibility for any of that?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Rozman said:


> So when businesses succeed it's all because of government..
> Who's fault is it when they fail?....
> 
> Does Obama and his big government lackeys take responsibility for any of that?



and when an idiot rightwinger is losing the argument they use words like "all" when nobody up until that point used that word at all..did they

you are very bad at this, son


----------



## Foxfyre

ThAt's the question that has been asked a LOT Roz, and not one of them has even acknowledged it, much less tried to answer it.

But does USMB have a limit on the number of posts in a row that can be posted before it is illegal spamming?  Probably not.


----------



## Mac1958

.

When a business succeeds, it's because we have roads.

When a business fails, it's because its owner is stupid.

Something like that.

.


----------



## Dr.House

Rozman said:


> So when businesses succeed it's all because of government..
> Who's fault is it when they fail?....
> 
> Does Obama and his big government lackeys take responsibility for any of that?



No, they did that - they made that happen...

The government is only responsible for successes...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Pretending not to understand what the Prez said, that it is obvious that what  he said is true, is continuing your racism ...you dont see that, but we do....the planet sees that

time to put aside your very immature thoughts and understand that we are all in the same boat and there are a few very rich, very powerful people who plan on sinking it


----------



## Rozman

Foxfyre said:


> ThAt's the question that has been asked a LOT Roz, and not one of them has even acknowledged it, much less tried to answer it.
> 
> But does USMB have a limit on the number of posts in a row that can be posted before it is illegal spamming?  Probably not.



I heard something the other day and I think it may be true.
You can earn money by signing up with let's say a left wing organization
and I would think right wing as well.You get paid by the post.Maybe a few cent's maybe
as much as 10c per post....I always wondered why some members here post let's say
10 times in a row when they can voice their opinion in one post.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rozman said:


> So when businesses succeed it's all because of government..
> Who's fault is it when they fail?....
> 
> Does Obama and his big government lackeys take responsibility for any of that?



good point, about 60,000 a year go bankrupt. Barry should have a little welfare subsidy to help them get back on their feet!


----------



## The T

Dr.House said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when businesses succeed it's all because of government..
> Who's fault is it when they fail?....
> 
> Does Obama and his big government lackeys take responsibility for any of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they did that - they made that happen...
> 
> The government is only responsible for successes...
Click to expand...

 
Indeed Doc...say... did you happen to see this yesterday?

Representative Mike Kelly on the Floor of the House?

Standing 'O'...unheard of on the floor...

[and he's correct]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1YQDjpuY_U"]Rep. Kelly's Rousing Floor Speech Receives Standing Ovation and Chants of "USA!" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ConzHateUSA said:


> there are a few very rich, very powerful people who plan on sinking it



Yes, like Gates and Jobs by offering us products at a price and quality that we prefer more than any others in the world to raise our standard of living. A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

We should punish Gates and Jobs and reward those who make little or no contribution to our ever rising standard of living. Its the liberal way.


----------



## ABikerSailor

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are a few very rich, very powerful people who plan on sinking it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like Gates and Jobs by offering us products at a price and quality that we prefer more than any others in the world to raise our standard of living. A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.
> 
> We should punish Gates and Jobs and reward those who make little or no contribution to our ever rising standard of living. Its the liberal way.
Click to expand...


You DO realize that those products are manufactured in China, right?

The only jobs that the iPhone or any of the other related products generated here in the US is sales jobs only, which is only a small percentage of the people employed overseas.


----------



## flacaltenn

ABikerSailor said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are a few very rich, very powerful people who plan on sinking it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like Gates and Jobs by offering us products at a price and quality that we prefer more than any others in the world to raise our standard of living. A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.
> 
> We should punish Gates and Jobs and reward those who make little or no contribution to our ever rising standard of living. Its the liberal way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You DO realize that those products are manufactured in China, right?
> 
> The only jobs that the iPhone or any of the other related products generated here in the US is sales jobs only, which is only a small percentage of the people employed overseas.
Click to expand...


Just sales jobs eh? Not THOUSANDS of hardware and software engineers? No manufacturing engineers to watch over the Chinese? No MBAs to manage the cash flow and materials chain? No Human Resources? Advertising,?  Compliance? Purchasing?

You're right about the ASSEMBLY jobs --- but the Apple example better be taken note of - because our kids are gonna have to start thinking about acquiring more skills.. 

But besides the 100s of thousands of jobs SELLING Apple crap, Apple DOES have a job presence in Cupertino, CA and all over the USA.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't refute the topic, the tactic is change the subject folks or pick somebody to demonize or buld straw men to attack or throw red herrings into the bait bucket.
> 
> The topic is whether Obama is right that everybody deserves a cut of the businessman's profits because everybody earned them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not the 'topic'. That is YOUR polemic, partisan and dishonest propaganda. That is not what the President said.
> 
> We are on page 234 of this thread. The topic has been debated ad nauseum. Let me recap and clarify.
> 
> The President made a speech, and conservatives and Republicans have taken out of context one line in his speech, and grossly twisted the meaning. They are using it as an attack on Obama.
> 
> Conservatives and Republicans only want you to hear the one line where the President said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," but they don't want you to hear the sentences preceding and following that line that make it clear he was referring to the government infrastructure that helps businesses succeed, not the businesses themselves.
Click to expand...


Let me recap and clarify.

The President made a speech about how business owners should "give something back".  Conservatives and Republicans took the words OF HIS ENTIRE SPEECH exactly as they were meant and found them understandably offensive . . . understandable to everyone but ignorant, mooching liberals, that is.  Liberal worshippers of Obama immediately jumped into action to spin, divert, and obfuscate, and have now spent 234 pages of this thread stubbornly pretending not just that conservative points are wrong, but that THEY WERE SIMPLY NEVER MADE AT ALL.

_Liberal:  "You're focusing on one line, and it doesn't mean that.  Obama was just pointing out that the government builds roads and bridges."

Conservative:  "Look at the text of the speech.  He was talking about his economic plans for the future, and how the successful should give something back.  He even said, 'You think you're successful because you were smart and worked hard, but you weren't.'"

Liberal:  "You're focusing on one line, and it doesn't mean that.  Obama was just pointing out that the government builds roads and bridges."

Conservative:  "Private businesses contracting with the government build the roads and bridges, and they're paid for by taxpayer dollars.  Government creates nothing and generates no revenue of its own.  It has nothing that it hasn't taken from someone else.  Business owners pay taxes, so they paid for and continue to pay for that infrastructure.  They owe the government nothing more."

Liberal:  "You're focusing on one line, and it doesn't mean that.  Obama was just pointing out that the government builds roads and bridges."

Conservative:  "Everyone uses the infrastructure, not just business owners, yet not everyone is a business owner or successful.  Obviously, the roads and bridges and whatever other government services are NOT the reason businesses are successful."

Liberal:  "You're focusing on one line, and it doesn't mean that.  Obama was just pointing out that the government builds roads and bridges."_

If we were doing this in real life, rather than on the Internet, this would be the point where the conservative starts bashing the liberal's empty head against a table.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to try and get your information from other sources. And I'm not talking about getting your information from the Left, which would be equally as bad.
> 
> Obama was referring to the modern industrial base of this country, upon which capital depends. The Hoover Dam, the interstate system, the energy grids, water treatment and delivery, the postwar build-up of rural and suburban America - the incredible wealth of infrastructure that was created through taxation and the government allocation of capital.  Great Republican presidents like Eisenhower put our noble veterans to work building the infrastructure of the modern industrial state upon which commerce depends. Much of the technology that fueled the 80s consumer electronics boom came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA.
> 
> The big banks crave FDIC insurance, which allows them to take greater risks with capital. Thousands of profitable businesses have depended  deeply on government subsidies and bailouts. The entire property system depends on a vigorous and powerful law enforcement network (controlled and funded by the public). Do you know how much money it costs to fund just the legal infrastructure that safeguards just one futures market? Do you know how much Boeing and commercial aviation depended on government subsidies? Commerce  and the profits made therein have always depended on a complicated partnership between government and the private sector. Not one penny of profit in the Southwest would be possible without the Hooever Dam. You need to study these things without repeating talk radio cliches. [There are great arguments against the Left, but none of them come from the think tanks and media sources on the right].
> 
> Do you understand the multiplier effect - the profit - made possible by Eisenhower's Interstate? Obama was inelegantly referring to the wider nexus of infrastructure upon which capital depends.
> 
> My friend did some of his Ph.D research in the outskirts of Nairobi. He lived in a building which had constant electrical fires because there were no regulations or codes for laying electrical lines. For this reason, business cannot invest in this part of the world. Their property - their goods - would be destroyed in a fire, or stolen because of zero law enforcement. Here is what you don't understand. Profit depends on the codes and law enforcement provided by the public, managed by government. Capital craves the modern industrial state. Commerce would be IMPOSSIBLE without these things. Profit makers depend on others. This doesn't mean that they should not earn a profit for the amount they add to the equation. It only means that the current anti-tax revolution ignores the infrastructure upon which profit so deeply depends.
> 
> Turn off talk radio. You have been lied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which might all be interesting points if these businesses didn't ALREADY PAY TAXES.  They do it continually, paying every kind of federal, state, local tax you can imagine.  They PAY for their use of the infrastructure just like they pay any other business expense... and then some.  They've already paid their debt to a decent society.  They don't owe anything extra to Obama and his electoral ambitions.
> 
> *It's a long thread, but we've already covered this ground... repeatedly*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet, the same falsehood that they paid into the system is still being expressed.
> 
> 
> 30 major corporations that paid NOTHING in taxes in the last THREE years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> \
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies negative tax rates mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years
> 
> 
> http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how in the hell can anyone defend Wells Fargo paying NOTHING in taxes after we bailed them out? Thats the very definition of freeloader.
Click to expand...


Who's defending it?  It's YOUR President's administration that's been in control and letting them get away with not paying for the last three years.  WE didn't elect the guy, and WE aren't clamoring to re-elect him.  YOU are.  So how are you getting from that to blaming US?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not the 'topic'. That is YOUR polemic, partisan and dishonest propaganda. That is not what the President said.
> 
> We are on page 234 of this thread. The topic has been debated ad nauseum. Let me recap and clarify.
> 
> The President made a speech, and conservatives and Republicans have taken out of context one line in his speech, and grossly twisted the meaning. They are using it as an attack on Obama.
> 
> Conservatives and Republicans only want you to hear the one line where the President said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," but they don't want you to hear the sentences preceding and following that line that make it clear he was referring to the government infrastructure that helps businesses succeed, not the businesses themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dipshit, we read the whole frigging speech.  Please read it yourself and tell us what "context" we're supposed to derive from it . . . so we can laugh at your desperate attempts to continue kissing Obama's ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You folks keep on holding your hands over your ears and shouting I CANT HEAR YOU! I CANT HEAR YOU!!!
> 
> That seems to be your only response now to the truth you so conveniently ignore because it doesnt fit your OBAMABADMAN narrative.
Click to expand...


See?  It's just like I said.

Conservative:  "Read the transcript of the speech, and tell us what it means and what the context is."

Liberal:  "I'm right, you're wrong, you just don't like Obama."

Conservative:  "Look, I'll even cut-and-paste the speech for you.  Tell me what the context is that you think I'm refusing to hear."

Liberal:  "I'm right, you're wrong, you just don't like Obama."

Yeah, dipshit, I'M the one with my hands over my ears, shouting, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"  That's why YOU are the one repeating yourself and refusing to answer the question.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Article 15 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus fuck y'all have completely lost it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?   Do you really believe all that is evil and greedy and corrupting in the world is found in the activity of the business owner?   Do you honestly believe it is government that makes business prosper?  Or do you think it might be the other way around and it is people prospering in the private sector that makes those in government prosper?
> 
> Or do you see as Fearless Leader apparently does that there is no such thing as the private sector?  It ALL belongs to everybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> You've taken intellectual dishonesty to new levels with this nonsense.
> 
> What you, and other lying douchebags have done, is fabricate this idea that Obama is saying the only reason businesses thrive is because of government/what we collectively provide.  This is a big lie and you guys are in the process of repeating often enough and loud enough to try to make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the point that Obama was making and he said this immediately following the alleged big scary things that he said.  The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.  It's not funny that you conveniently ignore this, and Mitt Romney saying almost exactly the same thing to the Olympians, and instead fabricate a lie, it's pathetic.
Click to expand...


I invite you to read the entire transcript of Obama's speech and tell us in what POSSIBLE way it provides a different context than exactly what the ENTIRE NATION has read it to be.

Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event in Roanoke, Virginia | The White House


----------



## Cecilie1200

EriktheRed said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Obama was just stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barry had two communist parents , voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is beloved by the CPUSA, and just coincidentially is just stating what was obvious to Karl Marx.
> 
> As a liberal you lack the IQ to grasp that Barry's creeping communism is a cancer on our society.
> 
> Norman Thomas quotes:
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
> 
> 
> This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
> "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4]
> 
> C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
> 
> 
> Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IOW, you can't actually refute the idea put forth by the Prez (and others) that business success has also had help from government.
Click to expand...


Read the thread, dimwit.  We've been refuting it for approximately 240 pages.  It's YOU who cannot refute what we've said.  All you can do is parrot, "We're right, you're wrong, you just don't like Obama."


----------



## Cecilie1200

EriktheRed said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you can't actually refute the idea put forth by the Prez (and others) that business success has also had help from government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in my family starts a travel agency in a small town that has a number of well to do people.
> 
> The town is not incorporated.
> 
> How did they get help from the government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do people travel?
Click to expand...


All right, let me simple this down for the simpletons (read: leftists) among us.

Picture the business world as a football game.  The stadium would be, basically, the world:  all of the environmental factors that affect our lives, like geography, weather, what-have-you.

The teams would be those people who chose to start businesses, or continue existing businesses.  The spectators are all those people who chose not to be entrepreneurs for whatever reason, either because they didn't want the risk and effort and responsibility, or because their talent and skill sets didn't run that way, or whatever.

Now this is the important part, so try to stay with me.  Government is not a member of any of the teams.  It is not the coach, or the team trainer, or the team doctor, or any of the people who actively contribute to helping their team win.  Government is the playing field.  It is the basic gridiron on which all the teams play.

It is a very good thing to have a nice, solid, smooth, level playing field when playing football.  But if necessary, football can be played on any large, empty piece of ground.  It was played that way long before the building of fancy stadiums, and is still played that way by people in parks and on beaches and what-have-you.  

When a team wins a football game, they don't say, "Thank God for that great field.  We'd have never managed this victory if the field hadn't been so good."  They don't give any of the credit for their win to the guy who mows the grass and paints the yard lines.  And when one football team wins and the other loses, BOTH WERE PLAYING ON THE SAME FIELD.  Which means the success created there isn't due to the field they both shared, but the talent, hard work, training, and practice that the winners put in to use that field more effectively than the losers did.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well done Cecile.  Let&#8217;s try a different analogy.

At one time on the east side of the county there were no people.  Then somebody builds a house out there, puts in his own well with a pump run by his own wind charger and battery backed up generator.  Also necessary is a wood stove, propane tank, and septic system, all put in by private contractors.  He has a rough road graded from the distant highway.

Gradually as more and more people move into the area, they are able to pool resources to have electricity and telephone service brought to their community, provided by private co-ops serving distant communities.  With so many folks now in the area they agree that rather than risk contamination from so many septic systems, a shared sewer system should go in, and then a shared water system.  Eventually there is enough tax base to pay for paved roads to replace the rough graded ones.

Then somebody takes the risk to put in a small grocery store so folks won&#8217;t have to drive 20 miles to the city for a loaf of bread or bottle of milk.  Then somebody puts in a gas station, somebody else an auto repair shop, somebody else a dental office until there is a thriving business community.  The growing tax base funds even more and better infrastructure to meet the needs of the growing community.

THAT is how government happens and how infrastructure is accomplished.  It is people and commerce and industry preceding infrastructure, not the other way around.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> Well done Cecile. Lets try a different analogy.
> 
> A one time on the east side of the country there were no people. Then somebody builds a house out there, puts in his own well with a pump run by his own wind charger and battery backed up generator. Also necessary is a wood stove, propane tank, and septic system, all put in by private contractors. He has a rough road graded from the distant highway.
> 
> Gradually as more and more people move into the area, they are able to pool resources to have electricity and telephone service brought to their community, provided by private co-ops serving distant communities. With so many folks now in the area they agree that rather than risk contamination from so many septic systems, a shared sewer system should go in, and then a shared water system. Eventually there is enough tax base to pay for paved roads to replace the rough graded ones.
> 
> Then somebody takes the risk to put in a small grocery store so folks wont have to drive 20 miles to the city for a loaf of bread or bottle of milk. Then somebody puts in a gas station, somebody else an auto repair shop, somebody else a dental office until there is a thriving business community. The growing tax base funds even more and better infrastructure to meet the needs of the growing community.
> 
> THAT is how government happens and how infrastructure is accomplished. It is people and commerce and industry preceding infrastructure, not the other way around.


 

Indeed. I can state with certainty, and on merit of my work in rual areas of Northern Florida attest to this.

I do alot of work in rual areas where dirt roads and septic tanks are the rule...powerlines along those unimproved roads exist out of necessity, and are private.

I've seen similiar areas grow, and with growth of population the county gets involved with a large enough tax base to IMPROVE those roads, and everything else that goes with it.

Well done.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ABikerSailor said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are a few very rich, very powerful people who plan on sinking it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like Gates and Jobs by offering us products at a price and quality that we prefer more than any others in the world to raise our standard of living. A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.
> 
> We should punish Gates and Jobs and reward those who make little or no contribution to our ever rising standard of living. Its the liberal way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You DO realize that those products are manufactured in China, right?
> 
> The only jobs that the iPhone or any of the other related products generated here in the US is sales jobs only, which is only a small percentage of the people employed overseas.
Click to expand...


dear, our subject was whether they were sinking the ship  by offering us what we determined  we wanted to buy at the price we wanted to buy it!! If someone offers you are new Porsche for $5000 do you kiss him or accuse him of sinking the ship??


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> It is people and commerce and industry preceding infrastructure, not the other way around.




yes, when the first two farmers finally decided to build a road between their farms so they could trade their crops they didn't elect a road president to tell them the road was suddenly the most important variable in their survival. The road was merely a very simple adjunct to their very complicated businesses. The road  president could be replaced 1000 times over at the drop of a hat while the surviving business owner is a 1 in a 1000 irreplaceable genius.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> Read the thread, dimwit.  We've been refuting it for approximately 240 pages.  It's YOU who cannot refute what we've said.  All you can do is parrot, "We're right, you're wrong, you just don't like Obama."



You're the dimwit here, twit. It has been refuted many times, and comprehensively. If you can't see that, then that's on you.

It is not our problem you have severe reading comprehensions problems and will do anything to justify your hatred of your president.

You rambling on how you have (falsely) refuted what was said in the statement, doesn't mean you have. Just that you think you have. There is a difference...


----------



## Dr Grump

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is people and commerce and industry preceding infrastructure, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, when the first two farmers finally decided to build a road between their farms so they could trade their crops they didn't elect a road president to tell them the road was suddenly the most important variable in their survival. The road was merely a very simple adjunct to their very complicated businesses. The road  president could be replaced 1000 times over at the drop of a hat while the surviving business owner is a 1 in a 1000 irreplaceable genius.
Click to expand...


Yeah, let's compare a dirt track to freeways, the state highway system etc etc etc. What do you do for an encore, wax lyrical how donkey shit was the pre cursor to the fertiliser industry?


----------



## Dr.House

Dr Grump said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is people and commerce and industry preceding infrastructure, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, when the first two farmers finally decided to build a road between their farms so they could trade their crops they didn't elect a road president to tell them the road was suddenly the most important variable in their survival. The road was merely a very simple adjunct to their very complicated businesses. The road  president could be replaced 1000 times over at the drop of a hat while the surviving business owner is a 1 in a 1000 irreplaceable genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, let's compare a dirt track to freeways, the state highway system etc etc etc. What do you do for an encore, wax lyrical how donkey shit was the pre cursor to the fertiliser industry?
Click to expand...


Roads and bridges cannot be credited or blamed for a business' success or failure...  They exist and their existence does not guarantee you will be successful in your business...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dr Grump said:


> Yeah, let's compare a dirt track to freeways, the state highway system etc etc etc.



Dear, Roman roads survive to this day. Roads are hardly big achievements like Iphone's, jet planes, CAT scans, and LCD TV's. America's greatness is not in its roads I can assure you!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dr.House said:


> Roads and bridges cannot be credited or blamed for a business' success or failure...  They exist and their existence does not guarantee you will be successful in your business...




Gee I thought the USSR failed because it had bad roads!!! What they needed was Barry sticking up for their road builders!!


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Cecile. Let&#8217;s try a different analogy.
> 
> A one time on the east side of the country there were no people. Then somebody builds a house out there, puts in his own well with a pump run by his own wind charger and battery backed up generator. Also necessary is a wood stove, propane tank, and septic system, all put in by private contractors. He has a rough road graded from the distant highway.
> 
> Gradually as more and more people move into the area, they are able to pool resources to have electricity and telephone service brought to their community, provided by private co-ops serving distant communities. With so many folks now in the area they agree that rather than risk contamination from so many septic systems, a shared sewer system should go in, and then a shared water system. Eventually there is enough tax base to pay for paved roads to replace the rough graded ones.
> 
> Then somebody takes the risk to put in a small grocery store so folks won&#8217;t have to drive 20 miles to the city for a loaf of bread or bottle of milk. Then somebody puts in a gas station, somebody else an auto repair shop, somebody else a dental office until there is a thriving business community. The growing tax base funds even more and better infrastructure to meet the needs of the growing community.
> 
> THAT is how government happens and how infrastructure is accomplished. It is people and commerce and industry preceding infrastructure, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I can state with certainty, and on merit of my work in rual areas of Northern Florida attest to this.
> 
> I do alot of work in rual areas where dirt roads and septic tanks are the rule...powerlines along those unimproved roads exist out of necessity, and are private.
> 
> I've seen similiar areas grow, and with growth of population the county gets involved with a large enough tax base to IMPROVE those roads, and everything else that goes with it.
> 
> Well done.
Click to expand...


And it is also easy to continue the story.  As the community grows, there are enough people to put together their own volunteer Fire Department and thereby lower everybody's insurance rates.  The people vote to hire one Policeman with authority to serve and protect to watch over their properties when they are away.  In time all the rural communities come up with a rated county volunteer fire department system with everybody helping everybody and thereby further reduce their insurance rates.  They share in the County Sheriff's dept so that there are more trained resources to handle larger emergencies.  A medical clinic goes in and then a small hospital.

As the community grows it becomes unwieldly handling the funding and management of all the various shared services so the community votes to incorporate, becomes a village and hires a mayor and village clerk to coodinate it all.  More services and more staff are added as the village grows, becomes a town, and then a bustling city.

In all cases government and infrastructure is developed to serve the existing commerce and industry and those participating in it.  Government doesn't come first, and then the commerce and industry.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might be good to divide Reagan into his Democrat/Republican phases. Reagan was a New Dealer to the core _until_ he landed in the top tax bracket in 1954 with his massive Warner Brothers checks.
> 
> But his support of the Left, FDR, and the New Deal is without question. In his autobiography "Where's the rest of me?" - which Nancy tried to re-publish but Norquist and Legacy Project crushed - he supports FDR massively. He definitely grew disillusioned under Truman but he was an ardent Cold Warrior, which used to be the province of the Left, which wanted to save the world from Washington.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M]Reagan Campaigns for Truman in 1948 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the liberals have created huge ghettos of dependency, to buy votes, that go on and on over many generations. The liberal Great Society amounted to a near genocide against American blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting to see how LBJ and Reagan handled the "black problem". LBJ used the War on Poverty to help lift them up whereas Reagan used the War on Drugs to cage them. Both policies failed.
> 
> (Look at the rate of black incarceration under Reagan's War on Drugs. It will blow your mind. The War on Drugs gave Washington and the states more power to incarcerate the superfluous - people laid low by circumstance (slavery), poor genes, and choice. The USA has the highest prison population by an unbelievable margin - and the proportion of blacks to whites is beyond belief. This is the natural consequence of unwinding a welfare state. When you get rid of safety nets and disposses entire races or classes, you better build cages. So much of government is dealing with either the dependents or have-nots. White people had/have much higher pot consumption, but as property owners with accumulated wealth, they are less disruptive. The need for social control is much less for people who benefit from the status quo)
> 
> Regardless . . . be careful with the Right's construction of Reagan. Seriously, the Reagan Legacy Project created by Norquist was designed to create a symbolic Reagan - a leader as meaningful and important to the Right as FDR was to the Left. Norquist literally drained Reagan of all his moderate and Leftist elements. For God's sake, Reagan passed the most liberal abortion policy as governor of California (where he was in EVERY position to stop it. He got in bed with the Moral Majority so he could consolidate the South and Heartland. Much of his supposed social conservatism was pure opportunism. It was a way to win elections by creating a powerful rightwing populism that appealed to the poor. Please turn off talk radio).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree the war on drugs has been a huge failure. But it started with Richard Nixon. Reagan brought us a second wave of regressive policies. The United States has less than 5% of the worlds population. But it has almost 25% of the worlds prisoners.
> 
> On the other hand, the war on poverty was a success, despite the fact Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam. The war on poverty was based on a design conservatives should get behind. But, as you said: The rightwing voter has been 100% captured by propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty.
> 
> The war on poverty was a New Frontier idea. In 1961, Kennedy took office and put together a Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime. Surplus funds were put to work for job, housing and education programs. President Kennedy had on his agenda a war on poverty and this was the beginning. Kennedy died in Dallas but not his desire to attack poverty.
> 
> When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.
> 
> To address some of the players in the conservative fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment.
> 
> The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref
> 
> Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...
> 
> Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.
> 
> Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.
> 
> Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.
> 
> Career paths
> 
> Career paths offered by Job Corps include:
> 
> Advanced manufacturing
> 
> Communication design
> Drafting
> Electronic assembly
> Machine appliance repair
> Machining
> Welding
> Manufacturing technology
> Sign, billboard, and display
> 
> Automotive and machine repair
> 
> Automobile technician
> General services technician
> Collision repair and refinish
> Heavy construction equipment mechanic
> Diesel mechanic
> Medium/heavy truck repair
> Electronics tech
> Stationary engineering
> 
> Construction
> 
> Bricklaying
> Carpentry
> Cement masonry
> Concrete and terrazzo
> Construction craft laborer
> Electrical
> Electrical overhead line
> Facilities maintenance
> Floor covering
> Glazing
> HVAC
> Industrial engineering technician
> Licensed electrician (bilingual)
> Mechanical engineering technician
> Painting
> Plastering
> Plumbing
> Roto-Rooter plumbing
> Tile setting
> 
> Extension programs
> 
> Advanced Career Training (ACT)
> General Educational Development (GED)
> Commercial driver's license (CDL)
> Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
> High school diploma (HSD Program)
> 
> Finance and Business
> 
> Accounting services
> Business management
> Clerical occupations
> Legal secretary
> Insurance and financial services
> Marketing
> Medical insurance specialist
> Office administration
> Paralegal
> Purchasing
> 
> Health care/allied health professions
> 
> Clinical medical assistant
> Dental assistant
> EKG technician
> Emergency medical technician
> Exercise/massage therapy
> Hemodialysis technician
> Licensed practical/vocational nurse
> Medical office support
> Nurse assistant/home health aide
> Opticianry
> Pharmacy technician
> Phlebotomy
> Physical therapy assistant
> Rehabilitation therapy
> Rehabilitation technician
> Registered nurse
> Respiratory therapy
> Sterile processing
> Surgical technician
> 
> Homeland security
> 
> Corrections officer
> Seamanship
> Security and protective services
> 
> Hospitality
> 
> Culinary arts
> Hotel and lodging
> 
> Information technology
> 
> A+ Microsoft MSCE
> Computer Networking/Cisco
> Computer systems administrator
> Computer support specialist
> Computer technician
> Integrated system tech
> Network cable installation
> Visual communications
> 
> Renewable resources and energy
> 
> Forest conservation and urban forestry
> Firefighting
> Wastewater
> Landscaping
> 
> Retail sales and services
> 
> Behavioral health aide
> Criminal justice
> Child development
> Residential advisor
> Cosmetology
> Retail sales
> 
> Transportation
> 
> Asphalt paving
> Material and distribution operations
> Clerical occupations
> Heavy equipment operations
> Roustabout operator
> Heavy truck driving
> TCU administrative clerk
Click to expand...


All very well thought out in theory.
The times have changed. It is far easier to simply apply for and receive checks from the government for doing nothing. 
Why become skilled in a trade when it is easier to sit on one's fat useless ass and collect?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Londoner said:


> Regardless . . . be careful with the Right's construction of Reagan.



Too stupid but perfectly liberal. Reagan was best friends with Wm. Buckley to the end based on a shared ideology! No one loved and  supported Reagan more than National Review. I can't think of even one liberal position Reagan held after he became a Republican.

There is no one more ardent than a recent convert!!


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless . . . be careful with the Right's construction of Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid but perfectly liberal. Reagan was best friends with Wm. Buckley to the end based on a shared ideology! No one loved and  supported Reagan more than National Review. I can't think of even one liberal position Reagan held after he became a Republican.
> 
> There is no one more ardent than a recent convert!!
Click to expand...


Then youre not thinking hard enough. ( no surprise there! )



> In a 1991 editorial, *Reagan wrote that the Brady Act would provide a crucial &#8220;enforcement mechanism&#8221; to end the &#8220;honor system&#8221; of the 1968 Gun Control Act and &#8220;can&#8217;t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.&#8221; *He knew that responsibility had to be part of gun ownership and that protections needed to be in place to keep criminals and the mentally disabled from having guns, therefore protecting innocent American lives. The Brady Act would be signed two years after Reagan&#8217;s editorial by Bill Clinton in 1993.
> 
> In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, required employers to attest to their employees&#8217; immigration status, and *granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1982*, and had lived in the country continuously.
> 
> 
> According to Reagan&#8217;s biographer Lou Cannon, *the president called the death of innocent civilians in anti-terror operations &#8220;terrorism itself.&#8221;* Reagan also denounced the use of torture and believed it shouldn&#8217;t be used under any circumstances. And as proof that *Reagan abhorred torture and supported the U.N. **he signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture in 1988. It stated that torture cannot be used under &#8220;no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever.&#8221; *
> 
> Despite cutting taxes once in 1981, *Reagan raised corporate taxes *and many other taxes as well. But *he also hired more government workers. 200,000 more to be exact.*
> 
> Despite his promise to cut Social Security and kill Medicare, Reagan actually saved both programs. First, his admiration for FDR and his New Deal programs were enough for Reagan to save the program by *raising payroll taxes in 1983*.
> 
> Reagan The Liberal | Addicting Info



By todays standards, Reagan would have been called a RINO.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless . . . be careful with the Right's construction of Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid but perfectly liberal. Reagan was best friends with Wm. Buckley to the end based on a shared ideology! No one loved and supported Reagan more than National Review. I can't think of even one liberal position Reagan held after he became a Republican.
> 
> There is no one more ardent than a recent convert!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then youre not thinking hard enough. ( no surprise there! )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a 1991 editorial, *Reagan wrote that the Brady Act would provide a crucial &#8220;enforcement mechanism&#8221; to end the &#8220;honor system&#8221; of the 1968 Gun Control Act and &#8220;can&#8217;t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.&#8221; *He knew that responsibility had to be part of gun ownership and that protections needed to be in place to keep criminals and the mentally disabled from having guns, therefore protecting innocent American lives. The Brady Act would be signed two years after Reagan&#8217;s editorial by Bill Clinton in 1993.
> 
> In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, required employers to attest to their employees&#8217; immigration status, and *granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1982*, and had lived in the country continuously.
> 
> 
> According to Reagan&#8217;s biographer Lou Cannon, *the president called the death of innocent civilians in anti-terror operations &#8220;terrorism itself.&#8221;* Reagan also denounced the use of torture and believed it shouldn&#8217;t be used under any circumstances. And as proof that *Reagan abhorred torture and supported the U.N. **he signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture in 1988. It stated that torture cannot be used under &#8220;no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever.&#8221; *
> 
> Reagan The Liberal | Addicting Info
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 

Yeah he was a real bleeding heart. First his friend Jim Brady was the one shot in the head, so it was personal and emotion overcame his brain.... 

second he did sign amnesty and it didnt work....which is why we dont want to do it again....because we're not retarded

And third, I dont know about the quote, but I do know he bombed the shit out of Libya and liberals cried over it and he did this:

I love this skit...AWESOME!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go-FoUrn63Q&feature=related"]Ron Reagan - SNL - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Vidi

buckeye45_73 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too stupid but perfectly liberal. Reagan was best friends with Wm. Buckley to the end based on a shared ideology! No one loved and supported Reagan more than National Review. I can't think of even one liberal position Reagan held after he became a Republican.
> 
> There is no one more ardent than a recent convert!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then youre not thinking hard enough. ( no surprise there! )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a 1991 editorial, *Reagan wrote that the Brady Act would provide a crucial enforcement mechanism to end the honor system of the 1968 Gun Control Act and cant help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases. *He knew that responsibility had to be part of gun ownership and that protections needed to be in place to keep criminals and the mentally disabled from having guns, therefore protecting innocent American lives. The Brady Act would be signed two years after Reagans editorial by Bill Clinton in 1993.
> 
> In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, required employers to attest to their employees immigration status, and *granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1982*, and had lived in the country continuously.
> 
> 
> According to Reagans biographer Lou Cannon, *the president called the death of innocent civilians in anti-terror operations terrorism itself.* Reagan also denounced the use of torture and believed it shouldnt be used under any circumstances. And as proof that *Reagan abhorred torture and supported the U.N. **he signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture in 1988. It stated that torture cannot be used under no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever. *
> 
> Reagan The Liberal | Addicting Info
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he was a real bleeding heart. First his friend Jim Brady was the one shot in the head, so it was personal and emotion overcame his brain....
> 
> second he did sign amnesty and it didnt work....which is why we dont want to do it again....because we're not retarded
> 
> And third, I dont know about the quote, but *I do know he bombed the shit out of Libya and liberals cried over it *and he did this:
> 
> I love this skit...AWESOME!
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go-FoUrn63Q&feature=related"]Ron Reagan - SNL - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...



Obama: taking out the enemies of America that Republicans failed to capture or kill.

Thanks for the reminder!


----------



## ABikerSailor

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, let's compare a dirt track to freeways, the state highway system etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, Roman roads survive to this day. Roads are hardly big achievements like Iphone's, jet planes, CAT scans, and LCD TV's. America's greatness is not in its roads I can assure you!!
> 
> See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?
Click to expand...


Might wanna read up on the Eisenhower highway system sometime.

The railroad system made us good, the Eisenhower highway system made us great.


----------



## Mac1958

Dr.House said:


> Roads and bridges cannot be credited or blamed for a business' success or failure...  They exist and their existence does not guarantee you will be successful in your business...




You'd think, but this notion appears to be at the heart of the left's argument.  A business owner drives on roads, so they clearly don't work nearly as hard or risk nearly as much as they think they do.

Astonishing, huh?

.


----------



## thirdrail

CrusaderFrank said:


> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American



Alexander Hamilton (among the founding fathers), rallying support for the ratification of the US Constitution, wrote this about taxes:

"Thus far the ends of public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or anxiety. How is it possible 
that a government half supplied and always necessitous, can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the 
reputation of the commonwealth? How can it ever possess either energy or stability, dignity or credit, confidence at home or respectability abroad? How can its administration be any thing else than a succession of expedients temporizing, impotent, disgraceful? How will it be able to avoid a frequent sacrifice of its engagements to immediate necessity? How can it undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good?"

Even those embodying the "invisible hand" of laissez-faire capitalism recognize the public good of freeing those in business from the dangers of fraud, breach of contract, safety from fire, protection from criminals (whether disenfranchised marauders, corporate thieves, or terrorists), etc. The founding fathers recognized how commerce would be enhanced by public infrastructure. Yes, these are all paid by taxes. Since they are therefore provided, businesses can be built.

This doesn't touch on the fact that most of modern businesses (which depend on computers, the internet, telecommunications, interstate roads, etc.) could not exist without the educated populace and government investments that gave rise to such tools (the list goes on).

I have owned and now run small businesses successfully. I've worked hard. I am reasonably clever. I asked for no handouts. However, I'm not so deluded to think that my success arose from my sheer efforts alone. I think those who believe so need a reality check.


----------



## Bfgrn

thereisnospoon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might be good to divide Reagan into his Democrat/Republican phases. Reagan was a New Dealer to the core _until_ he landed in the top tax bracket in 1954 with his massive Warner Brothers checks.
> 
> But his support of the Left, FDR, and the New Deal is without question. In his autobiography "Where's the rest of me?" - which Nancy tried to re-publish but Norquist and Legacy Project crushed - he supports FDR massively. He definitely grew disillusioned under Truman but he was an ardent Cold Warrior, which used to be the province of the Left, which wanted to save the world from Washington.
> 
> Reagan Campaigns for Truman in 1948 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting to see how LBJ and Reagan handled the "black problem". LBJ used the War on Poverty to help lift them up whereas Reagan used the War on Drugs to cage them. Both policies failed.
> 
> (Look at the rate of black incarceration under Reagan's War on Drugs. It will blow your mind. The War on Drugs gave Washington and the states more power to incarcerate the superfluous - people laid low by circumstance (slavery), poor genes, and choice. The USA has the highest prison population by an unbelievable margin - and the proportion of blacks to whites is beyond belief. This is the natural consequence of unwinding a welfare state. When you get rid of safety nets and disposses entire races or classes, you better build cages. So much of government is dealing with either the dependents or have-nots. White people had/have much higher pot consumption, but as property owners with accumulated wealth, they are less disruptive. The need for social control is much less for people who benefit from the status quo)
> 
> Regardless . . . be careful with the Right's construction of Reagan. Seriously, the Reagan Legacy Project created by Norquist was designed to create a symbolic Reagan - a leader as meaningful and important to the Right as FDR was to the Left. Norquist literally drained Reagan of all his moderate and Leftist elements. For God's sake, Reagan passed the most liberal abortion policy as governor of California (where he was in EVERY position to stop it. He got in bed with the Moral Majority so he could consolidate the South and Heartland. Much of his supposed social conservatism was pure opportunism. It was a way to win elections by creating a powerful rightwing populism that appealed to the poor. Please turn off talk radio).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree the war on drugs has been a huge failure. But it started with Richard Nixon. Reagan brought us a second wave of regressive policies. The United States has less than 5% of the worlds population. But it has almost 25% of the worlds prisoners.
> 
> On the other hand, the war on poverty was a success, despite the fact Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam. The war on poverty was based on a design conservatives should get behind. But, as you said: The rightwing voter has been 100% captured by propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty.
> 
> The war on poverty was a New Frontier idea. In 1961, Kennedy took office and put together a Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime. Surplus funds were put to work for job, housing and education programs. President Kennedy had on his agenda a war on poverty and this was the beginning. Kennedy died in Dallas but not his desire to attack poverty.
> 
> When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.
> 
> To address some of the players in the conservative fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment.
> 
> The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref
> 
> Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...
> 
> Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.
> 
> Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.
> 
> Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.
> 
> Career paths
> 
> Career paths offered by Job Corps include:
> 
> Advanced manufacturing
> 
> Communication design
> Drafting
> Electronic assembly
> Machine appliance repair
> Machining
> Welding
> Manufacturing technology
> Sign, billboard, and display
> 
> Automotive and machine repair
> 
> Automobile technician
> General services technician
> Collision repair and refinish
> Heavy construction equipment mechanic
> Diesel mechanic
> Medium/heavy truck repair
> Electronics tech
> Stationary engineering
> 
> Construction
> 
> Bricklaying
> Carpentry
> Cement masonry
> Concrete and terrazzo
> Construction craft laborer
> Electrical
> Electrical overhead line
> Facilities maintenance
> Floor covering
> Glazing
> HVAC
> Industrial engineering technician
> Licensed electrician (bilingual)
> Mechanical engineering technician
> Painting
> Plastering
> Plumbing
> Roto-Rooter plumbing
> Tile setting
> 
> Extension programs
> 
> Advanced Career Training (ACT)
> General Educational Development (GED)
> Commercial driver's license (CDL)
> Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
> High school diploma (HSD Program)
> 
> Finance and Business
> 
> Accounting services
> Business management
> Clerical occupations
> Legal secretary
> Insurance and financial services
> Marketing
> Medical insurance specialist
> Office administration
> Paralegal
> Purchasing
> 
> Health care/allied health professions
> 
> Clinical medical assistant
> Dental assistant
> EKG technician
> Emergency medical technician
> Exercise/massage therapy
> Hemodialysis technician
> Licensed practical/vocational nurse
> Medical office support
> Nurse assistant/home health aide
> Opticianry
> Pharmacy technician
> Phlebotomy
> Physical therapy assistant
> Rehabilitation therapy
> Rehabilitation technician
> Registered nurse
> Respiratory therapy
> Sterile processing
> Surgical technician
> 
> Homeland security
> 
> Corrections officer
> Seamanship
> Security and protective services
> 
> Hospitality
> 
> Culinary arts
> Hotel and lodging
> 
> Information technology
> 
> A+ Microsoft MSCE
> Computer Networking/Cisco
> Computer systems administrator
> Computer support specialist
> Computer technician
> Integrated system tech
> Network cable installation
> Visual communications
> 
> Renewable resources and energy
> 
> Forest conservation and urban forestry
> Firefighting
> Wastewater
> Landscaping
> 
> Retail sales and services
> 
> Behavioral health aide
> Criminal justice
> Child development
> Residential advisor
> Cosmetology
> Retail sales
> 
> Transportation
> 
> Asphalt paving
> Material and distribution operations
> Clerical occupations
> Heavy equipment operations
> Roustabout operator
> Heavy truck driving
> TCU administrative clerk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All very well thought out in theory.
> The times have changed. It is far easier to simply apply for and receive checks from the government for doing nothing.
> Why become skilled in a trade when it is easier to sit on one's fat useless ass and collect?
Click to expand...


False...

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The *1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act* (PRWOR) (PL 104-193), also known as the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, was signed in to law on August 22, 1996, by President Bill Clinton. The Act is described by the U.S. Government as "a comprehensive bipartisan welfare reform plan that will dramatically change the nation's welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. The law contains strong work requirements, a performance bonus to reward states for moving welfare recipients into jobs, state maintenance of effort requirements, comprehensive child support enforcement, and supports for families moving from welfare to work -- including increased funding for child care and guaranteed medical coverage."


----------



## Article 15

Mac1958 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roads and bridges cannot be credited or blamed for a business' success or failure...  They exist and their existence does not guarantee you will be successful in your business...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think, but this notion appears to be at the heart of the left's argument.  A business owner drives on roads, so they clearly don't work nearly as hard or risk nearly as much as they think they do.
> 
> Astonishing, huh?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It appears as though you are talking out of your ass.  Nobody said that their existence guarantees success.  That's you and the House Gimp dishonestly making shit up.



> The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.



^That's the "heart" of the argument.


----------



## saveliberty

thirdrail said:


> Even those embodying the "invisible hand" of laissez-faire capitalism recognize the public good of freeing those in business from the dangers of fraud, breach of contract, safety from fire, protection from criminals (whether disenfranchised marauders, corporate thieves, or terrorists), etc. The founding fathers recognized how commerce would be enhanced by public infrastructure. Yes, these are all paid by taxes. Since they are therefore provided, businesses can be built.
> 
> This doesn't touch on the fact that most of modern businesses (which depend on computers, the internet, telecommunications, interstate roads, etc.) could not exist without the educated populace and government investments that gave rise to such tools (the list goes on).
> 
> I have owned and now run small businesses successfully. I've worked hard. I am reasonably clever. I asked for no handouts. However, I'm not so deluded to think that my success arose from my sheer efforts alone. I think those who believe so need a reality check.



Awesome.  So that leads to the big question, which was the whole point of Obama's speech.  Do you feel you owe more to the government than you currently pay as a result of these good and gracious gifts from government?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

No, you cant simply fill out a form and get a bunch of money for a long period of time for doing nothing, unless you work for Bain or are a Koch bros.


----------



## saveliberty

Obama didn't mean what he said.  What he meant to say is, You CAN'T get there on your own.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them

and yet still they hate him, why?   we all know, dont we


----------



## saveliberty

View Post  Today, 10:23 AM  
Remove user from ignore listConzHateUSA  
This message is hidden because ConzHateUSA is on your ignore list.  

^^^^^
Worthless 24/7/365


----------



## Murf76

thirdrail said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alexander Hamilton (among the founding fathers), rallying support for the ratification of the US Constitution, wrote this about taxes:
> 
> "Thus far the ends of public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or anxiety. How is it possible
> that a government half supplied and always necessitous, can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the
> reputation of the commonwealth? How can it ever possess either energy or stability, dignity or credit, confidence at home or respectability abroad? How can its administration be any thing else than a succession of expedients temporizing, impotent, disgraceful? How will it be able to avoid a frequent sacrifice of its engagements to immediate necessity? How can it undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good?"
> 
> Even those embodying the "invisible hand" of laissez-faire capitalism recognize the public good of freeing those in business from the dangers of fraud, breach of contract, safety from fire, protection from criminals (whether disenfranchised marauders, corporate thieves, or terrorists), etc. The founding fathers recognized how commerce would be enhanced by public infrastructure. Yes, these are all paid by taxes. Since they are therefore provided, businesses can be built.
> 
> This doesn't touch on the fact that most of modern businesses (which depend on computers, the internet, telecommunications, interstate roads, etc.) could not exist without the educated populace and government investments that gave rise to such tools (the list goes on).
> 
> I have owned and now run small businesses successfully. I've worked hard. I am reasonably clever. I asked for no handouts. However, I'm not so deluded to think that my success arose from my sheer efforts alone. I think those who believe so need a reality check.
Click to expand...


So you've got a small business... and you don't pay any taxes?  And your State and local governments don't provide _any_ of the infrastructure?... it's all _federal_ money?  

Here's your problem... Even if we very generously tossed in every federal bureau or agency that could be viewed as having anything to do with supplying "the infrastructure", and that would include such things as the Department of Defense and the Department of Ed... we're still talking about less than 25% of federal spending.
Zombie » The Ultimate Takedown of Obama&#8217;s &#8216;You Didn&#8217;t Build That&#8217; Speech
Take a look at the link, there's a complete run-down.  

Note too that this is the Classic Straw Man argument, whereby one projects a position onto his debate opponent that he doesn't even have.  Republicans are NOT _anarchists_ who don't believe people should have to pay taxes in order to live in a decent society.  That wasn't  the position of our Founders, let alone our Constitution.  Our position is Limited Constitutional Government and Responsible Spending.  

But we've got an administration currently which doesn't even bother to give us a budget, won't bother to reform our runaway entitlements, and instead have given us a new, LARGER one.  We're nearly 16 trillion in debt, paying nearly a half trillion just to service the debt annually, which will be a full trillion by the end of the decade on our current path.

WHY should even one citizen, no matter how filthy rich, be forced to provide another red cent to this reckless, irresponsible administration???


----------



## Listening

Foxfyre said:


> Well done Cecile.  Let&#8217;s try a different analogy.
> 
> At one time on the east side of the county there were no people.  Then somebody builds a house out there, puts in his own well with a pump run by his own wind charger and battery backed up generator.  Also necessary is a wood stove, propane tank, and septic system, all put in by private contractors.  He has a rough road graded from the distant highway.
> 
> Gradually as more and more people move into the area, they are able to pool resources to have electricity and telephone service brought to their community, provided by private co-ops serving distant communities.  With so many folks now in the area they agree that rather than risk contamination from so many septic systems, a shared sewer system should go in, and then a shared water system.  Eventually there is enough tax base to pay for paved roads to replace the rough graded ones.
> 
> Then somebody takes the risk to put in a small grocery store so folks won&#8217;t have to drive 20 miles to the city for a loaf of bread or bottle of milk.  Then somebody puts in a gas station, somebody else an auto repair shop, somebody else a dental office until there is a thriving business community.  The growing tax base funds even more and better infrastructure to meet the needs of the growing community.
> 
> THAT is how government happens and how infrastructure is accomplished.  It is people and commerce and industry preceding infrastructure, not the other way around.



Which is really a big point.  Which came first.....

However, the example I provided on the travel agency is true.  To the extent I have described the start up....the government was nothing but a pain in the ass and a costly one at that which brought no value.

Your example prompted a memory of something that happened in Pittsburg, CA, a city I lived next to for six years.  

A rather large subdivision was planned for an area that was to the south of the city.  Something like 3,000 homes.  To get to the main drag, the entire subdivision would have to get out onto one large artery and then make it's way to Highway 4 (many people would likely be working in Concord, Walnut Creek, Oakland, and even SF....BART did not come out that far and even if it did, they would still need to get to the station).

The city did an Environmental Impact Study which said that main artery and several north/south streets would have to be expanded to handle the additional traffic.  Keep in mind this subdivsion was going to increase the size of the city by about 20% on the north side.  The cost to do this was going to be kicked back onto the subdivision (so no free roads.....they were going to pay for it).  The developer said the cost would make his houses uncompetative and indicated he would not build).  The people of the city were O.K with that (they didn't want the congestion it would bring and thought the project was way to big and aggressive).

However, the city council wanted the additional tax revenue that all these households would produce so they approved the project anyway.  They simply blew off the EIS and said they would not be expanding the roads.

This was going to require new schools, which had already been pushed into the cost of the houses almost dollar for dollar.  The city tried to keep the additional taxes for the schools but "put off" actually building the schools.

You see, there were to many other things they had already done thinking they could garner taxes to pay for them...which had not panned out and they were in the red.  Some of these projects were activities that were clearly favors to friends and supporters.

In the end, the people of Pittsburg went nuts and almost rioted against the new subdivsion because the roads were not going to be expanded.  The project was significantly scaled back (the developer tried to sell the idea of phases to break things in....but the numbers just did not fly).  The people also threw out most of the city council for being so irresponsible for not paying as they went.

There was no "you didn't build that" here.  If anything, it was the opposite.  Government wanted the money need to support this expansion to pay for other crap.  They were quite willing to sacrafice the balance of infrastructure to get their hands on new cash sources.

That story happens time and time again.

Obama is full of crap.


----------



## saveliberty

If interstates are so helpful, why aren't there more exits?  Most of them have wide expanses of nothing.


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them
> 
> and yet still they hate him, why?   we all know, dont we



Hate him ?

Not wanting the bastard to ruin our country does not mean we hate him.....but that won' work in your Hitleresque narrative.  You need us to hate him so you can continue your crusade.

Ain't working.

We don't hate him.  We just don't want him in the WH.  We love the country he is working to change in a way we don't want.

Nobody admitted anything.

And you don't know s**t.


----------



## Neotrotsky




----------



## Mac1958

Article 15 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roads and bridges cannot be credited or blamed for a business' success or failure...  They exist and their existence does not guarantee you will be successful in your business...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think, but this notion appears to be at the heart of the left's argument.  A business owner drives on roads, so they clearly don't work nearly as hard or risk nearly as much as they think they do.
> 
> Astonishing, huh?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears as though you are talking out of your ass.  Nobody said that their existence guarantees success.  That's you and the House Gimp dishonestly making shit up.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



This is too easy.  Now I guess it's YOUR turn to talk out YOUR ass.   You just served up a lovely straw man argument.  I didn't say "that their existence guarantees success."

That wasn't even CLOSE.  

Wanna try again, only using something even approaching intellectual honesty this time?

.


----------



## Foxfyre

I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business.  I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?'  So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.

And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business.  I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?'  So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.
> 
> And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.



Yep.  

And something else that occurs to me is that Obama and his apologists are making assumptions based on where a business is NOW.   His comments ignore the early days or months or years of the business, when it has no employees, the owner is just trying to keep the heart beating.  Hiring that first employee is a massive step, with all risks and costs and regulations that come with it, even AFTER the business owner has ALREADY been dealing with risks and costs and regulations.  That first employee may not be hired for the first two or three years, let alone a group of employees.

But of course, Obama couldn't know that, since he's speaking (and campaigning, more importantly) out of pure ignorance.

.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business.  I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?'  So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.
> 
> And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.



Government is a ball and chain for businesses.  No one who's ever owned a business would think otherwise.  I'm not saying there aren't liberal business owners.  I'm just saying even a liberal business owner couldn't think government did a damned thing to help them and frequently greatly harmed them.  They would have to want government for other reasons.

My sister in law is a lifelong liberal who's a partner in a veterinary practice.  She's done well and is becoming the lead partner and they are expanding and building more facilities.  She's decided not to vote for Obama, her whole attitude towards government is changing now that she is first hand getting the reality of what they are.


----------



## Listening

Foxfyre said:


> I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business.  I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?'  So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.
> 
> And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.



And that is the nuance of the argument that nobody would disagree with if it were not for the fact that Obama has never been about anything but......you owe something to the rest of us.

We agreed to build those roads through our governmental processes and you paying taxes is just like you paying a toll.  You pay for your use.

The road would not be there if you were the only one who needed to use it.  Nobody built that for you.  We built it for us.

But that can also be said for satisfying demand.  Nobody builds a Sonic just for you.  They build it for many "yous". And the fact that you use it, means it is available for the use of others too.  But nobody would have built it if they did not know you were going to use it.

So thanks !

So the argument is nuanced in that these things show up because of us.  But they are not build by government and then we get to use them.  I described the mess that was next door in CA.  One thing...we paid taxes for BART even though it did not come "over the hill".  That continued for 25 years before it finally made it to Pittsburg.  Government didn't build that...we did. The government just sat in the middle and played favorites.

Obama is full of crap.


----------



## saveliberty

If I help pay for some new technology with my tax dollars, I don't expect the next generation to pay too.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mac1958 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business.  I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?'  So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.
> 
> And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> And something else that occurs to me is that Obama and his apologists are making assumptions based on where a business is NOW.   His comments ignore the early days or months or years of the business, when it has no employees, the owner is just trying to keep the heart beating.  Hiring that first employee is a massive step, with all risks and costs and regulations that come with it, even AFTER the business owner has ALREADY been dealing with risks and costs and regulations.  That first employee may not be hired for the first two or three years, let alone a group of employees.
> 
> But of course, Obama couldn't know that, since he's speaking (and campaigning, more importantly) out of pure ignorance.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Very true.  Employees are a huge biggie in any business and add a whole extra layer of paperwork and expense management.  But the fact that we need those employees is a testament to the hours and expertise and risk that we put into the business and they, in turn, are able to earn income and acquire property that in turn is also taxed and contributes to the expansion and maintenance of the infrastructure.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also resent Obama's argument that suggests I had no part in building and maintaining the infrastructure that he gives all the credit for the success of my business.  I can look back at all the property tax statements over the years and see that hefty gross receipts tax added to every purchase, and note how much of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, etc. etc. etc., plus the hundreds of thousands in income taxes I have paid, and how dare he suggest that the 'government furnished that infrastructure for me?'  So, if my business benefitted from the infrastructure that benefits every other man, woman, and child (and which most also helped pay for), I have contributed my fair share to that already.
> 
> And the government did not take ANY of the risk or work ANY of the hours or provide ANY of the expertise that allowed my business to prosper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> And something else that occurs to me is that Obama and his apologists are making assumptions based on where a business is NOW.   His comments ignore the early days or months or years of the business, when it has no employees, the owner is just trying to keep the heart beating.  Hiring that first employee is a massive step, with all risks and costs and regulations that come with it, even AFTER the business owner has ALREADY been dealing with risks and costs and regulations.  That first employee may not be hired for the first two or three years, let alone a group of employees.
> 
> But of course, Obama couldn't know that, since he's speaking (and campaigning, more importantly) out of pure ignorance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  Employees are a huge biggie in any business and add a whole extra layer of paperwork and expense management.  But the fact that we need those employees is a testament to the hours and expertise and risk that we put into the business and they, in turn, are able to earn income and acquire property that in turn is also taxed and contributes to the expansion and maintenance of the infrastructure.
Click to expand...



Yeah, sure, that's all true, but remember:  You don't work as hard as you think you do, you're not as smart as you think you are.  Your President says so, so it must be true.



.


----------



## Freewill

ConzHateUSA said:


> wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them
> 
> and yet still they hate him, why?   we all know, dont we



Yes, Obama is conservative to moderate, just look at his record:

Obamatax

DADT repeal

Pipeline stopped.

Shutdown of Yucca Mountain.

I could go one but why bother?


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them
> 
> and yet still they hate him, why?   we all know, dont we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate him ?
> 
> Not wanting the bastard to ruin our country does not mean we hate him.....but that won' work in your Hitleresque narrative.  You need us to hate him so you can continue your crusade.
> 
> Ain't working.
> 
> We don't hate him.  We just don't want him in the WH.  We love the country he is working to change in a way we don't want.
> 
> Nobody admitted anything.
> 
> And you don't know s**t.
Click to expand...


The *FACTS* are: Obama Is The Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History.






The *FACTS* are: Ronald Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.

*Reagan* switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills.  The results were catastrophic.  Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them
> 
> and yet still they hate him, why?   we all know, dont we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate him ?
> 
> Not wanting the bastard to ruin our country does not mean we hate him.....but that won' work in your Hitleresque narrative.  You need us to hate him so you can continue your crusade.
> 
> Ain't working.
> 
> We don't hate him.  We just don't want him in the WH.  We love the country he is working to change in a way we don't want.
> 
> Nobody admitted anything.
> 
> And you don't know s**t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The *FACTS* are: Obama Is The Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *FACTS* are: Ronald Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.
> 
> *Reagan* switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills.  The results were catastrophic.  Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
Click to expand...


Please explain to me just what the hell this has to do with what I posted.

Or were you so anxious to show you can post a graph that you didn't really stop to consider if you should.


----------



## Listening

Freewill said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them
> 
> and yet still they hate him, why?   we all know, dont we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Obama is conservative to moderate, just look at his record:
> 
> Obamatax
> 
> DADT repeal
> 
> Pipeline stopped.
> 
> Shutdown of Yucca Mountain.
> 
> I could go one but why bother?
Click to expand...


Obamacare.


----------



## Murf76

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them
> 
> and yet still they hate him, why?   we all know, dont we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate him ?
> 
> Not wanting the bastard to ruin our country does not mean we hate him.....but that won' work in your Hitleresque narrative.  You need us to hate him so you can continue your crusade.
> 
> Ain't working.
> 
> We don't hate him.  We just don't want him in the WH.  We love the country he is working to change in a way we don't want.
> 
> Nobody admitted anything.
> 
> And you don't know s**t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The *FACTS* are: Obama Is The Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *FACTS* are: Ronald Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.
> 
> *Reagan* switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills.  The results were catastrophic.  Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
Click to expand...


Good grief.   That 'most fiscally conservative president evah!' meme has been shot down so many times we could make a fishing net out of it, full of holes as it is.


----------



## Listening

Murf76 said:


> Good grief.   That 'most fiscally conservative president evah!' meme has been shot down so many times we could make a fishing net out of it, full of holes as it is.



If it helps people like this sleep better at night....I figure it's no big deal.

Nobody on MSNBC is going to make this argument.

Reagan's change is true.  I would guess he didn't devise it...but it happened on his watch so it is his.  

I admire Reagan for many things.

But if you read Eyewittness to Power by David Gergen, you see that Reagan was, indeed a compromiser.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Listening said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them
> 
> and yet still they hate him, why?   we all know, dont we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Obama is conservative to moderate, just look at his record:
> 
> Obamatax
> 
> DADT repeal
> 
> Pipeline stopped.
> 
> Shutdown of Yucca Mountain.
> 
> I could go one but why bother?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare.
Click to expand...



It is all part of the Left's attempt to push the center 
of American Politics more left to make their policies
and themselves appear less extreme

Any "appearance" of moderate that the Left claims is not by choice
but is a factor of the limiting powers of the Constitutions and fear of
public response.

Indeed, if left to his own then he would run left as fast and hard as he could


----------



## saveliberty

I like how the chart conveniently stops at 2007.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well the chart is one more tactic from the left to divert attention from or derail a discussion that is going badly for their Fearless Leader.


----------



## American_Jihad

*A Business Owners Angry Response To Obama*

July 19, 2012 by Wayne Allyn Root 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqfbbmKOlaM&feature=player_embedded]A Business Owner&#39;s Angry Response To Obama - YouTube[/ame]

Wayne Allyn Root responds to President Barack Obamas recent assertion that government, not entrepreneurs, is responsible for business success in the United States. Root, Obamas college classmate at Columbia University, Class of 1983, notes that nearly all of his classmates at the college were openly socialist or Marxist. He says that the Presidents most recent remarks are simply an act of the Marxist-in-Chief coming out of the closet.


A Business Owner&#8217;s Angry Response To Obama : Personal Liberty Alerts


----------



## Foxfyre

American_Jihad said:


> *A Business Owners Angry Response To Obama*
> 
> July 19, 2012 by Wayne Allyn Root
> 
> A Business Owner's Angry Response To Obama - YouTube
> 
> Wayne Allyn Root responds to President Barack Obamas recent assertion that government, not entrepreneurs, is responsible for business success in the United States. Root, Obamas college classmate at Columbia University, Class of 1983, notes that nearly all of his classmates at the college were openly socialist or Marxist. He says that the Presidents most recent remarks are simply an act of the Marxist-in-Chief coming out of the closet.
> 
> 
> A Business Owners Angry Response To Obama : Personal Liberty Alerts



Wow, he said a mouthful.  The one thing I picked up on is that he is the first I have seen who remembers Obama being at Columbia.  (Or did he?  He doesn't mention seeing Obama in class, but oh well. . . . . )

But however extreme one might critique his commemts to be, I didn't hear him say a single thing for which there is no argument to support.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Outraged small business owners fire back at Obama*
Jul 28, 2012

Entrepreneurs say, 'We did build this'
Outraged small business owners fire back at Obama


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate him ?
> 
> Not wanting the bastard to ruin our country does not mean we hate him.....but that won' work in your Hitleresque narrative.  You need us to hate him so you can continue your crusade.
> 
> Ain't working.
> 
> We don't hate him.  We just don't want him in the WH.  We love the country he is working to change in a way we don't want.
> 
> Nobody admitted anything.
> 
> And you don't know s**t.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *FACTS* are: Obama Is The Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *FACTS* are: Ronald Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.
> 
> *Reagan* switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills.  The results were catastrophic.  Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief.   That 'most fiscally conservative president evah!' meme has been shot down so many times we could make a fishing net out of it, full of holes as it is.
Click to expand...


I don't believe you. So bring me your right wing bullshit proof so I can shoot it down and expose your ignorance.


----------



## Foxfyre

Please PLEASE don't let the designated thread derailers derail this thread folks.  We have a good thing going here, and enough legitimate ammunition to last us until November.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them
> 
> and yet still they hate him, why?   we all know, dont we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Obama is conservative to moderate, just look at his record:
> 
> Obamatax
> 
> DADT repeal
> 
> Pipeline stopped.
> 
> Shutdown of Yucca Mountain.
> 
> I could go one but why bother?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare.
Click to expand...


Emote all you want. But the FACTS don't support what you parrot. The Extended-Baseline Scenario is WITH Obamacare being fully implemented. The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is with Obamacare being repealed.
*
Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBOs Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)*





Here is the 'rub'...We are on *The Extended-Baseline Scenario* trajectory Obama and the Democrats put us on. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place. 

IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the AHA is not fully implemented or repealed the *The Alternative Fiscal Scenario* is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power. 

the *CBO* lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.

The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.


*The Extended-Baseline Scenario* adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

*The Alternative Fiscal Scenario*
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicares payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy*

David Frum: A former economic speechwriter for President  George W. Bush

Posted: September 15, 2009, 4:30 PM by NP Editor





_Ron Brownstein ably sums up the Census Bureaus final report on the Bush economy._

Bottom line: not good.

    On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bushs two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

What went wrong?

In a word: healthcare.

Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price that employers paid for labor rose by an average of 25% per hour. But the wages received by workers were worth less in 2007 than seven years before. All that extra money paid by employers disappeared into the healthcare system: between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled.

Exploding health costs vacuumed up worker incomes. Frustrated workers began telling pollsters the country was on the wrong track as early as 2004  the year that George W. Bush won re-election by the narrowest margin of any re-elected president in U.S. history.

Slowing the growth of health costs is essential to raising wages  and by the way restoring Americans faith in the fairness of a free-market economy.

Explaining the impact of health costs on wages is essential to protecting the economic reputation of the last Republican administration and Congress.

If Republicans stick to the line that the US healthcare system works well as is  that it has no important problems that cannot be solved by tort reform  then George W. Bush and the Congresses of 2001-2007 will join Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover in the American memorys hall of economic failures. Recovery from that stigma will demand more than a tea party.

Read more: David Frum: Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy - Full Comment


----------



## Neotrotsky

Never  trust the Left on taxes and
never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs

Spending Program
*Medicare Part A* 
What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
What it actually cost- $67 billion a year

*Entire Medicare Program*
What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
What it actually cost- $110 billion a year

*Medicare relief to states for hospitals* 
What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
What it actually cost- $17 billion a year



All the projections being used 
Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care


----------



## Foxfyre

Neotrotsky said:


> Never  trust the Left on taxes and
> never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs
> 
> Spending Program
> *Medicare Part A*
> What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $67 billion a year
> 
> *Entire Medicare Program*
> What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $110 billion a year
> 
> *Medicare relief to states for hospitals*
> What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
> What it actually cost- $17 billion a year
> 
> 
> 
> All the projections being used
> Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care



And to be fair, we can't say that applies only to the Left in government.  The CBO can only use the numbers and criteria furnished it by the Congress/President when it costs out something and gives us the projected consequences.  And despite who was in power at the time, I cannot remember a single time that the government projections were even close to the actual costs, or when the actual costs were less than the projected costs.

The private businessman uses real figures to project his costs, and can't afford to make up numbers that look good on paper but have no chance to stand up against the realty of the program or project.  If he budgets and sets the prices in the same way the government does, he is shut down and/or declaring bankruptcy pretty quickly.

That is why so many businessmen are sitting on their investment capital and are not willing to risk it in the current economy.  They don't know what Obama is going to do re taxing the rich.  They don't know what the consequences and costs of Obamacare are going to be.  They have no assurance that a one-world-government minded Congress and a like minded President will not pass cap and trade and put them at the mercy of the whims of other countries who will not have their interests in mind.

Is Fearless Leader considering any of this?  No way in hell.  All he wants is more power in government and the best way to accomplish that is to strip power from private enterprise and do a lot more deficit spending.


----------



## boedicca

Neotrotsky said:


> Never  trust the Left on taxes and
> never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs
> 
> Spending Program
> *Medicare Part A*
> What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $67 billion a year
> 
> *Entire Medicare Program*
> What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $110 billion a year
> 
> *Medicare relief to states for hospitals*
> What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
> What it actually cost- $17 billion a year
> 
> 
> 
> All the projections being used
> Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care





And the corollary:   introducing new taxes at low rates targeted at The Rich, and then driving the middle class into the taxable base via inflation while raising tax rates.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Foxfyre said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never  trust the Left on taxes and
> never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs
> 
> Spending Program
> *Medicare Part A*
> What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $67 billion a year
> 
> *Entire Medicare Program*
> What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $110 billion a year
> 
> *Medicare relief to states for hospitals*
> What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
> What it actually cost- $17 billion a year
> 
> 
> 
> All the projections being used
> Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to be fair, we can't say that applies only to the Left in government.  The CBO can only use the numbers and criteria furnished it by the Congress/President when it costs out something and gives us the projected consequences.  And despite who was in power at the time, I cannot remember a single time that the government projections were even close to the actual costs, or when the actual costs were less than the projected costs.
> 
> The private businessman uses real figures to project his costs, and can't afford to make up numbers that look good on paper but have no chance to stand up against the realty of the program or project.  If he budgets and sets the prices in the same way the government does, he is shut down and/or declaring bankruptcy pretty quickly.
Click to expand...


Agree

Most of our problems have been promoted by both sides


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> Never  trust the Left on taxes and
> never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs
> 
> Spending Program
> *Medicare Part A*
> What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $67 billion a year
> 
> *Entire Medicare Program*
> What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $110 billion a year
> 
> *Medicare relief to states for hospitals*
> What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
> What it actually cost- $17 billion a year
> 
> 
> 
> All the projections being used
> Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care



ALL health care costs have gone up astronomically. 

WHY have they gone up?

WHAT do we do about it??


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never  trust the Left on taxes and
> never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs
> 
> Spending Program
> *Medicare Part A*
> What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $67 billion a year
> 
> *Entire Medicare Program*
> What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $110 billion a year
> 
> *Medicare relief to states for hospitals*
> What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
> What it actually cost- $17 billion a year
> 
> 
> 
> All the projections being used
> Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to be fair, we can't say that applies only to the Left in government.  The CBO can only use the numbers and criteria furnished it by the Congress/President when it costs out something and gives us the projected consequences.  And despite who was in power at the time, I cannot remember a single time that the government projections were even close to the actual costs, or when the actual costs were less than the projected costs.
> 
> The private businessman uses real figures to project his costs, and can't afford to make up numbers that look good on paper but have no chance to stand up against the realty of the program or project.  If he budgets and sets the prices in the same way the government does, he is shut down and/or declaring bankruptcy pretty quickly.
> 
> That is why so many businessmen are sitting on their investment capital and are not willing to risk it in the current economy.  They don't know what Obama is going to do re taxing the rich.  They don't know what the consequences and costs of Obamacare are going to be.  They have no assurance that a one-world-government minded Congress and a like minded President will not pass cap and trade and put them at the mercy of the whims of other countries who will not have their interests in mind.
> 
> Is Fearless Leader considering any of this?  No way in hell.  All he wants is more power in government and the best way to accomplish that is to strip power from private enterprise and do a lot more deficit spending.
Click to expand...


Such utter bullshit. YOU are the one disparaging 'businessmen' by painting them as thumb-sucking, fear-filled, insecure wimps.

REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on market factors...PERIOD. Supply/demand, the cost of money and their ability to meet those demands. Your argument is pure bullshit.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never  trust the Left on taxes and
> never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs
> 
> Spending Program
> *Medicare Part A*
> What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $67 billion a year
> 
> *Entire Medicare Program*
> What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $110 billion a year
> 
> *Medicare relief to states for hospitals*
> What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
> What it actually cost- $17 billion a year
> 
> 
> 
> All the projections being used
> Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL health care costs have gone up astronomically.
> 
> WHY have they gone up?
> 
> WHAT do we do about it??
Click to expand...


Real market reforms 
to start with and by no way all inclusive 
-Competition across state lines
-tort reform CBO estimated it could save up to 54 billion

By all means get the gov't out as much as possible
All the things over the years by gov't
to "save us money" - have not 

-Instead, they have increased the cost of doing business and
increase the economics of scale where a company has to be
larger and larger to deal with the additional burdens of gov't and
as such, more competition is driven out. 

Quite often the gov't is the creator of the very problems
they claim they now want to fix- talk about job security 

Imagine any tropical fruit on your morning breakfast table
say a banana - wasn't that expensive

Imagine if the gov't decided that everyone has to some share
of this fruit and as such the gov't was going to make sure
it got to our table

Honestly, do really believe the gov't would do it cheaper better
and with more quality ?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> ALL health care costs have gone up astronomically.
> 
> WHY have they gone up?
> 
> WHAT do we do about it??



what?? only a liberal could ask such a perfectly stupid question!!
What you do is introduce capitalism so people are shopping carefully with their own money and so providers are competing to offer low price and high quality in order to survive!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??? What other conclusion is possible???


----------



## The T

Neotrotsky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never trust the Left on taxes and
> never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs
> 
> Spending Program
> *Medicare Part A*
> What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $67 billion a year
> 
> *Entire Medicare Program*
> What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $110 billion a year
> 
> *Medicare relief to states for hospitals*
> What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
> What it actually cost- $17 billion a year
> 
> 
> 
> All the projections being used
> Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL health care costs have gone up astronomically.
> 
> WHY have they gone up?
> 
> WHAT do we do about it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real market reforms
> to start with and by no way all inclusive
> -Competition across state lines
> -tort reform CBO estimated it could save up to 54 billion
> 
> By all means get the gov't out as much as possible
> All the things over the years by gov't
> to "save us money" - have not
> 
> -Instead, they have increased the cost of doing business and
> increase the economics of scale where a company has to be
> larger and larger to deal with the additional burdens of gov't and
> as such, more competition is driven out.
> 
> Quite often the gov't is the creator of the very problems
> they claim they now want to fix- talk about job security
> 
> Imagine any tropical fruit on your morning breakfast table
> say a banana - wasn't that expensive
> 
> Imagine if the gov't decided that everyone has to some share
> of this fruit and as such the gov't was going to make sure
> it got to our table
> 
> Honestly, do really believe the gov't would do it cheaper better
> and with more quality ?
Click to expand...

 
Guess what? Obama hired someone to the CBO [a donor to Obama and Democrat causes]...

CBO isn't 'Non Partisan'...

CBO hires Obamacare advocate to provide objective health care budget numbers


----------



## kaz

Bfgrn said:


> REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on market factors...PERIOD



REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on ALL factors...PERIOD.

And you're talking to two business owners in Foxfyre and me.  Clearly a rational business owner would consider every variable and government is a big one.  And government is doing everything it can to bury us.  It's only your ignorance that lets you believe otherwise.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never  trust the Left on taxes and
> never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs
> 
> Spending Program
> *Medicare Part A*
> What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $67 billion a year
> 
> *Entire Medicare Program*
> What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $110 billion a year
> 
> *Medicare relief to states for hospitals*
> What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
> What it actually cost- $17 billion a year
> 
> 
> 
> All the projections being used
> Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to be fair, we can't say that applies only to the Left in government.  The CBO can only use the numbers and criteria furnished it by the Congress/President when it costs out something and gives us the projected consequences.  And despite who was in power at the time, I cannot remember a single time that the government projections were even close to the actual costs, or when the actual costs were less than the projected costs.
> 
> The private businessman uses real figures to project his costs, and can't afford to make up numbers that look good on paper but have no chance to stand up against the realty of the program or project.  If he budgets and sets the prices in the same way the government does, he is shut down and/or declaring bankruptcy pretty quickly.
> 
> That is why so many businessmen are sitting on their investment capital and are not willing to risk it in the current economy.  They don't know what Obama is going to do re taxing the rich.  They don't know what the consequences and costs of Obamacare are going to be.  They have no assurance that a one-world-government minded Congress and a like minded President will not pass cap and trade and put them at the mercy of the whims of other countries who will not have their interests in mind.
> 
> Is Fearless Leader considering any of this?  No way in hell.  All he wants is more power in government and the best way to accomplish that is to strip power from private enterprise and do a lot more deficit spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such utter bullshit. YOU are the one disparaging 'businessmen' by painting them as thumb-sucking, fear-filled, insecure wimps.
> 
> REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on market factors...PERIOD. Supply/demand, the cost of money and their ability to meet those demands. Your argument is pure bullshit.
Click to expand...


More of those facts and figures.....

Asswipe.

Reading your posts is like listening to James Carville.

Matters not what you are saying...you know there is snake oil involved somehow.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never  trust the Left on taxes and
> never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs
> 
> Spending Program
> *Medicare Part A*
> What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $67 billion a year
> 
> *Entire Medicare Program*
> What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $110 billion a year
> 
> *Medicare relief to states for hospitals*
> What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
> What it actually cost- $17 billion a year
> 
> 
> 
> All the projections being used
> Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL health care costs have gone up astronomically.
> 
> WHY have they gone up?
> 
> WHAT do we do about it??
Click to expand...


Fire all the insurance commissioners and let people buy insurance whereever they want.

BTW: My overall health care costs had come down.

But my HSA limit was just cut in half by Obamacare.

Thanks for raising the cost of my healthcare.


----------



## Listening

kaz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on market factors...PERIOD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on ALL factors...PERIOD.
> 
> And you're talking to two business owners in Foxfyre and me.  Clearly a rational business owner would consider every variable and government is a big one.  And government is doing everything it can to bury us.  It's only your ignorance that lets you believe otherwise.
Click to expand...


My company sure did.

33 billion top line.

Sat on investment dollars for 18 months trying to decide what to do.

When they broke some of it free...more was going offshore (originally planned for domestic) because of government policy.

A CEO of a refining company answered a question at a recent industry conference by asking "Why would anyone build a refinery in the U.S. given today's environment and the attractiveness and welcoming of offshore potential ?"


----------



## thirdrail

Murf76 said:


> thirdrail said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alexander Hamilton (among the founding fathers), rallying support for the ratification of the US Constitution, wrote this about taxes:
> 
> "Thus far the ends of public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or anxiety. How is it possible
> that a government half supplied and always necessitous, can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the
> reputation of the commonwealth? How can it ever possess either energy or stability, dignity or credit, confidence at home or respectability abroad? How can its administration be any thing else than a succession of expedients temporizing, impotent, disgraceful? How will it be able to avoid a frequent sacrifice of its engagements to immediate necessity? How can it undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good?"
> 
> Even those embodying the "invisible hand" of laissez-faire capitalism recognize the public good of freeing those in business from the dangers of fraud, breach of contract, safety from fire, protection from criminals (whether disenfranchised marauders, corporate thieves, or terrorists), etc. The founding fathers recognized how commerce would be enhanced by public infrastructure. Yes, these are all paid by taxes. Since they are therefore provided, businesses can be built.
> 
> This doesn't touch on the fact that most of modern businesses (which depend on computers, the internet, telecommunications, interstate roads, etc.) could not exist without the educated populace and government investments that gave rise to such tools (the list goes on).
> 
> I have owned and now run small businesses successfully. I've worked hard. I am reasonably clever. I asked for no handouts. However, I'm not so deluded to think that my success arose from my sheer efforts alone. I think those who believe so need a reality check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you've got a small business... and you don't pay any taxes?  And your State and local governments don't provide _any_ of the infrastructure?... it's all _federal_ money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I pay taxes (fed, state and local), since I appreciate most of the services paid for by them.
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your problem... Even if we very generously tossed in every federal bureau or agency that could be viewed as having anything to do with supplying "the infrastructure", and that would include such things as the Department of Defense and the Department of Ed... we're still talking about less than 25% of federal spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have anything like the problem you imply... I never said that infrastructure was all that is in the federal budget. I merely pointed out that it is "American" to use taxes to execute plans for the public good (which CrusaderFrank had denied).
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note too that this is the Classic Straw Man argument, whereby one projects a position onto his debate opponent that he doesn't even have.  Republicans are NOT _anarchists_ who don't believe people should have to pay taxes in order to live in a decent society.  That wasn't  the position of our Founders, let alone our Constitution.  Our position is Limited Constitutional Government and Responsible Spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what a "straw man argument" is; it's what you have done here to me. I never said that republicans are anarchists who don't believe in paying taxes that promote a decent society.
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we've got an administration currently which doesn't even bother to give us a budget, won't bother to reform our runaway entitlements, and instead have given us a new, LARGER one.  We're nearly 16 trillion in debt, paying nearly a half trillion just to service the debt annually, which will be a full trillion by the end of the decade on our current path.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan introduced the "reform" of changing from a "tax and spend" federal government to a "borrow and spend" policy. We have been swallowed by mushrooming debt since (except during Clinton's term). As a proportion of GDP, the current rate of increase in the debt is on par with those of Reagan and both the Bushes (search "Federal Debt and GDP" and review the facts under usgovernmentspending, zfacts, etc.... i'm too much of a noob here to post a url). This fact may not be good, but it is NOT different.
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY should even one citizen, no matter how filthy rich, be forced to provide another red cent to this reckless, irresponsible administration???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real problem for all of us is that the institutions of the global banking system has financialized the world's dominant economies and both parties support that system that bankrupts us all.
Click to expand...


----------



## Listening

thirdrail said:


> The real problem for all of us is that the institutions of the global banking system has financialized the world's dominant economies and both parties support that system that bankrupts us all.



Thanks and rep on the way.

AMEN


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

thirdrail said:


> The real problem for all of us is that the institutions of the global banking system has financialized the world's dominant economies and both parties support that system that bankrupts us all.




too stupid but perfectly liberal!! The real problem is a housing crisis caused by stupid liberals who organized much of the federal governemnt to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford.


----------



## Foxfyre

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> thirdrail said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem for all of us is that the institutions of the global banking system has financialized the world's dominant economies and both parties support that system that bankrupts us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid but perfectly liberal!! The real problem is a housing crisis caused by stupid liberals who organized much of the federal governemnt to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford.
Click to expand...


No they are right.  The ability of government to manipulate the value of currency is its greatest means of controlling the people and the surest road to gradual eradication of our unalienable rights and individual liberties.  The ability to print money and thereby deficit spend with impunity is a form of redistribution of wealth in the most destructive way possible.


----------



## kaz

Listening said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on market factors...PERIOD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on ALL factors...PERIOD.
> 
> And you're talking to two business owners in Foxfyre and me.  Clearly a rational business owner would consider every variable and government is a big one.  And government is doing everything it can to bury us.  It's only your ignorance that lets you believe otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My company sure did.
> 
> 33 billion top line.
> 
> Sat on investment dollars for 18 months trying to decide what to do.
> 
> When they broke some of it free...more was going offshore (originally planned for domestic) because of government policy.
> 
> A CEO of a refining company answered a question at a recent industry conference by asking "Why would anyone build a refinery in the U.S. given today's environment and the attractiveness and welcoming of offshore potential ?"
Click to expand...


Politicians are targeting our most profitable businesses and attacking our most successful people.  Can you say Europe in the 30s?  Then they can't figure out why our dollars are going and staying overseas.  I hope the American people finally wake up from that idiocy and send Obama back to the Chicago political cesspool he belongs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thirdrail said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem for all of us is that the institutions of the global banking system has financialized the world's dominant economies and both parties support that system that bankrupts us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid but perfectly liberal!! The real problem is a housing crisis caused by stupid liberals who organized much of the federal governemnt to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are right.  The ability of government to manipulate the value of currency is its greatest means of controlling the people and the surest road to gradual eradication of our unalienable rights and individual liberties.  The ability to print money and thereby deficit spend with impunity is a form of redistribution of wealth in the most destructive way possible.
Click to expand...


Their subject was financialization, yours was currency manipulation.

But, the voting booth speaks only of Republican and Democrat. If you like sound money then you like Republicans more than Democrats. 

If someone likes or dislikes financialization he is merely babbling.


----------



## Foxfyre

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid but perfectly liberal!! The real problem is a housing crisis caused by stupid liberals who organized much of the federal governemnt to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are right.  The ability of government to manipulate the value of currency is its greatest means of controlling the people and the surest road to gradual eradication of our unalienable rights and individual liberties.  The ability to print money and thereby deficit spend with impunity is a form of redistribution of wealth in the most destructive way possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their subject was financialization, yours was currency manipulation.
> 
> But, the voting booth speaks only of Republican and Democrat. If you like sound money then you like Republicans more than Democrats.
Click to expand...


Okay, you are correct that these are two different things. . . .mostly.


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never  trust the Left on taxes and
> never trust the Left on spending estimates of gov't programs
> 
> Spending Program
> *Medicare Part A*
> What politicians said it would cost- $9 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $67 billion a year
> 
> *Entire Medicare Program*
> What politicians said it would cost- $12 billion a year by 1990
> What it actually cost- $110 billion a year
> 
> *Medicare relief to states for hospitals*
> What politicians said it would cost- $1 billion a year in 1992
> What it actually cost- $17 billion a year
> 
> 
> 
> All the projections being used
> Most are garbage just like Papa Obama care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL health care costs have gone up astronomically.
> 
> WHY have they gone up?
> 
> WHAT do we do about it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real market reforms
> to start with and by no way all inclusive
> -Competition across state lines
> -tort reform CBO estimated it could save up to 54 billion
> 
> By all means get the gov't out as much as possible
> All the things over the years by gov't
> to "save us money" - have not
> 
> -Instead, they have increased the cost of doing business and
> increase the economics of scale where a company has to be
> larger and larger to deal with the additional burdens of gov't and
> as such, more competition is driven out.
> 
> Quite often the gov't is the creator of the very problems
> they claim they now want to fix- talk about job security
> 
> Imagine any tropical fruit on your morning breakfast table
> say a banana - wasn't that expensive
> 
> Imagine if the gov't decided that everyone has to some share
> of this fruit and as such the gov't was going to make sure
> it got to our table
> 
> Honestly, do really believe the gov't would do it cheaper better
> and with more quality ?
Click to expand...


The Affordable Healthcare Act INCLUDES:
-Competition across state lines

Tort reform is:
A) a STATE issue, not a federal issue.

B) Tort reform in states like Texas has had little or no effect. It is a bullshit issue. 

In 2003, Texas passed draconian tort reform legislation that effectively closed the courthouses of Texas to victims of medical malpractice. This legislation limited the amount of noneconomic damages (like pain and suffering) that could be collected by a victim of medical negligence. The goal of such measures was alleged to lower medical malpractice insurance premiums, encourage more doctors to practice in Texas, and lower overall healthcare costs. None of the stated goals were realized by this legislation.

C) Tort reform is the ultimate BIG government intervening into people's lives. And it undermines the court system and every citizen's right to a fair trial by his/her peers. 

Government has done a much better job controlling rising health care costs than the private sector.

Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

WHO is overcharging the taxpayers?

*High health care costs*
Who's to blame?

Health-cost trends shows that these players, in roughly descending order, contributed the most to rising costs:
*
Hospitals and doctors.* Doctors and hospitals account for by far the largest share, 52 percent in 2006, of all national health spending. There's abundant evidence that some of that spending is unnecessary. Under the present system, hospitals and doctors earn more money by doing costly interventions than by keeping people healthy. And more medical care doesn't necessarily mean better care, according to research on Medicare expenditures by the Dartmouth Medical School's Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

*Drug companies. *Prescription drugs account for only one-tenth of total health-care expenditures. But drug spending has increased as a share of overall expenditures over the past decade.

*Insurance companies.* Health-insurance premiums have grown faster than inflation or workers' earnings over the past decade, in parallel with the equally rapid rise in overall health costs. Industry spending on administrative and marketing costs, plus profits, consumes 12 percent of private-insurance premiums.

*Politicians and government regulators.* Although the government directly controls only 46 percent of national health spending, many of its policies affect the bottom line of the health-care industry, for example, by setting Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors on which private insurers base their rates, or by regulating health insurance. Between 1999 and 2006, the health-care lobby spent more than any other business sector, according to a study by the Institute for Health & Socio-Economic Policy, a nonprofit policy and research group.

*Lawyers.* Malpractice-insurance premiums and liability awards account for less than 2 percent of overall health-care spending, according to a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office. Defensive medicine, the practice of ordering extra tests or procedures to protect against lawsuits, might add another few percentage points, according to some estimates.

*Health-care consumers.* 

Health-care security, who is to blame for high costs


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."


That's actually was a Romney quote before an Obama quote


> you didn't get here ... on your own.


He was talking about Olympians. He obviously thinks that athletes don't deserve credit for their success.


----------



## thirdrail

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> thirdrail said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem for all of us is that the institutions of the global banking system has financialized the world's dominant economies and both parties support that system that bankrupts us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid but perfectly liberal!! The real problem is a housing crisis caused by stupid liberals who organized much of the federal governemnt to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford.
Click to expand...


i think you should search the definitions of "financialization" before you stupidly impugn those you don't understand. by the way, it was the unregulated banking industry that bundled up mortgages into derivatives in a way that was unsustainable (and therefore needed to be bailed out) that created the economic collapse we inherited from the Bush years. The "free market" (as it will always try to do) found the quickest way to imprudent, but large short-term profits.


----------



## The T

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually was a Romney quote before an Obama quote
> 
> 
> 
> you didn't get here ... on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was talking about Olympians. He obviously thinks that athletes don't deserve credit for their success.
Click to expand...

 
BULLSHIT ^^ 100%

Keep trying Ooh pah...but you'll never get there. 

Obama fucked UP telling the people who he really IS and YOU know it.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

The T said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually was a Romney quote before an Obama quote
> 
> 
> 
> you didn't get here ... on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was talking about Olympians. He obviously thinks that athletes don't deserve credit for their success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ^^ 100%
> 
> Keep trying Ooh pah...but you'll never get there.
> 
> Obama fucked UP telling the people who he really IS and YOU know it.
Click to expand...


My bad, I guess romney wasn't first

Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own' - First Read

Was just copying off the President then.


----------



## Listening

The T said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually was a Romney quote before an Obama quote
> 
> 
> 
> you didn't get here ... on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was talking about Olympians. He obviously thinks that athletes don't deserve credit for their success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ^^ 100%
> 
> Keep trying Ooh pah...but you'll never get there.
> 
> Obama fucked UP telling the people who he really IS and YOU know it.
Click to expand...


What gets me is that he is running from it.

This is clearly his place and yet he hides from it.

Recall the effort to tamp down the "spread the wealth" comment.

I'd like the guy better and trust him (still would not vote for him) if he wasn't such a liar.

He's a collectivist but he won't admit it.

I don't think collectivists are evil...I just don't want them running things.

I do think BHO is a fraud.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Listening said:


> I do think BHO is a fraud.



Liar is a good word too! When he was asked about why he voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, an open socialist,  he said, "that's just me resisting George Bush."

What he would have said if honesty mattered was, "that's just me doing what my 2 communist parents taught me to do."


----------



## Bfgrn

For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women. One of the biggest handicaps small business has in regards to health care costs is that they don't get the price breaks large corporations get. The Affordable Care Act addresses that disadvantage:


Small Businesses and the Affordable Care Act

You know the value of providing health insurance to your employees. But it can be a real challenge for small businesses. On average, small businesses pay about 18% more than large firms for the same health insurance policy. And small businesses lack the purchasing power that larger employers have. The health care law provides tax credits and soon - the ability to shop for insurance in Exchanges that help close this gap.

Top Things to Know for Small Businesses


If you have up to 25 employees, pay average annual wages below $50,000, and provide health insurance, you may qualify for a small business tax credit of up to 35% (up to 25% for non-profits) to offset the cost of your insurance. This will bring down the cost of providing insurance.
 

Under the health care law, employer-based plans that provide health insurance to retirees ages 55-64 can now get financial help through the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. This program is designed to lower the cost of premiums for all employees and reduce employer health costs.
 

Starting in 2014, the small business tax credit goes up to 50% (up to 35% for non-profits) for qualifying businesses. This will make the cost of providing insurance even lower.
 

In 2014, small businesses with generally fewer than 100 employees can shop in an Affordable Insurance Exchange, which gives you power similar to what large businesses have to get better choices and lower prices. An Exchange is a new marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable health benefit plans.
 

Exchanges will offer a choice of plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able to buy your insurance through Exchanges, too.
 

Employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from new employer responsibility policies. They dont have to pay an assessment if their employees get tax credits through an Exchange.

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually was a Romney quote before an Obama quote
> 
> He was talking about Olympians. He obviously thinks that athletes don't deserve credit for their success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ^^ 100%
> 
> Keep trying Ooh pah...but you'll never get there.
> 
> Obama fucked UP telling the people who he really IS and YOU know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What gets me is that he is running from it.
> 
> This is clearly his place and yet he hides from it.
> 
> Recall the effort to tamp down the "spread the wealth" comment.
> 
> I'd like the guy better and trust him (still would not vote for him) if he wasn't such a liar.
> 
> He's a collectivist but he won't admit it.
> 
> I don't think collectivists are evil...I just don't want them running things.
> 
> I do think BHO is a fraud.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah...I remember 'Joe The Plumber' quite well and the aftermath on how the media craweled up his ass with a microscope...but the Media FAILED to do the same with Obama...and continue to fail.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Bfgrn said:


> For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women. One of the biggest handicaps small business has in regards to health care costs is that they don't get the price breaks large corporations get. The Affordable Care Act addresses that disadvantage:
> 
> 
> Small Businesses and the Affordable Care Act
> 
> You know the value of providing health insurance to your employees. But it can be a real challenge for small businesses. On average, small businesses pay about 18% more than large firms for the same health insurance policy. And small businesses lack the purchasing power that larger employers have. The health care law provides tax credits and soon - the ability to shop for insurance in Exchanges that help close this gap.
> 
> Top Things to Know for Small Businesses
> 
> 
> If you have up to 25 employees, pay average annual wages below $50,000, and provide health insurance, you may qualify for a small business tax credit of up to 35% (up to 25% for non-profits) to offset the cost of your insurance. This will bring down the cost of providing insurance.
> 
> 
> Under the health care law, employer-based plans that provide health insurance to retirees ages 55-64 can now get financial help through the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. This program is designed to lower the cost of premiums for all employees and reduce employer health costs.
> 
> 
> Starting in 2014, the small business tax credit goes up to 50% (up to 35% for non-profits) for qualifying businesses. This will make the cost of providing insurance even lower.
> 
> 
> In 2014, small businesses with generally fewer than 100 employees can shop in an Affordable Insurance Exchange, which gives you power similar to what large businesses have to get better choices and lower prices. An Exchange is a new marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable health benefit plans.
> 
> 
> Exchanges will offer a choice of plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able to buy your insurance through Exchanges, too.
> 
> 
> Employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from new employer responsibility policies. They don&#8217;t have to pay an assessment if their employees get tax credits through an Exchange.
> 
> Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.



"Pravda Reports"
of course, that is news- the gov't says it plans will work
Check out Papa Obama's website- they say it is great, as well



7/23/12 One in 10 employers plans to drop health benefits, study finds
_
The study found that smaller firms were most likely to say they will drop coverage. Thirteen percent of companies with 50 to 100 workers said they would end policies within three years, compared with 2 percent of companies with more than 1,000 workers._​
Survey: Under ObamaCare, companies could save billions by dropping health insurance coverage
_Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this. 
"The penalties for the employers who drop coverage are very low, and the subsidies for the workers in the exchanges are very high," said James Capretta, with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

_​

So much for if you like your plan you will be able to keep it 
Yes unintended consequences and more
costs that were not factored in.....


----------



## Contumacious

Mac1958 said:


> .Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail*, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others. * .



 For every Bill Gates, there are a thousand Joe Programmers at Microsoft who are smart and talented. They are the second line of the elite, *in Marxs view,* the bourgeois. For every Joe Programmer at Microsoft, there are a thousand Mary Secretaries, a thousand Bob Lawnmower, a thousand Doug Factoryworker, and SusieGovernmentbureaucrat; these are the proletariat in the Marxian view.

 None of them have the combination of mental ability, circumstance, and determination that Bill Gates has, and most of them know it. *However, these thousands have a lot more votes than Bill and his programmers. Those votes are political power, and the Marxists know it.*

.


----------



## Murf76

thirdrail said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thirdrail said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alexander Hamilton (among the founding fathers), rallying support for the ratification of the US Constitution, wrote this about taxes:
> 
> "Thus far the ends of public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or anxiety. How is it possible
> that a government half supplied and always necessitous, can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the
> reputation of the commonwealth? How can it ever possess either energy or stability, dignity or credit, confidence at home or respectability abroad? How can its administration be any thing else than a succession of expedients temporizing, impotent, disgraceful? How will it be able to avoid a frequent sacrifice of its engagements to immediate necessity? How can it undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good?"
> 
> Even those embodying the "invisible hand" of laissez-faire capitalism recognize the public good of freeing those in business from the dangers of fraud, breach of contract, safety from fire, protection from criminals (whether disenfranchised marauders, corporate thieves, or terrorists), etc. The founding fathers recognized how commerce would be enhanced by public infrastructure. Yes, these are all paid by taxes. Since they are therefore provided, businesses can be built.
> 
> This doesn't touch on the fact that most of modern businesses (which depend on computers, the internet, telecommunications, interstate roads, etc.) could not exist without the educated populace and government investments that gave rise to such tools (the list goes on).
> 
> I have owned and now run small businesses successfully. I've worked hard. I am reasonably clever. I asked for no handouts. However, I'm not so deluded to think that my success arose from my sheer efforts alone. I think those who believe so need a reality check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I pay taxes (fed, state and local), since I appreciate most of the services paid for by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Do you think you're not paying enough then?  Bear in mind that everything Obama said the other day was in the context of arguing his tax policy and why he thinks it's okay to ask more from people like you? 





> I don't have anything like the problem you imply... I never said that infrastructure was all that is in the federal budget. I merely pointed out that it is "American" to use taxes to execute plans for the public good (which CrusaderFrank had denied).



CrusaderFrank wrote this in post #14, clearly in a response to Barack Obama's speech in Roanoke.  Certainly, he can speak for himself on his meaning, but I don't see anything in that which suggests that he has a problem with the constitutionally enumerated function of federal government, but rather that he found Obama's argument unconvincing and unacceptable.  Probably on multiple levels, much as I did.


> Originally Posted by CrusaderFrank View Post
> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American



As I attempted to explain to you earlier, all the federal spending that could be considered  of use to businesses, things like national security and education, are already paid for with less than 25% of federal spending.  My use of "here's your problem" simply means that your argument isn't holding water.  It's not the Republican position that we shouldn't pay any taxes in order to live in a decent society.  It wasn't CrusaderFrank's position either, I dare say.



> I know what a "straw man argument" is; it's what you have done here to me. I never said that republicans are anarchists who don't believe in paying taxes that promote a decent society.



I don't think I misunderstood your meaning.  You posted Hamilton's reasoning for why federal government needed to be provided with revenues, but no one's arguing that it shouldn't.  Federal government has been WELL provided since Hamilton made his argument.  In fact, revenues have tripled since 1965, and that's in adjusted dollars.  Problem is... spending has more than quintupled.



> Reagan introduced the "reform" of changing from a "tax and spend" federal government to a "borrow and spend" policy. We have been swallowed by mushrooming debt since (except during Clinton's term). As a proportion of GDP, the current rate of increase in the debt is on par with those of Reagan and both the Bushes (search "Federal Debt and GDP" and review the facts under usgovernmentspending, zfacts, etc.... i'm too much of a noob here to post a url). This fact may not be good, but it is NOT different.



Reagan isn't president anymore.  And he's not the one who ran our national debt up to almost 16 trillion.  I don't have time to get into a protracted debate on  the merits and lack thereof of Keynesian spending or the Federal Reserve.  Unfortunately, I've got alot more to get accomplished in real life today.   Let me just say this though... our problem is unrestrained entitlements.  And this administration, much the same as the ones before it, have done NOTHING to reform them.  So while lots of politicians, both Democrat and Republican have culpability in the situation we find ourselves in right now, I hold the current administration in particular contempt for adding an entirely new one of gigantic proportions, already forecast by the CBO to cost three times what they said it would.  Insult to injury, they won't even bother themselves to produce a federal budget. 

(Oh... and btw, to do links, you can simply copy-and-paste if you like.  But there's also a symbol  right above the text box with a little globe and yellow hyperlink symbol.  You can copy the address of the page you want to link and paste it in the drop box that presents itself.  When you confirm with "ok", you'll note that some of the text will be highlighted.  That portion is removable, and you can replace it with any text you like.
ie. Enforcement of Copyright
I linked you a thread on the board's copyright policy.  Useful if you're going to be quoting and linking articles.)



> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY should even one citizen, no matter how filthy rich, be forced to provide another red cent to this reckless, irresponsible administration???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem for all of us is that the institutions of the global banking system has financialized the world's dominant economies and both parties support that system that bankrupts us all.
Click to expand...


I'm still interested in why any American should have to pay anything in additional taxes until this administration does its job.


----------



## Murf76

OohPooPahDoo said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually was a Romney quote before an Obama quote
> 
> He was talking about Olympians. He obviously thinks that athletes don't deserve credit for their success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ^^ 100%
> 
> Keep trying Ooh pah...but you'll never get there.
> 
> Obama fucked UP telling the people who he really IS and YOU know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad, I guess romney wasn't first
> 
> Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own' - First Read
> 
> Was just copying off the President then.
Click to expand...


Suggesting a round of applause isn't quite the same as imposing additional taxation, which is ultimately enforced at the point of gun.  But nice try.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.



1) Of course that is perfectly 100% idiotic since most of the shows feature debates with liberals, which MSNBC does not.

2) of course if propaganda liberals would give their best examples rather than lie like typical liberals

3) Fox is the nation's savior in may ways. It has the only libertarian shows in the history of American TV. Finally our Founder's philosophy
is being resurrected after the deadly treasonous liberal cancer had its way for so long.


----------



## Neotrotsky

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Of course that is perfectly 100% idiotic since most of the shows feature debates with liberals, which MSNBC does not.
> 
> 2) of course if propaganda liberals would give their best examples rather than lie like typical liberals
> 
> 3) Fox is the nation's savior in may ways. It has the only libertarian shows in the history of American TV. Finally our Founder's philosophy
> is being resurrected after the deadly treasonous liberal cancer had its way for so long.
Click to expand...


Ray has been a political activist for the radical leftist for years
He called Julian Assange a  "Hero", what a loon 
He is so leftist, even the wimpy left we have in power have to ignore him sometimes


No doubt he would see the ABC false attempts to equate the Tea Party  
to recent massacre in Colorado as good reporting.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Neotrotsky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Of course that is perfectly 100% idiotic since most of the shows feature debates with liberals, which MSNBC does not.
> 
> 2) of course if propaganda liberals would give their best examples rather than lie like typical liberals
> 
> 3) Fox is the nation's savior in may ways. It has the only libertarian shows in the history of American TV. Finally our Founder's philosophy
> is being resurrected after the deadly treasonous liberal cancer had its way for so long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ray has been a political activist for the radical leftist for years
> He called Julian Assange a  "Hero", what a loon
> He is so leftist, even the wimpy left we have in power have to ignore him sometimes
> 
> 
> No doubt he would see the ABC false attempts to equate the Tea Party
> to recent massacre in Colorado as good reporting.
Click to expand...


Yes I'm really worried that a silly liberal  will be able to refute my 3 points above.

A liberal lacks the IQ to think in terms of logical arguments so he is almost impossible to defeat.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Murf76 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ^^ 100%
> 
> Keep trying Ooh pah...but you'll never get there.
> 
> Obama fucked UP telling the people who he really IS and YOU know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My bad, I guess romney wasn't first
> 
> Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own' - First Read
> 
> Was just copying off the President then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suggesting a round of applause isn't quite the same as imposing additional taxation, which is ultimately enforced at the point of gun.  But nice try.
Click to expand...


The IRS usually seizes bank assets or garnishes wages and salaries when it is owed money you refuse to pay. Seldom does it require a weapon. I have no idea how we got on the subject of law enforcement - but why not? So go ahead and explain to us how you would prefer the IRS collect unpaid taxes? Should they just ask nicely? Perhaps send a singing telegram?


----------



## kaz

Bfgrn said:


> For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women



Why am I a "so called" small businessman?  Your start your speech to assure me by insulting me?  Sounds like Obama, I'll give you that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

OohPooPahDoo said:


> explain to us how you would prefer the IRS collect unpaid taxes?



Honestly, thats how!!! There should be just one tax for everything the liberals spend, no withholding taxes, and it all should be payed on election day.

That way we'd all experience the true cost of government and liberals could be eliminated as our Constitution intended.


----------



## Neotrotsky

kaz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I a "so called" small businessman?  Your start your speech to assure me by insulting me?  Sounds like Obama, I'll give you that.
Click to expand...


Because, in Papa Obama and the Left's mind
you didn't build it


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

kaz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I a "so called" small businessman?  Your start your speech to assure me by insulting me?  Sounds like Obama, I'll give you that.
Click to expand...


Because people call you that? A bit sensitive today, is it your period?


----------



## kaz

OohPooPahDoo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I a "so called" small businessman?  Your start your speech to assure me by insulting me?  Sounds like Obama, I'll give you that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because people call you that? A bit sensitive today, is it your period?
Click to expand...


That's not what "so called" means.  So called means we're incorrectly called that.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

kaz said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I a "so called" small businessman?  Your start your speech to assure me by insulting me?  Sounds like Obama, I'll give you that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because people call you that? A bit sensitive today, is it your period?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what "so called" means.  So called means we're incorrectly called that.
Click to expand...


"So called" can either mean incorrectly called, as you mention, or it could also mean "popularly referred to as"


so-called - definition of so-called by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Depends on the context - but I wouldn't expect a rightie to know anything about context. Just react emotionally and get outraged at everything - that's all the right's good aat.

'
I would think he used "so called" because the ACA actually also helps out a lot of business that some might not consider "small"

But that's OK - please proceed with your outrage and get offended at everything a lefty says. Its all your type is good at.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink

No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women. One of the biggest handicaps small business has in regards to health care costs is that they don't get the price breaks large corporations get. The Affordable Care Act addresses that disadvantage:
> 
> 
> Small Businesses and the Affordable Care Act
> 
> You know the value of providing health insurance to your employees. But it can be a real challenge for small businesses. On average, small businesses pay about 18% more than large firms for the same health insurance policy. And small businesses lack the purchasing power that larger employers have. The health care law provides tax credits and soon - the ability to shop for insurance in Exchanges that help close this gap.
> 
> Top Things to Know for Small Businesses
> 
> 
> If you have up to 25 employees, pay average annual wages below $50,000, and provide health insurance, you may qualify for a small business tax credit of up to 35% (up to 25% for non-profits) to offset the cost of your insurance. This will bring down the cost of providing insurance.
> 
> 
> Under the health care law, employer-based plans that provide health insurance to retirees ages 55-64 can now get financial help through the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. This program is designed to lower the cost of premiums for all employees and reduce employer health costs.
> 
> 
> Starting in 2014, the small business tax credit goes up to 50% (up to 35% for non-profits) for qualifying businesses. This will make the cost of providing insurance even lower.
> 
> 
> In 2014, small businesses with generally fewer than 100 employees can shop in an Affordable Insurance Exchange, which gives you power similar to what large businesses have to get better choices and lower prices. An Exchange is a new marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable health benefit plans.
> 
> 
> Exchanges will offer a choice of plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able to buy your insurance through Exchanges, too.
> 
> 
> Employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from new employer responsibility policies. They don&#8217;t have to pay an assessment if their employees get tax credits through an Exchange.
> 
> Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pravda Reports"
> of course, that is news- the gov't says it plans will work
> Check out Papa Obama's website- they say it is great, as well
> 
> 
> 
> 7/23/12 One in 10 employers plans to drop health benefits, study finds
> _
> The study found that smaller firms were most likely to say they will drop coverage. Thirteen percent of companies with 50 to 100 workers said they would end policies within three years, compared with 2 percent of companies with more than 1,000 workers._​
> Survey: Under ObamaCare, companies could save billions by dropping health insurance coverage
> _Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this.
> "The penalties for the employers who drop coverage are very low, and the subsidies for the workers in the exchanges are very high," said James Capretta, with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
> 
> _​
> 
> So much for if you like your plan you will be able to keep it
> Yes unintended consequences and more
> costs that were not factored in.....
Click to expand...


The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.

The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)&#8212;the health care legislation enacted in March 2010&#8212;will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance &#8220;exchanges&#8221; that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCT&#8217;s estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.


----------



## kaz

OohPooPahDoo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because people call you that? A bit sensitive today, is it your period?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what "so called" means.  So called means we're incorrectly called that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So called" can either mean incorrectly called, as you mention, or it could also mean "popularly referred to as"
> 
> 
> so-called - definition of so-called by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> Depends on the context - but I wouldn't expect a rightie to know anything about context. Just react emotionally and get outraged at everything - that's all the right's good aat.
> 
> '
> I would think he used "so called" because the ACA actually also helps out a lot of business that some might not consider "small"
> 
> But that's OK - please proceed with your outrage and get offended at everything a lefty says. Its all your type is good at.
Click to expand...


I asked a question, it's ironic the hysterical over-reactor is the one objecting to overreacting.   Since the obvious is not your strong suit, just so you know, that's a reference to you, Homey.  Chill.

I am aware of the alternate definition of popular usage, but that made even less sense.  That would be a reference like if you said a new toy was the "so called gift of the season."  Small business men is just a term, it's not a "popular" term.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women. One of the biggest handicaps small business has in regards to health care costs is that they don't get the price breaks large corporations get. The Affordable Care Act addresses that disadvantage:
> 
> 
> Small Businesses and the Affordable Care Act
> 
> You know the value of providing health insurance to your employees. But it can be a real challenge for small businesses. On average, small businesses pay about 18% more than large firms for the same health insurance policy. And small businesses lack the purchasing power that larger employers have. The health care law provides tax credits and soon - the ability to shop for insurance in Exchanges that help close this gap.
> 
> Top Things to Know for Small Businesses
> 
> 
> If you have up to 25 employees, pay average annual wages below $50,000, and provide health insurance, you may qualify for a small business tax credit of up to 35% (up to 25% for non-profits) to offset the cost of your insurance. This will bring down the cost of providing insurance.
> 
> 
> Under the health care law, employer-based plans that provide health insurance to retirees ages 55-64 can now get financial help through the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. This program is designed to lower the cost of premiums for all employees and reduce employer health costs.
> 
> 
> Starting in 2014, the small business tax credit goes up to 50% (up to 35% for non-profits) for qualifying businesses. This will make the cost of providing insurance even lower.
> 
> 
> In 2014, small businesses with generally fewer than 100 employees can shop in an Affordable Insurance Exchange, which gives you power similar to what large businesses have to get better choices and lower prices. An Exchange is a new marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable health benefit plans.
> 
> 
> Exchanges will offer a choice of plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able to buy your insurance through Exchanges, too.
> 
> 
> Employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from new employer responsibility policies. They don&#8217;t have to pay an assessment if their employees get tax credits through an Exchange.
> 
> Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pravda Reports"
> of course, that is news- the gov't says it plans will work
> Check out Papa Obama's website- they say it is great, as well
> 
> 
> 
> 7/23/12 One in 10 employers plans to drop health benefits, study finds
> _
> The study found that smaller firms were most likely to say they will drop coverage. Thirteen percent of companies with 50 to 100 workers said they would end policies within three years, compared with 2 percent of companies with more than 1,000 workers._​
> Survey: Under ObamaCare, companies could save billions by dropping health insurance coverage
> _Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this.
> "The penalties for the employers who drop coverage are very low, and the subsidies for the workers in the exchanges are very high," said James Capretta, with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
> 
> _​
> 
> So much for if you like your plan you will be able to keep it
> Yes unintended consequences and more
> costs that were not factored in.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."
> 
> CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)&#8212;the health care legislation enacted in March 2010&#8212;will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance &#8220;exchanges&#8221; that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCT&#8217;s estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.
Click to expand...



Sure it will

No doubt it will run just as well as the Post Office


----------



## kaz

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.



Our choices are that we weren't the primary ones who built our own businesses or we "don't need civilization?"  Those polar extremes are our only choices?  What a load.

I'll tell you one thing though.  Civilization needs us more then we need to do what we do for civilization.


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Pravda Reports"
> of course, that is news- the gov't says it plans will work
> Check out Papa Obama's website- they say it is great, as well
> 
> 
> 
> 7/23/12 One in 10 employers plans to drop health benefits, study finds
> _
> The study found that smaller firms were most likely to say they will drop coverage. Thirteen percent of companies with 50 to 100 workers said they would end policies within three years, compared with 2 percent of companies with more than 1,000 workers._​
> Survey: Under ObamaCare, companies could save billions by dropping health insurance coverage
> _Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this.
> "The penalties for the employers who drop coverage are very low, and the subsidies for the workers in the exchanges are very high," said James Capretta, with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
> 
> _​
> 
> So much for if you like your plan you will be able to keep it
> Yes unintended consequences and more
> costs that were not factored in.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."
> 
> CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)the health care legislation enacted in March 2010will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance exchanges that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCTs estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will
> 
> No doubt it will run just as well as the Post Office
Click to expand...


...one scenario examined here shows that larger reductions in employment-based health insurance than expected by CBO and JCT might lower rather than raise the cost of the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."
> 
> CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)the health care legislation enacted in March 2010will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance exchanges that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCTs estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.



It has just as good a chance of bringing my mother back from the grave.

The CBO ?  Really ?


----------



## Neotrotsky

What colour is the sky in Bfgrn's world



Analysis: Job Growth Was 10-Fold Higher Before the Democrats Passed Obamacare
_
&#8220;Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate, leading to predictions last year of a &#8220;Recovery Summer.&#8221; Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring.&#8221; 

Sherk writes that Obamacare &#8220;discourages employers from hiring in several ways:_​


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."
> 
> CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)the health care legislation enacted in March 2010will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance exchanges that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCTs estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has just as good a chance of bringing my mother back from the grave.
> 
> The CBO ? Really ?
Click to expand...

 
CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink

kaz said:


> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our choices are that we weren't the primary ones who built our own businesses or we "don't need civilization?"  Those polar extremes are our only choices?  What a load.
> 
> I'll tell you one thing though.  Civilization needs us more then we need to do what we do for civilization.
Click to expand...





Sure, you can have a business without all this infrastructure. Just read about the Wild West if you want a decent example, maybe not a perfect example though.

Anyone can walk a field instead of a road, anyone can shoot someone instead of calling the police, hell, anyone can take something without paying for it. What I'm saying is that businesses, as a whole, do better with government than without.


----------



## Murf76

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bad, I guess romney wasn't first
> 
> Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own' - First Read
> 
> Was just copying off the President then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suggesting a round of applause isn't quite the same as imposing additional taxation, which is ultimately enforced at the point of gun.  But nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS usually seizes bank assets or garnishes wages and salaries when it is owed money you refuse to pay. Seldom does it require a weapon. I have no idea how we got on the subject of law enforcement - but why not? So go ahead and explain to us how you would prefer the IRS collect unpaid taxes? Should they just ask nicely? Perhaps send a singing telegram?
Click to expand...


Seldom is not never.  We all know that if you give 'em enough guff about it, you'll be headed to prison at the point of a gun.  Question is, what level of force is Mitt Romney going to use in order to get that suggested round of applause?


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> What colour is the sky in Bfgrn's world
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis: Job Growth Was 10-Fold Higher Before the Democrats Passed Obamacare
> _
> Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate, leading to predictions last year of a Recovery Summer. Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring.
> 
> Sherk writes that Obamacare discourages employers from hiring in several ways:_​



OMG! The Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation saying something negative about Obama and Democrats...who would believe it?!?!

Did Sherk tell you THIS? 


American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?


Or what Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation said back in 1994 when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

*A Snare And A Delusion*

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies. 

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage. 

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a free good, an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employers contribution is the employers money and not theirs, the consumers perception is distorted (as is the providers), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, hidden taxes through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion. 

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

 In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a mandated purchase of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employers mandated purchase a tax comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the states forcible extraction of citizens money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars. We would add: Have a nice day!5

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf


----------



## Listening

The T said:


> CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.



As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions.  They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.

But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.

So if you have: GARBAGE IN

You get: Obamacare


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions. They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.
> 
> But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.
> 
> So if you have: GARBAGE IN
> 
> You get: Obamacare
Click to expand...

 
YEP...but when you have an INSTALLED minion?

Garbage has a megaphone.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.



True. Attempting to address this with rightist ideologues is pointless. Theyll adhere blindly to dogma, ignoring the facts.


----------



## boedicca

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.




Look at my thumb...........gee you're dumb.


It is such a Tired Moonbat Talking Point that conservatives don't value civilization.  What you neglect to understand is that Civilization is not the same as Government.

Civil Society is made up of voluntary relationships managed responsible individuals.   Decent CIVIL people don't need the Government to Nannystate them into proper behavior.


----------



## The T

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.


 
Did it EVER occur to YOU that Business IS civilization that operates under a set of rules that Government has perverted, and that YOU have bought into the Government meme?

IDIOT.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> What colour is the sky in Bfgrn's world
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis: Job Growth Was 10-Fold Higher Before the Democrats Passed Obamacare
> _
> &#8220;Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate, leading to predictions last year of a &#8220;Recovery Summer.&#8221; Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring.&#8221;
> 
> Sherk writes that Obamacare &#8220;discourages employers from hiring in several ways:_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG! The Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation saying something negative about Obama and Democrats...who would believe it?!?!
> 
> Did Sherk tell you THIS?
> 
> 
> American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?
> 
> 
> Or what Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation said back in 1994 when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.
Click to expand...



Oh yes the Left's attempt to justify their position by trying to equate it to 
a conservative proposal. 

Granted, while a liberal plan that was a true and complete copy of a Conservative idea would be the only way to guarantee that the liberal plan was any good, 
Papa Obama Care does not meet this test ,....

Indeed, the myth that Papa ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation continues 

As Stuart Butler himself says:
_
But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. 

First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. 
Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs &#8212; 
so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, 
financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, 
the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement._​

Granted misery loves company and the left is trying to diffuse blame for this thing
But this monstrosity all belongs to the Left and Papa Obama ...


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions.  They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.
> 
> But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.
> 
> So if you have: GARBAGE IN
> 
> You get: Obamacare
Click to expand...


Poly want a cracker? 

Obamas 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill

At the height of President Bill Clintons health care reform initiative, republicans proposed in 1993 an alternative bill. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in concept, *President Obama revived republicans 93 health reform plan.*

Today, we hear republicans feigned and plaintive wails of Socialized medicine, and unconstitutionality. Oh my!

Really? No, really? *Cause seems to me that Obamacare actually saw birth as a republican idea!*

In fact, the key provisions in the 1993 Republican bill should seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to the provisions of recently enacted health reform.

&#9830;A mandate that individuals buy insurance, &#9830;subsidies for the poor to buy insurance, &#9830;the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package, and &#9830;refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were *all in the 1993 GOP bill, just as in Obamacare.*

Former Republican Senator Durenberger believes the reason many of these ideas have been shunned by todays Republicans, even called unconstitutional by some, is that political times have changed. The main thing thats changed is the definition of a Republican, he said. Hum changed to what definition? Oh yeh thats right: *Party Of No.*

Then as now, Republicans and conservative Democrats chipped away at the Clinton plan in 1993, while actually endorsing the Presidents goal of universal health insurance coverage yet complaining that his proposal relied far too much on a complex Federal regulatory apparatus (well, whats new here? Same complaint about Obama).

How close are Obamacare and Republicans Alternative Health Plan 93? Very!






Republicans support Obamas health reforms  as long as his name isnt on them

Whats particularly interesting about this poll is that solid majorities of Republicans favor most of the laws main provisions.

* Eighty percent of Republicans favor creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance. Thats backed by 67 percent of independents.

* Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty two percent of Republicans favor allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26. Thats backed by 69 percent of independents.

* Seventy eight percent of Republicans support banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill. Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.

* One provision that isnt backed by a majority of Republicans: The one expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.

Most Republicans want to have good health coverage, Ipsos research director Chris Jackson tells me. They just dont necessarily like what it is Obama is doing.

Id add that Republicans and independents favor regulation of the health insurance system in big numbers. But the law has become so defined by the individual mandate  not to mention Obama himself  that public sentiment on the reforms themselves has been entirely drowned out.

more


----------



## Listening

Neotrotsky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> What colour is the sky in Bfgrn's world
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis: Job Growth Was 10-Fold Higher Before the Democrats Passed Obamacare
> _
> Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate, leading to predictions last year of a Recovery Summer. Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring.
> 
> Sherk writes that Obamacare discourages employers from hiring in several ways:_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG! The Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation saying something negative about Obama and Democrats...who would believe it?!?!
> 
> Did Sherk tell you THIS?
> 
> 
> American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?
> 
> 
> Or what Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation said back in 1994 when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes the Left's attempt to justify their position by trying to equate it to
> a conservative proposal.
> 
> Granted, while a liberal plan that was a true and complete copy of a Conservative idea would be the only way to guarantee that the liberal plan was any good,
> Papa Obama Care does not meet this test ,....
> 
> Indeed, the myth that Papa ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation continues
> 
> As Stuart Butler himself says:
> _
> But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features.
> 
> First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others.
> Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs 
> so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
> 
> Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher,
> financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
> 
> And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare,
> the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement._​
> 
> Granted misery loves company and the left is trying to diffuse blame for this thing
> But this monstrosity all belongs to the Left and Papa Obama ...
Click to expand...


Yes Bfgrn is all bought into the book of "How to argue for Obamacare".

I could care less if Ronald Reagan wanted it.

Here are the same rebuttals to the same stupid argument:

In 1993, the GOP was pretty much irrelevant.

They were fighting off HillaryCare which they thought was terrible.  They go find this mandate idea put out by Heritage (the left loves to quote Heritage on this one...but won't read anything else they say....talk about selective memory) and use it as a smoke screen.

It was a smokescreen.

Hillarcare dies and the GOP takes over congress in 1994...no more talk of health care.

Now, does anyone really believe that the GOP wanted health care.

Oh, and because Simon and Co. put it out there...it has to be constitutional.  Can anyone explain that logic to me ?

If the GOP had wanted health care they had ample opportunity from 1994 to 2008 to pass anything they wanted (do you really think dems would have stood in the way ?).

It just gets to funny to have these secluded left batwing morons spit this stuff out like Pavlov's dog.


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG! The Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation saying something negative about Obama and Democrats...who would believe it?!?!
> 
> Did Sherk tell you THIS?
> 
> 
> American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?
> 
> Or what Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation said back in 1994 when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes the Left's attempt to justify their position by trying to equate it to
> a conservative proposal.
> 
> Granted, while a liberal plan that was a true and complete copy of a Conservative idea would be the only way to guarantee that the liberal plan was any good,
> Papa Obama Care does not meet this test ,....
> 
> Indeed, the myth that Papa ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation continues
> 
> As Stuart Butler himself says:
> _But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. _
> 
> _First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. _
> _Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs  _
> _so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance._
> 
> _Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, _
> _financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick._
> 
> _And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, _
> _the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement._​Granted misery loves company and the left is trying to diffuse blame for this thing
> But this monstrosity all belongs to the Left and Papa Obama ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Bfgrn is all bought into the book of "How to argue for Obamacare".
> 
> I could care less if Ronald Reagan wanted it.
> 
> Here are the same rebuttals to the same stupid argument:
> 
> In 1993, the GOP was pretty much irrelevant.
> 
> They were fighting off HillaryCare which they thought was terrible. They go find this mandate idea put out by Heritage (the left loves to quote Heritage on this one...but won't read anything else they say....talk about selective memory) and use it as a smoke screen.
> 
> It was a smokescreen.
> 
> Hillarcare dies and the GOP takes over congress in 1994...no more talk of health care.
> 
> Now, does anyone really believe that the GOP wanted health care.
> 
> Oh, and because Simon and Co. put it out there...it has to be constitutional. Can anyone explain that logic to me ?
> 
> If the GOP had wanted health care they had ample opportunity from 1994 to 2008 to pass anything they wanted (do you really think dems would have stood in the way ?).
> 
> It just gets to funny to have these secluded left batwing morons spit this stuff out like Pavlov's dog.
Click to expand...

 
NO ONE in the GOP voted for Hillarycare OR Obamacare...

The Left is left with a MYTH.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions.  They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.
> 
> But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.
> 
> So if you have: GARBAGE IN
> 
> You get: Obamacare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poly want a cracker?
> 
> Obamas 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill
> 
> At the height of President Bill Clintons health care reform initiative, republicans proposed in 1993 an alternative bill. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in concept, *President Obama revived republicans 93 health reform plan.*
> 
> Today, we hear republicans feigned and plaintive wails of Socialized medicine, and unconstitutionality. Oh my!
> 
> Really? No, really? *Cause seems to me that Obamacare actually saw birth as a republican idea!*
> 
> In fact, the key provisions in the 1993 Republican bill should seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to the provisions of recently enacted health reform.
> 
> &#9830;A mandate that individuals buy insurance, &#9830;subsidies for the poor to buy insurance, &#9830;the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package, and &#9830;refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were *all in the 1993 GOP bill, just as in Obamacare.*
> 
> Former Republican Senator Durenberger believes the reason many of these ideas have been shunned by todays Republicans, even called unconstitutional by some, is that political times have changed. The main thing thats changed is the definition of a Republican, he said. Hum changed to what definition? Oh yeh thats right: *Party Of No.*
> 
> Then as now, Republicans and conservative Democrats chipped away at the Clinton plan in 1993, while actually endorsing the Presidents goal of universal health insurance coverage yet complaining that his proposal relied far too much on a complex Federal regulatory apparatus (well, whats new here? Same complaint about Obama).
> 
> How close are Obamacare and Republicans Alternative Health Plan 93? Very!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans support Obamas health reforms  as long as his name isnt on them
> 
> Whats particularly interesting about this poll is that solid majorities of Republicans favor most of the laws main provisions.
> 
> * Eighty percent of Republicans favor creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance. Thats backed by 67 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty two percent of Republicans favor allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26. Thats backed by 69 percent of independents.
> 
> * Seventy eight percent of Republicans support banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill. Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.
> 
> * One provision that isnt backed by a majority of Republicans: The one expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.
> 
> Most Republicans want to have good health coverage, Ipsos research director Chris Jackson tells me. They just dont necessarily like what it is Obama is doing.
> 
> Id add that Republicans and independents favor regulation of the health insurance system in big numbers. But the law has become so defined by the individual mandate  not to mention Obama himself  that public sentiment on the reforms themselves has been entirely drowned out.
> 
> more
Click to expand...


Hey asswipe....

How does that apply to what I posted.

Or did you just need to get this off your chest even though it has no relevance to the topic at hand ?

Feel better ?  Good.  Now go f**k yourself.


----------



## The T

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions. They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.
> 
> But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.
> 
> So if you have: GARBAGE IN
> 
> You get: Obamacare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poly want a cracker?
> 
> Obamas 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill
> 
> At the height of President Bill Clintons health care reform initiative, republicans proposed in 1993 an alternative bill. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in concept, *President Obama revived republicans 93 health reform plan.*
> 
> Today, we hear republicans feigned and plaintive wails of Socialized medicine, and unconstitutionality. Oh my!
> 
> Really? No, really? *Cause seems to me that Obamacare actually saw birth as a republican idea!*
> 
> In fact, the key provisions in the 1993 Republican bill should seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to the provisions of recently enacted health reform.
> 
> &#9830;A mandate that individuals buy insurance, &#9830;subsidies for the poor to buy insurance, &#9830;the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package, and &#9830;refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were *all in the 1993 GOP bill, just as in Obamacare.*
> 
> Former Republican Senator Durenberger believes the reason many of these ideas have been shunned by todays Republicans, even called unconstitutional by some, is that political times have changed. The main thing thats changed is the definition of a Republican, he said. Hum changed to what definition? Oh yeh thats right: *Party Of No.*
> 
> Then as now, Republicans and conservative Democrats chipped away at the Clinton plan in 1993, while actually endorsing the Presidents goal of universal health insurance coverage yet complaining that his proposal relied far too much on a complex Federal regulatory apparatus (well, whats new here? Same complaint about Obama).
> 
> How close are Obamacare and Republicans Alternative Health Plan 93? Very!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans support Obamas health reforms  as long as his name isnt on them
> 
> Whats particularly interesting about this poll is that solid majorities of Republicans favor most of the laws main provisions.
> 
> * Eighty percent of Republicans favor creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance. Thats backed by 67 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty two percent of Republicans favor allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26. Thats backed by 69 percent of independents.
> 
> * Seventy eight percent of Republicans support banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill. Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.
> 
> * One provision that isnt backed by a majority of Republicans: The one expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.
> 
> Most Republicans want to have good health coverage, Ipsos research director Chris Jackson tells me. They just dont necessarily like what it is Obama is doing.
> 
> Id add that Republicans and independents favor regulation of the health insurance system in big numbers. But the law has become so defined by the individual mandate  not to mention Obama himself  that public sentiment on the reforms themselves has been entirely drowned out.
> 
> more
Click to expand...

 
BuFU? you're full of SHIT.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn seems determined to derail this thread with incessant spamming if he can't do it any other way, and I thank the sane people for not taking the bait.

So back on the topic, President Obama's campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, has been out on the circuit doing damage control this week.   But she hasn't quite managed to reverse the concept that people object to in President Obama's remarks, and in fact managed to reinforce them.  



> . . . .The Obama campaign walk-back on the president&#8217;s July 13 remarks then took the form of claiming that big federal government programs are equally responsible for business successes. In essence, the Obama campaign denied government created business successes, and then Cutter backtracked again to Obama&#8217;s original position, stating:
> 
> The President said that together, Americans built the free enterprise system that we all benefit from&#8230;. He has invested in our roads, bridges and highways, he has doubled Pell grant scholarships and reformed the student loan system to help students afford college, and he is committed to making sure that every community in America is connected to the digital age by expanding broadband access. Ironically, Mitt Romney knows better than anyone that business can&#8217;t always do it alone&#8230;. These attack ads make you wonder. Does [Romney] even understand how our economy works? You and I know how it works. We build our businesses through hard work and initiative, with the public and private sectors working together to create a climate that helps us grow. President Obama knows that, and he&#8217;s fighting to strengthen our economy on that basic principle.
> 
> Cutter&#8217;s remarks echoed Obama&#8217;s remarks about small businesses that &#8220;we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology.&#8221; Of course, the federal government has not always subsidized education and technology; these are extra-constitutional innovations of the last 40 years and not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. And the federal government has a poor track record of backing technology with tax dollars.
> 
> *More troubling than the lack of historical and constitutional history is the fact that Obama and Cutter&#8217;s summary of Obama&#8217;s economic agenda as &#8220;the public and private sectors working together&#8221; serves as a succinct definition of economic fascism and the opposite of free enterprise. Furthermore, Obama seems to be unaware that business owners, through their tax dollars, are actually paying for the &#8220;roads&#8221; and &#8220;bridges&#8221; and &#8220;education&#8221; that they supposedly depend upon. So perhaps the president should be thanking businesses for contributing to the government*
> » Barack Obama Walks Back


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn seems determined to derail this thread with incessant spamming if he can't do it any other way, and I thank the sane people for not taking the bait.
> 
> So back on the topic, President Obama's campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, has been out on the circuit doing damage control this week. But she hasn't quite managed to reverse the concept that people object to in President Obama's remarks, and in fact managed to reinforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . .The Obama campaign walk-back on the presidents July 13 remarks then took the form of claiming that big federal government programs are equally responsible for business successes. In essence, the Obama campaign denied government created business successes, and then Cutter backtracked again to Obamas original position, stating:
> 
> The President said that together, Americans built the free enterprise system that we all benefit from. He has invested in our roads, bridges and highways, he has doubled Pell grant scholarships and reformed the student loan system to help students afford college, and he is committed to making sure that every community in America is connected to the digital age by expanding broadband access. Ironically, Mitt Romney knows better than anyone that business cant always do it alone. These attack ads make you wonder. Does [Romney] even understand how our economy works? You and I know how it works. We build our businesses through hard work and initiative, with the public and private sectors working together to create a climate that helps us grow. President Obama knows that, and hes fighting to strengthen our economy on that basic principle.
> 
> Cutters remarks echoed Obamas remarks about small businesses that we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology. Of course, the federal government has not always subsidized education and technology; these are extra-constitutional innovations of the last 40 years and not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. And the federal government has a poor track record of backing technology with tax dollars.
> 
> *More troubling than the lack of historical and constitutional history is the fact that Obama and Cutters summary of Obamas economic agenda as the public and private sectors working together serves as a succinct definition of economic fascism and the opposite of free enterprise. Furthermore, Obama seems to be unaware that business owners, through their tax dollars, are actually paying for the roads and bridges and education that they supposedly depend upon. So perhaps the president should be thanking businesses for contributing to the government*
> » Barack Obama Walks Back
Click to expand...

 
Obama got off-topic...told us WHO he was...Teleprompter or not.

The MASK is OFF.

The PEOPLE are awake.

NO recovery for Obama.

That simple.


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> What colour is the sky in Bfgrn's world
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis: Job Growth Was 10-Fold Higher Before the Democrats Passed Obamacare
> _
> Private-sector job creation initially recovered from the recession at a normal rate, leading to predictions last year of a Recovery Summer. Since April 2010, however, net private-sector job creation has stalled. Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, the job market stopped improving. This suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring.
> 
> Sherk writes that Obamacare discourages employers from hiring in several ways:_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG! The Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation saying something negative about Obama and Democrats...who would believe it?!?!
> 
> Did Sherk tell you THIS?
> 
> 
> American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?
> 
> 
> Or what Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation said back in 1994 when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes the Left's attempt to justify their position by trying to equate it to
> a conservative proposal.
> 
> Granted, while a liberal plan that was a true and complete copy of a Conservative idea would be the only way to guarantee that the liberal plan was any good,
> Papa Obama Care does not meet this test ,....
> 
> Indeed, the myth that Papa ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation continues
> 
> As Stuart Butler himself says:
> _
> But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features.
> 
> First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others.
> Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs 
> so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
> 
> Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher,
> financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
> 
> And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare,
> the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement._​
> 
> Granted misery loves company and the left is trying to diffuse blame for this thing
> But this monstrosity all belongs to the Left and Papa Obama ...
Click to expand...


More shock and surprise! Stuart Butler not telling the truth...WOW, who would believe the people who invented the individual mandate would now say it is a bad idea?

BTW, Thank you for not reading what Robert Moffit wrote. I will provide the paramount issue he explains.

Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a free good, an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing.

He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.

Here is much more of what Moffit wrote.

Personal Freedom Responsibility And Mandates

*The Taxpayer Mandate*

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a consumer choice plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.*3* Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a metaphysical abstraction. 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

*3* The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698), Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).


----------



## saveliberty

kaz said:


> REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on ALL factors...PERIOD.
> 
> And you're talking to two business owners in Foxfyre and me.  Clearly a rational business owner would consider every variable and government is a big one.  And government is doing everything it can to bury us.  It's only your ignorance that lets you believe otherwise.



...and I'm a third.  My potential employees lost to mandatory worker's compensation coverage, if I have employees.  Its just me now and probably will be from now on.


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn seems determined to derail this thread with incessant spamming if he can't do it any other way, and I thank the sane people for not taking the bait.
> 
> So back on the topic, President Obama's campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, has been out on the circuit doing damage control this week. But she hasn't quite managed to reverse the concept that people object to in President Obama's remarks, and in fact managed to reinforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . .The Obama campaign walk-back on the president&#8217;s July 13 remarks then took the form of claiming that big federal government programs are equally responsible for business successes. In essence, the Obama campaign denied government created business successes, and then Cutter backtracked again to Obama&#8217;s original position, stating:
> 
> The President said that together, Americans built the free enterprise system that we all benefit from&#8230;. He has invested in our roads, bridges and highways, he has doubled Pell grant scholarships and reformed the student loan system to help students afford college, and he is committed to making sure that every community in America is connected to the digital age by expanding broadband access. Ironically, Mitt Romney knows better than anyone that business can&#8217;t always do it alone&#8230;. These attack ads make you wonder. Does [Romney] even understand how our economy works? You and I know how it works. We build our businesses through hard work and initiative, with the public and private sectors working together to create a climate that helps us grow. President Obama knows that, and he&#8217;s fighting to strengthen our economy on that basic principle.
> 
> Cutter&#8217;s remarks echoed Obama&#8217;s remarks about small businesses that &#8220;we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology.&#8221; Of course, the federal government has not always subsidized education and technology; these are extra-constitutional innovations of the last 40 years and not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. And the federal government has a poor track record of backing technology with tax dollars.
> 
> *More troubling than the lack of historical and constitutional history is the fact that Obama and Cutter&#8217;s summary of Obama&#8217;s economic agenda as &#8220;the public and private sectors working together&#8221; serves as a succinct definition of economic fascism and the opposite of free enterprise. Furthermore, Obama seems to be unaware that business owners, through their tax dollars, are actually paying for the &#8220;roads&#8221; and &#8220;bridges&#8221; and &#8220;education&#8221; that they supposedly depend upon. So perhaps the president should be thanking businesses for contributing to the government*
> » Barack Obama Walks Back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama got off-topic...told us WHO he was...Teleprompter or not.
> 
> The MASK is OFF.
> 
> The PEOPLE are awake.
> 
> NO recovery for Obama.
> 
> That simple.
Click to expand...


I was very pleased to see the Infowars site be sharp enough to pick up on the Marxist aspect of what Obama and his campaign staff are putting out there.  That is really encouraging that you are right and the mask is off.  Now if enough of the apathetic who have been lulled into complacency will just wake up too, we can get the proper momentum going on this.

They called it "economic facism' but that is a critical stage in the march from capitalism to communism.


----------



## saveliberty

Obama can't walk this one back.  Any offended business owner has made up his/her mind.  I quick apology in the beginning might have done some damage control, but that time has long passed.  It has also set the tone for how any future comments on the subject will be filtered and viewed.  The socialist face has been viewed and few will be able to forget.


----------



## Listening

saveliberty said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on ALL factors...PERIOD.
> 
> And you're talking to two business owners in Foxfyre and me.  Clearly a rational business owner would consider every variable and government is a big one.  And government is doing everything it can to bury us.  It's only your ignorance that lets you believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and I'm a third.  My potential employees lost to mandatory worker's compensation coverage, if I have employees.  Its just me now and probably will be from now on.
Click to expand...


Please go to this thread and elaborate a little more if you would.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/236875-government-did-not-build-your-business.html

Jobs lost to a small business because of....the government.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Not telling the truth not at all

But the Left's desperation to cover for the monstrosity of PapaObama Care
is noted

As the article says:_
Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts._​
While one can appreciate the Left's desperation to cover their ass on this one,
PapaObama Care went far beyond any discussion by these groups.

It is rather amusing that the Left can only justify their position by 
trying to claim it is conservative. Understandable, but still funny

One would think the Left would be proud and brave to say
"Hey this is our baby and we are taking all the credit for it"


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAL 'businessmen' decide to hire or expand based on ALL factors...PERIOD.
> 
> And you're talking to two business owners in Foxfyre and me.  Clearly a rational business owner would consider every variable and government is a big one.  And government is doing everything it can to bury us.  It's only your ignorance that lets you believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and I'm a third.  My potential employees lost to mandatory worker's compensation coverage, if I have employees.  Its just me now and probably will be from now on.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't be the first to run into that particular problem.  You have to be competitive in order to get the jobs.  And a very small business generally can't keep a year round staff but needs to have workers who can work on an as-needed basis.  Most states, however, have set up systems in which the insurance companies require a minimum premium to cover you for work comp whether you have anybody working in a given week or not.  

So there's another case where government dictates the terms rather than work with the businessman to find a way to accommodate the way he has to work.  And in the process, people who might have had a chance to supplement their incomes lose the opportunity to do so.


----------



## Murf76

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn seems determined to derail this thread with incessant spamming if he can't do it any other way, and I thank the sane people for not taking the bait.
> 
> So back on the topic, President Obama's campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, has been out on the circuit doing damage control this week.   But she hasn't quite managed to reverse the concept that people object to in President Obama's remarks, and in fact managed to reinforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . .The Obama campaign walk-back on the presidents July 13 remarks then took the form of claiming that big federal government programs are equally responsible for business successes. In essence, the Obama campaign denied government created business successes, and then Cutter backtracked again to Obamas original position, stating:
> 
> The President said that together, Americans built the free enterprise system that we all benefit from. He has invested in our roads, bridges and highways, he has doubled Pell grant scholarships and reformed the student loan system to help students afford college, and he is committed to making sure that every community in America is connected to the digital age by expanding broadband access. Ironically, Mitt Romney knows better than anyone that business cant always do it alone. These attack ads make you wonder. Does [Romney] even understand how our economy works? You and I know how it works. We build our businesses through hard work and initiative, with the public and private sectors working together to create a climate that helps us grow. President Obama knows that, and hes fighting to strengthen our economy on that basic principle.
> 
> Cutters remarks echoed Obamas remarks about small businesses that we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology. Of course, the federal government has not always subsidized education and technology; these are extra-constitutional innovations of the last 40 years and not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. And the federal government has a poor track record of backing technology with tax dollars.
> 
> *More troubling than the lack of historical and constitutional history is the fact that Obama and Cutters summary of Obamas economic agenda as the public and private sectors working together serves as a succinct definition of economic fascism and the opposite of free enterprise. Furthermore, Obama seems to be unaware that business owners, through their tax dollars, are actually paying for the roads and bridges and education that they supposedly depend upon. So perhaps the president should be thanking businesses for contributing to the government*
> » Barack Obama Walks Back
Click to expand...


Not so much walking back as doubling down.  These people can't help themselves. They're stuck on stupid.


----------



## Foxfyre

Murf76 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn seems determined to derail this thread with incessant spamming if he can't do it any other way, and I thank the sane people for not taking the bait.
> 
> So back on the topic, President Obama's campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, has been out on the circuit doing damage control this week.   But she hasn't quite managed to reverse the concept that people object to in President Obama's remarks, and in fact managed to reinforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . .The Obama campaign walk-back on the presidents July 13 remarks then took the form of claiming that big federal government programs are equally responsible for business successes. In essence, the Obama campaign denied government created business successes, and then Cutter backtracked again to Obamas original position, stating:
> 
> The President said that together, Americans built the free enterprise system that we all benefit from. He has invested in our roads, bridges and highways, he has doubled Pell grant scholarships and reformed the student loan system to help students afford college, and he is committed to making sure that every community in America is connected to the digital age by expanding broadband access. Ironically, Mitt Romney knows better than anyone that business cant always do it alone. These attack ads make you wonder. Does [Romney] even understand how our economy works? You and I know how it works. We build our businesses through hard work and initiative, with the public and private sectors working together to create a climate that helps us grow. President Obama knows that, and hes fighting to strengthen our economy on that basic principle.
> 
> Cutters remarks echoed Obamas remarks about small businesses that we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology. Of course, the federal government has not always subsidized education and technology; these are extra-constitutional innovations of the last 40 years and not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. And the federal government has a poor track record of backing technology with tax dollars.
> 
> *More troubling than the lack of historical and constitutional history is the fact that Obama and Cutters summary of Obamas economic agenda as the public and private sectors working together serves as a succinct definition of economic fascism and the opposite of free enterprise. Furthermore, Obama seems to be unaware that business owners, through their tax dollars, are actually paying for the roads and bridges and education that they supposedly depend upon. So perhaps the president should be thanking businesses for contributing to the government*
> » Barack Obama Walks Back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so much walking back as doubling down.  These people can't help themselves. They're stuck on stupid.
Click to expand...


LOL good point.  Damage control isn't too effective when they do that.

Well let's hope they stay stuck on stupid because I'm seeing some encouraging signs that some of the sleepers out there are beginning to wake up and get serious.  And I hope we here at USMB are giving just a little bit of help to make that happen.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ConzHateUSA said:


> wow, they finally admitted that Obama;s agenda is at best moderate, that practically everything he has supported was either initially created by a con or supported by them
> 
> and yet still they hate him, why?   we all know, dont we



Because he's Marxist/Lennonist. And YOU are hereby on ignore.


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> Not telling the truth not at all
> 
> But the Left's desperation to cover for the monstrosity of PapaObama Care
> is noted
> 
> As the article says:_
> Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
> Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts._​
> While one can appreciate the Left's desperation to cover their ass on this one,
> PapaObama Care went far beyond any discussion by these groups.
> 
> It is rather amusing that the Left can only justify their position by
> trying to claim it is conservative. Understandable, but still funny
> 
> One would think the Left would be proud and brave to say
> "Hey this is our baby and we are taking all the credit for it"



Thank you AGAIN for ignoring what Moffit wrote. Maybe you will read what Stuart M. Butler wrote, back when the individual mandate was THEIR invention:

    "If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance . . . society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services . . . .

    A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. . . . Each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."[1]

[1] Start M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Lectures 218, p. 8(1989).

Here is a history lesson for you.

The Individual Mandate, a Brief History  Part I, Conservative Origins


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG! The Weekly Standard and the Heritage Foundation saying something negative about Obama and Democrats...who would believe it?!?!
> 
> Did Sherk tell you THIS?
> 
> 
> American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do?
> 
> 
> Or what Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation said back in 1994 when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes the Left's attempt to justify their position by trying to equate it to
> a conservative proposal.
> 
> Granted, while a liberal plan that was a true and complete copy of a Conservative idea would be the only way to guarantee that the liberal plan was any good,
> Papa Obama Care does not meet this test ,....
> 
> Indeed, the myth that Papa ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation continues
> 
> As Stuart Butler himself says:
> _
> But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features.
> 
> First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others.
> Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs 
> so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
> 
> Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher,
> financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
> 
> And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare,
> the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement._​
> 
> Granted misery loves company and the left is trying to diffuse blame for this thing
> But this monstrosity all belongs to the Left and Papa Obama ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Bfgrn is all bought into the book of "How to argue for Obamacare".
> 
> I could care less if Ronald Reagan wanted it.
> 
> Here are the same rebuttals to the same stupid argument:
> 
> In 1993, the GOP was pretty much irrelevant.
> 
> They were fighting off HillaryCare which they thought was terrible.  They go find this mandate idea put out by Heritage (the left loves to quote Heritage on this one...but won't read anything else they say....talk about selective memory) and use it as a smoke screen.
> 
> It was a smokescreen.
> 
> Hillarcare dies and the GOP takes over congress in 1994...no more talk of health care.
> 
> Now, does anyone really believe that the GOP wanted health care.
> 
> Oh, and because Simon and Co. put it out there...it has to be constitutional.  Can anyone explain that logic to me ?
> 
> If the GOP had wanted health care they had ample opportunity from 1994 to 2008 to pass anything they wanted (do you really think dems would have stood in the way ?).
> 
> It just gets to funny to have these secluded left batwing morons spit this stuff out like Pavlov's dog.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was a smokescreen. Back then, Bill Kristols infamous memo convinced the party that any compromise on health care reform would be good for President Clinton and thus bad for them.

And this time Republicans made a COLLECTIVE decision to act like they were for reform, while they were parroting a Frank Luntz memo instructing them on how to destroy reform and the President of the United States of America. We, the People were never considered.

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obamas Waterloo  just as healthcare was Clintons in 1994."

David Frum, President G.W. Bush's speechwriter.

But NOW, you must make the case for the status quo. Let's hear it???


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women. One of the biggest handicaps small business has in regards to health care costs is that they don't get the price breaks large corporations get. The Affordable Care Act addresses that disadvantage:
> 
> 
> Small Businesses and the Affordable Care Act
> 
> You know the value of providing health insurance to your employees. But it can be a real challenge for small businesses. On average, small businesses pay about 18% more than large firms for the same health insurance policy. And small businesses lack the purchasing power that larger employers have. The health care law provides tax credits and soon - the ability to shop for insurance in Exchanges that help close this gap.
> 
> Top Things to Know for Small Businesses
> 
> 
> If you have up to 25 employees, pay average annual wages below $50,000, and provide health insurance, you may qualify for a small business tax credit of up to 35% (up to 25% for non-profits) to offset the cost of your insurance. This will bring down the cost of providing insurance.
> 
> 
> Under the health care law, employer-based plans that provide health insurance to retirees ages 55-64 can now get financial help through the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. This program is designed to lower the cost of premiums for all employees and reduce employer health costs.
> 
> 
> Starting in 2014, the small business tax credit goes up to 50% (up to 35% for non-profits) for qualifying businesses. This will make the cost of providing insurance even lower.
> 
> 
> In 2014, small businesses with generally fewer than 100 employees can shop in an Affordable Insurance Exchange, which gives you power similar to what large businesses have to get better choices and lower prices. An Exchange is a new marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable health benefit plans.
> 
> 
> Exchanges will offer a choice of plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able to buy your insurance through Exchanges, too.
> 
> 
> Employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from new employer responsibility policies. They dont have to pay an assessment if their employees get tax credits through an Exchange.
> 
> Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pravda Reports"
> of course, that is news- the gov't says it plans will work
> Check out Papa Obama's website- they say it is great, as well
> 
> 
> 
> 7/23/12 One in 10 employers plans to drop health benefits, study finds
> _
> The study found that smaller firms were most likely to say they will drop coverage. Thirteen percent of companies with 50 to 100 workers said they would end policies within three years, compared with 2 percent of companies with more than 1,000 workers._​
> Survey: Under ObamaCare, companies could save billions by dropping health insurance coverage
> _Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this.
> "The penalties for the employers who drop coverage are very low, and the subsidies for the workers in the exchanges are very high," said James Capretta, with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
> 
> _​
> 
> So much for if you like your plan you will be able to keep it
> Yes unintended consequences and more
> costs that were not factored in.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."
> 
> CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)the health care legislation enacted in March 2010will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance exchanges that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCTs estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.
Click to expand...


Bullshit....Employers will drop insurance coverage because it is cheaper for them to do so.
Step back from the Obama cheerleading and face some facts.
My wife has us under her employer's insurance. She pays almost $500 per month. 
The rest of the cost is on the employer. Roughly $18k per year. So, the employer will look at that cost and compare it to the 8% that the federal government would fine the company for not providing the insurance coverage. Case closed.
Reduce cost? No. Obama care may  reduce the price charged to the recipient of care, but the plan will not be able to control COST. The COST of medical care will continue to rise. 
New technology, new medicines, etc...Those items COST money. The only way to achieve any "savings' is for government to subsidize the COST. In other words more debt will be created to cover the COST.
Brilliant. 
Obamacare MUST be repealed if not then gutted.
It's job killing disaster.


----------



## thereisnospoon

kaz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I a "so called" small businessman?  Your start your speech to assure me by insulting me?  Sounds like Obama, I'll give you that.
Click to expand...


bfgrn is a dyed in the wool anti-capitalist.
He and those like him despise free enterprise. They hate achievement and success.
They view wealth as the property of the US Government.


----------



## thereisnospoon

OohPooPahDoo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all you 'so called' small businessmen/women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I a "so called" small businessman?  Your start your speech to assure me by insulting me?  Sounds like Obama, I'll give you that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because people call you that? A bit sensitive today, is it your period?
Click to expand...


He is not a "so called" small businessman. He IS a small businessman.
Big difference.
The former is a backhanded swipe. A snarky remark. 
The latter is achievement.


----------



## thereisnospoon

OohPooPahDoo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because people call you that? A bit sensitive today, is it your period?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what "so called" means.  So called means we're incorrectly called that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So called" can either mean incorrectly called, as you mention, or it could also mean "popularly referred to as"
> 
> 
> so-called - definition of so-called by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> Depends on the context - but I wouldn't expect a rightie to know anything about context. Just react emotionally and get outraged at everything - that's all the right's good aat.
> 
> '
> I would think he used "so called" because the ACA actually also helps out a lot of business that some might not consider "small"
> 
> But that's OK - please proceed with your outrage and get offended at everything a lefty says. Its all your type is good at.
Click to expand...


Cut the crap. You libs are adept at hiding behind words and splitting hairs.
Not one of you has a real world bone in your collective bodies.


----------



## saveliberty

No Bfgrn, the health care issue is that its just too big a cost for most small businesses to consider period.  I find it laughable that you tout Obamacare, when there is no price tag on it at all.  You think it will be affordable, but there is no supporting evidence that it will be.  COBRA certainly isn't affordable.


----------



## saveliberty

I really appreciate the continued liberal assault on us small business people.  The evidence just keeps mounting that you really are the root cause of our problems in restarting this economy.  November is just a great opportunity to discard all the drag you guys add to the economy.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions.  They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.
> 
> But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.
> 
> So if you have: GARBAGE IN
> 
> You get: Obamacare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poly want a cracker?
> 
> Obamas 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill
> 
> At the height of President Bill Clintons health care reform initiative, republicans proposed in 1993 an alternative bill. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in concept, *President Obama revived republicans 93 health reform plan.*
> 
> Today, we hear republicans feigned and plaintive wails of Socialized medicine, and unconstitutionality. Oh my!
> 
> Really? No, really? *Cause seems to me that Obamacare actually saw birth as a republican idea!*
> 
> In fact, the key provisions in the 1993 Republican bill should seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to the provisions of recently enacted health reform.
> 
> &#9830;A mandate that individuals buy insurance, &#9830;subsidies for the poor to buy insurance, &#9830;the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package, and &#9830;refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were *all in the 1993 GOP bill, just as in Obamacare.*
> 
> Former Republican Senator Durenberger believes the reason many of these ideas have been shunned by todays Republicans, even called unconstitutional by some, is that political times have changed. The main thing thats changed is the definition of a Republican, he said. Hum changed to what definition? Oh yeh thats right: *Party Of No.*
> 
> Then as now, Republicans and conservative Democrats chipped away at the Clinton plan in 1993, while actually endorsing the Presidents goal of universal health insurance coverage yet complaining that his proposal relied far too much on a complex Federal regulatory apparatus (well, whats new here? Same complaint about Obama).
> 
> How close are Obamacare and Republicans Alternative Health Plan 93? Very!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans support Obamas health reforms  as long as his name isnt on them
> 
> Whats particularly interesting about this poll is that solid majorities of Republicans favor most of the laws main provisions.
> 
> * Eighty percent of Republicans favor creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance. Thats backed by 67 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty two percent of Republicans favor allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26. Thats backed by 69 percent of independents.
> 
> * Seventy eight percent of Republicans support banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill. Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.
> 
> * One provision that isnt backed by a majority of Republicans: The one expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.
> 
> Most Republicans want to have good health coverage, Ipsos research director Chris Jackson tells me. They just dont necessarily like what it is Obama is doing.
> 
> Id add that Republicans and independents favor regulation of the health insurance system in big numbers. But the law has become so defined by the individual mandate  not to mention Obama himself  that public sentiment on the reforms themselves has been entirely drowned out.
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey asswipe....
> 
> How does that apply to what I posted.
> 
> Or did you just need to get this off your chest even though it has no relevance to the topic at hand ?
> 
> Feel better ?  Good.  *Now go f**k yourself.*
Click to expand...


He who angers you conquers you.
E. Kenny


----------



## thereisnospoon

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."
> 
> CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)the health care legislation enacted in March 2010will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance exchanges that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCTs estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has just as good a chance of bringing my mother back from the grave.
> 
> The CBO ?  Really ?
Click to expand...


these people on the left just do what they are told. They believe the propaganda.
These government organizations are under the control of the Obama regime. Non partisan my ass.
No department of the federal government is going to publicly write or say anything that makes Obama look bad.
These 'so-called' facts are bullshit.


----------



## saveliberty

Guess I own your sorry ass then.  Question is now, what could I possibly need it for?  I can't think of a single purpose.  I'll just throw you back like a carp.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> CBO isn't nonpartisan as those in power and the media wish us to belive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions.  They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.
> 
> But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.
> 
> So if you have: GARBAGE IN
> 
> You get: Obamacare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poly want a cracker?
> 
> Obamas 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill
> 
> At the height of President Bill Clintons health care reform initiative, republicans proposed in 1993 an alternative bill. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in concept, *President Obama revived republicans 93 health reform plan.*
> 
> Today, we hear republicans feigned and plaintive wails of Socialized medicine, and unconstitutionality. Oh my!
> 
> Really? No, really? *Cause seems to me that Obamacare actually saw birth as a republican idea!*
> 
> In fact, the key provisions in the 1993 Republican bill should seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to the provisions of recently enacted health reform.
> 
> &#9830;A mandate that individuals buy insurance, &#9830;subsidies for the poor to buy insurance, &#9830;the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package, and &#9830;refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were *all in the 1993 GOP bill, just as in Obamacare.*
> 
> Former Republican Senator Durenberger believes the reason many of these ideas have been shunned by todays Republicans, even called unconstitutional by some, is that political times have changed. The main thing thats changed is the definition of a Republican, he said. Hum changed to what definition? Oh yeh thats right: *Party Of No.*
> 
> Then as now, Republicans and conservative Democrats chipped away at the Clinton plan in 1993, while actually endorsing the Presidents goal of universal health insurance coverage yet complaining that his proposal relied far too much on a complex Federal regulatory apparatus (well, whats new here? Same complaint about Obama).
> 
> How close are Obamacare and Republicans Alternative Health Plan 93? Very!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans support Obamas health reforms  as long as his name isnt on them
> 
> Whats particularly interesting about this poll is that solid majorities of Republicans favor most of the laws main provisions.
> 
> * Eighty percent of Republicans favor creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance. Thats backed by 67 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty two percent of Republicans favor allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26. Thats backed by 69 percent of independents.
> 
> * Seventy eight percent of Republicans support banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill. Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.
> 
> * One provision that isnt backed by a majority of Republicans: The one expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.
> 
> Most Republicans want to have good health coverage, Ipsos research director Chris Jackson tells me. They just dont necessarily like what it is Obama is doing.
> 
> Id add that Republicans and independents favor regulation of the health insurance system in big numbers. But the law has become so defined by the individual mandate  not to mention Obama himself  that public sentiment on the reforms themselves has been entirely drowned out.
> 
> more
Click to expand...


Oh please. An editorial in the WashPo?


----------



## Bfgrn

thereisnospoon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Pravda Reports"
> of course, that is news- the gov't says it plans will work
> Check out Papa Obama's website- they say it is great, as well
> 
> 
> 
> 7/23/12 One in 10 employers plans to drop health benefits, study finds
> _
> The study found that smaller firms were most likely to say they will drop coverage. Thirteen percent of companies with 50 to 100 workers said they would end policies within three years, compared with 2 percent of companies with more than 1,000 workers._​
> Survey: Under ObamaCare, companies could save billions by dropping health insurance coverage
> _Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this.
> "The penalties for the employers who drop coverage are very low, and the subsidies for the workers in the exchanges are very high," said James Capretta, with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
> 
> _​
> 
> So much for if you like your plan you will be able to keep it
> Yes unintended consequences and more
> costs that were not factored in.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."
> 
> CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)the health care legislation enacted in March 2010will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance exchanges that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCTs estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit....Employers will drop insurance coverage because it is cheaper for them to do so.
> Step back from the Obama cheerleading and face some facts.
> My wife has us under her employer's insurance. She pays almost $500 per month.
> The rest of the cost is on the employer. Roughly $18k per year. So, the employer will look at that cost and compare it to the 8% that the federal government would fine the company for not providing the insurance coverage. Case closed.
> Reduce cost? No. Obama care may  reduce the price charged to the recipient of care, but the plan will not be able to control COST. The COST of medical care will continue to rise.
> New technology, new medicines, etc...Those items COST money. The only way to achieve any "savings' is for government to subsidize the COST. In other words more debt will be created to cover the COST.
> Brilliant.
> Obamacare MUST be repealed if not then gutted.
> It's job killing disaster.
Click to expand...


NONE of the 'cost' is on the employer. ALL of the cost is on YOU.

A Snare And A Delusion - Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explains. 

Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a free good, an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing.

Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars. We would add: Have a nice day!5

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink

The T said:


> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it EVER occur to YOU that Business IS civilization that operates under a set of rules that Government has perverted, and that YOU have bought into the Government meme?
> 
> IDIOT.
Click to expand...


 Is that where the indivdual would foot the cost of things like having the police come out to your house o, well, wouldn't you be charged for everything pretty much? At this point i'm wondering because im not sure....dude


----------



## Bfgrn

thereisnospoon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."
> 
> CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)the health care legislation enacted in March 2010will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance exchanges that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCTs estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has just as good a chance of bringing my mother back from the grave.
> 
> The CBO ?  Really ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> these people on the left just do what they are told. They believe the propaganda.
> These government organizations are under the control of the Obama regime. Non partisan my ass.
> No department of the federal government is going to publicly write or say anything that makes Obama look bad.
> These 'so-called' facts are bullshit.
Click to expand...


The CBO is under the jurisdiction of the legislative branch. The President is the head of the executive branch. No wonder you right wingers are so confused.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government that provides economic data to Congress. The CBO was created as a nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

History

The Congressional Budget Office was created by Title II of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (P.L. 93-344), which was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on July 12, 1974. Official operations began on February 24, 1975, with Alice Rivlin as director. wiki


----------



## Bfgrn

thereisnospoon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, they have to take what you give them as assumptions.  They can call out the assumptions...which they did on several cases....as being really off the wall.
> 
> But they still have to give numbers based on what they are given.
> 
> So if you have: GARBAGE IN
> 
> You get: Obamacare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poly want a cracker?
> 
> Obamas 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill
> 
> At the height of President Bill Clintons health care reform initiative, republicans proposed in 1993 an alternative bill. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in concept, *President Obama revived republicans 93 health reform plan.*
> 
> Today, we hear republicans feigned and plaintive wails of Socialized medicine, and unconstitutionality. Oh my!
> 
> Really? No, really? *Cause seems to me that Obamacare actually saw birth as a republican idea!*
> 
> In fact, the key provisions in the 1993 Republican bill should seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to the provisions of recently enacted health reform.
> 
> &#9830;A mandate that individuals buy insurance, &#9830;subsidies for the poor to buy insurance, &#9830;the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package, and &#9830;refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were *all in the 1993 GOP bill, just as in Obamacare.*
> 
> Former Republican Senator Durenberger believes the reason many of these ideas have been shunned by todays Republicans, even called unconstitutional by some, is that political times have changed. The main thing thats changed is the definition of a Republican, he said. Hum changed to what definition? Oh yeh thats right: *Party Of No.*
> 
> Then as now, Republicans and conservative Democrats chipped away at the Clinton plan in 1993, while actually endorsing the Presidents goal of universal health insurance coverage yet complaining that his proposal relied far too much on a complex Federal regulatory apparatus (well, whats new here? Same complaint about Obama).
> 
> How close are Obamacare and Republicans Alternative Health Plan 93? Very!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans support Obamas health reforms  as long as his name isnt on them
> 
> Whats particularly interesting about this poll is that solid majorities of Republicans favor most of the laws main provisions.
> 
> * Eighty percent of Republicans favor creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance. Thats backed by 67 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty-four percent of Republicans favor requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employers. Thats backed by 75 percent of independents.
> 
> * Fifty two percent of Republicans favor allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26. Thats backed by 69 percent of independents.
> 
> * Seventy eight percent of Republicans support banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill. Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.
> 
> * One provision that isnt backed by a majority of Republicans: The one expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year.
> 
> Most Republicans want to have good health coverage, Ipsos research director Chris Jackson tells me. They just dont necessarily like what it is Obama is doing.
> 
> Id add that Republicans and independents favor regulation of the health insurance system in big numbers. But the law has become so defined by the individual mandate  not to mention Obama himself  that public sentiment on the reforms themselves has been entirely drowned out.
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please. An editorial in the WashPo?
Click to expand...


Reporting the results of an Reuters-Ipsos poll.

Try again...


----------



## Neotrotsky

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not telling the truth not at all
> 
> But the Left's desperation to cover for the monstrosity of PapaObama Care
> is noted
> 
> As the article says:_
> Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
> Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts._​
> While one can appreciate the Left's desperation to cover their ass on this one,
> PapaObama Care went far beyond any discussion by these groups.
> 
> It is rather amusing that the Left can only justify their position by
> trying to claim it is conservative. Understandable, but still funny
> 
> One would think the Left would be proud and brave to say
> "Hey this is our baby and we are taking all the credit for it"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you AGAIN for ignoring what Moffit wrote. Maybe you will read what Stuart M. Butler wrote, back when the individual mandate was THEIR invention:
> 
> "If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance . . . society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services . . . .
> 
> A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. . . . Each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."[1]
> 
> [1] Start M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Lectures 218, p. 8(1989).
> 
> Here is a history lesson for you.
> 
> The Individual Mandate, a Brief History &#8212; Part I, Conservative Origins
Click to expand...


Oh I have and outside of the word mandate
there is not much

state control, catastrophic coverage- Papa Obama care- not

tax credits---  Papa Obama care - not and with a penalty/tax
so yes there is a mandate but the Heritage plan does not
impose a penalty for no coverage- one just loses the tax break

Under Papa ObamaCare  each person would be allowed into pools without regard to age or 
preexisting conditions and the same cost to all of them- This would act as a large regressive cost to everyone in that pool 

Fundamentally, Papa Obama always wanted single payer. He and the Democrats tried to get as close to it - 
But that was curbed by public response to their plans

So what go instead is the "first step" to that goal- Papa ObamaCare

A plan that was designed on purpose for employers to drop employees as quickly as possible into gov't run pools 
since the penalty is less than the cost of covering them. Insurers will leave the marketplace as the customer base dries up. 
That makes a lot of economic sense- not

Furthermore with penalty/ tax for not having insurance being cheaper than buying
your own insurance, people will just wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance and then billions will be removed from the insurance pool.
Net effect we will have these pools and the gov;t sponsored plans
acting as drains on the insurance market-It will not take much for this Ponzi scheme to collapse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again they share the word mandate- that is the majority of similarity.
One was a system designed to be tax credit based system for working people
to get help with catastrophic insurance costs in the market place

The other, PapaObama care is a comprehensive system designed on purpose
to strain the markets, lead to their demise to be replaced by single payer

The goal of PapaObama care was never about market based solutions to the problem
The goal was for the Left to get their foot into the back door 
Frank clearly states what the intentions of the Left were all along
The left just dropped the word public option to replace with mechanisms that will
act as the same. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98[/ame]


Again this monstrosity called Papa Obama Care belongs to and is owned
by the Left


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not telling the truth not at all
> 
> But the Left's desperation to cover for the monstrosity of PapaObama Care
> is noted
> 
> As the article says:_
> Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
> Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts._​
> While one can appreciate the Left's desperation to cover their ass on this one,
> PapaObama Care went far beyond any discussion by these groups.
> 
> It is rather amusing that the Left can only justify their position by
> trying to claim it is conservative. Understandable, but still funny
> 
> One would think the Left would be proud and brave to say
> "Hey this is our baby and we are taking all the credit for it"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you AGAIN for ignoring what Moffit wrote. Maybe you will read what Stuart M. Butler wrote, back when the individual mandate was THEIR invention:
> 
> "If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance . . . society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services . . . .
> 
> A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. . . . Each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."[1]
> 
> [1] Start M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Lectures 218, p. 8(1989).
> 
> Here is a history lesson for you.
> 
> The Individual Mandate, a Brief History  Part I, Conservative Origins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I have and outside of the word mandate
> there is not much
> 
> state control, catastrophic coverage- Papa Obama care- not
> 
> tax credits---  Papa Obama care - not and with a penalty/tax
> so yes there is a mandate but the Heritage plan does not
> impose a penalty for no coverage- one just loses the tax break
> 
> Under Papa ObamaCare  each person would be allowed into pools without regard to age or preexisting conditions and the same cost to all of them- This would act as a large regressive cost to everyone in that pool
> 
> Fundamentally, Papa Obama always wanted single payer. He and the Democrats tried to get as close to it - But that was curbed by public response to their plans
> 
> So what go instead is the "first step" to that goal- Papa ObamaCare
> 
> A plan that was designed on purpose for employers to drop employees as quickly as possible into gov't run pools since the penalty is less than the cost of covering them. Insurers will leave the marketplace as the customer base dries up.
> 
> Furthermore with penalty/ tax for not having insurance being cheaper than buying
> your own insurance, people will just wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance and then billions will be removed from the insurance pool.
> It will not take much for this Ponzi scheme to collapse.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Again they share the word mandate- that is the majority of similarity.
> One was a system designed to be tax credit based system for working people
> to get help with catastrophic insurance costs in the market place
> 
> The other, PapaObama care is a comprehensive system designed on purpose
> to strain the markets, lead to their demise to be replaced by single payer
> 
> 
> Again this monstrosity called Papa Obama Care belongs to and is owned
> by the Left
Click to expand...


Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.


----------



## Foxfyre

Attention:  This thread is NOT about Health Care Reform.    There are many many threads out there to discuss healthcare reform.

This thread is about American business and how much it owes to Obama and the government.


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not telling the truth not at all
> 
> But the Left's desperation to cover for the monstrosity of PapaObama Care
> is noted
> 
> As the article says:_
> Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
> Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts._​
> While one can appreciate the Left's desperation to cover their ass on this one,
> PapaObama Care went far beyond any discussion by these groups.
> 
> It is rather amusing that the Left can only justify their position by
> trying to claim it is conservative. Understandable, but still funny
> 
> One would think the Left would be proud and brave to say
> "Hey this is our baby and we are taking all the credit for it"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you AGAIN for ignoring what Moffit wrote. Maybe you will read what Stuart M. Butler wrote, back when the individual mandate was THEIR invention:
> 
> "If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance . . . society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services . . . .
> 
> A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. . . . Each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."[1]
> 
> [1] Start M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Lectures 218, p. 8(1989).
> 
> Here is a history lesson for you.
> 
> The Individual Mandate, a Brief History  Part I, Conservative Origins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I have and outside of the word mandate
> there is not much
> 
> state control, catastrophic coverage- Papa Obama care- not
> 
> tax credits---  Papa Obama care - not and with a penalty/tax
> so yes there is a mandate but the Heritage plan does not
> impose a penalty for no coverage- one just loses the tax break
> 
> Under Papa ObamaCare  each person would be allowed into pools without regard to age or
> preexisting conditions and the same cost to all of them- This would act as a large regressive cost to everyone in that pool
> 
> Fundamentally, Papa Obama always wanted single payer. He and the Democrats tried to get as close to it -
> But that was curbed by public response to their plans
> 
> So what go instead is the "first step" to that goal- Papa ObamaCare
> 
> A plan that was designed on purpose for employers to drop employees as quickly as possible into gov't run pools
> since the penalty is less than the cost of covering them. Insurers will leave the marketplace as the customer base dries up.
> That makes a lot of economic sense- not
> 
> Furthermore with penalty/ tax for not having insurance being cheaper than buying
> your own insurance, people will just wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance and then billions will be removed from the insurance pool.
> Net effect we will have these pools and the gov;t sponsored plans
> acting as drains on the insurance market-It will not take much for this Ponzi scheme to collapse.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Again they share the word mandate- that is the majority of similarity.
> One was a system designed to be tax credit based system for working people
> to get help with catastrophic insurance costs in the market place
> 
> The other, PapaObama care is a comprehensive system designed on purpose
> to strain the markets, lead to their demise to be replaced by single payer
> 
> The goal of PapaObama care was never about market based solutions to the problem
> The goal was for the Left to get their foot into the back door
> Frank clearly states what the intentions of the Left were all along
> The left just dropped the word public option to replace with mechanisms that will
> act as the same.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98]Single Payer Action Confronts Barney Frank - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> Again this monstrosity called Papa Obama Care belongs to and is owned
> by the Left
Click to expand...


We'll take it, even though it is not single payer or offers a public option. And the legacy of Republicans and conservatives will go down as the traitors who tried to undermine reform and destroy the President of the United States of America. They used their favorite method:

Insurgency

*Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency
*





"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex


----------



## Neotrotsky

Will it 

smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public


Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets


----------



## saveliberty

Agreed it is all driven to create a socialist state.  That is why Obama worked so hard on it and let the country slide even further into economic chaos.  Now business owes the government even more in his mind.  He'll slip up and mention this in the not too distant future.


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> Will it
> 
> smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
> purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public
> 
> 
> Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets



WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.

BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?


----------



## Bfgrn

saveliberty said:


> Agreed it is all driven to create a socialist state.  That is why Obama worked so hard on it and let the country slide even further into economic chaos.  Now business owes the government even more in his mind.  He'll slip up and mention this in the not too distant future.



I am amazed at the hatred on the right. Obama did not destroy our economy, Bush did.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will it
> 
> smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
> purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public
> 
> 
> Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.
> 
> BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?
Click to expand...


The USA.

Now, can we get back to Obama and the off speech yacking he did that essentially reminded so many people who in love with the government he is.

I've already described the issues one of my family members had with the start up a travel agency in a small town in AZ.  Nobody on the left wanted to address the fact that besides spending time going through a great deal of red tape which cost a lot of money and brought no value it also delayed the opening (only for red tape reasons) long enough for them to miss the busy season.

Why ?  Because there is nothing to say.  Obama's attitude is why he needs to go.


----------



## Listening

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn seems determined to derail this thread with incessant spamming if he can't do it any other way, and I thank the sane people for not taking the bait.
> 
> So back on the topic, President Obama's campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, has been out on the circuit doing damage control this week.   But she hasn't quite managed to reverse the concept that people object to in President Obama's remarks, and in fact managed to reinforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . .The Obama campaign walk-back on the presidents July 13 remarks then took the form of claiming that big federal government programs are equally responsible for business successes. In essence, the Obama campaign denied government created business successes, and then Cutter backtracked again to Obamas original position, stating:
> 
> The President said that together, Americans built the free enterprise system that we all benefit from. He has invested in our roads, bridges and highways, he has doubled Pell grant scholarships and reformed the student loan system to help students afford college, and he is committed to making sure that every community in America is connected to the digital age by expanding broadband access. Ironically, Mitt Romney knows better than anyone that business cant always do it alone. These attack ads make you wonder. Does [Romney] even understand how our economy works? You and I know how it works. We build our businesses through hard work and initiative, with the public and private sectors working together to create a climate that helps us grow. President Obama knows that, and hes fighting to strengthen our economy on that basic principle.
> 
> Cutters remarks echoed Obamas remarks about small businesses that we need to stand behind them, as America always has, by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology. Of course, the federal government has not always subsidized education and technology; these are extra-constitutional innovations of the last 40 years and not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. And the federal government has a poor track record of backing technology with tax dollars.
> 
> *More troubling than the lack of historical and constitutional history is the fact that Obama and Cutters summary of Obamas economic agenda as the public and private sectors working together serves as a succinct definition of economic fascism and the opposite of free enterprise. Furthermore, Obama seems to be unaware that business owners, through their tax dollars, are actually paying for the roads and bridges and education that they supposedly depend upon. So perhaps the president should be thanking businesses for contributing to the government*
> » Barack Obama Walks Back
Click to expand...


She asks if Romney knows how the economy works !!!  I love it.  He can't seem to get anything right with regards to it (other than to whine when we won't raise spending).

Isn't this the whore who managed to slip the word felon into some of her acid-high musings ?


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will it
> 
> smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
> purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public
> 
> 
> Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.
> 
> BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA.
> 
> Now, can we get back to Obama and the off speech yacking he did that essentially reminded so many people who in love with the government he is.
> 
> I've already described the issues one of my family members had with the start up a travel agency in a small town in AZ.  Nobody on the left wanted to address the fact that besides spending time going through a great deal of red tape which cost a lot of money and brought no value it also delayed the opening (only for red tape reasons) long enough for them to miss the busy season.
> 
> Why ?  Because there is nothing to say.  Obama's attitude is why he needs to go.
Click to expand...


The USA? 







The Cost of Doing Nothing
*Why the Cost of Failing to Fix Our Health System Is Greater than the Cost of Reform*

2008

The U.S. health care system is in crisis. Health care costs too much; we often get too little in exchange for our health care dollar; and tens of millions of Americans are uninsured.

Our economy loses hundreds of billions of dollars every year because of the diminished health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. Rising health care costs undermine the ability of U.S. firms to compete internationally, threaten the stability of American jobs, and place increasing strain on local, state, and federal budgets. As health care costs continue to rise faster than wages, health insurance becomes more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day.

Yet, the recent financial services meltdown has led some people to suggest that we cannot afford health reform and that fixing our broken health care system will have to wait once again. But waiting comes with a price. The crisis worsens every day that we do not act. Premiums will continue to rise; Americans will continue to pay more for less-generous health coverage; and fewer employers will offer health insurance to their workers.

We must reform our struggling health system not in spite of our economic crisis, but rather because of the impact health care has on the American economy. The economic and social impact of inaction is high and it will only rise over time.

*Economic Cost*

The economic cost of failing to fix our broken health care system is greater than the upfront expense of comprehensive health reform. In 2006, our economy lost as much as $200 billion because of the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. This is by most estimates as much as, if not greater than, the public costs of ensuring all Americans have quality, affordable, health coverage. The economies in California, Texas, and Florida suffer most from productivity loses stemming from the uninsured. Yet, Delawares economy loses more per uninsured person -- over $6,800 per uninsured resident.

*Affordability*

As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, health insurance will become more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day. The financial burdens associated with health care and health insurance will only get worse over time without action.The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. *Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.*

More


----------



## Listening

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



Yes, and you are stupid to think you got there because you worked harder than others.

Or because you were smart.

You don't work hard.

You are not smarter.

That would sound like a collectivist propaganda rollout if ever there was one.


----------



## Barb




----------



## Listening

President Obama's stray sentences however point to a bolder conclusion. If it's not brains or work that account for success, what is it? The answer must be &#8230; luck. Not maybe entirely luck, but luck to a great degree. By definition, however, luck is amoral. Nobody can deserve luck, otherwise he wouldn't be lucky. To the extent success is due to luck, success is undeserved&#8212;and to the extend that success is undeserved, the successful have no very strong claim to the proceeds of their success. Whereas Warren suggests that the wealthy should be taxed to repay tangible benefits they have personally received, Obama is indicating a possibility that the wealthy should be taxed &#8230; because their wealth is to a great extent an accident of fate.

Why "You Didn't Build That" Stings the Successful - The Daily Beast

And from another site:

Commenting on the president&#8217;s dubious exposition, small business owner Debi Somers, who runs a furniture store in Las Vegas, Nevada, concurred that &#8220;there isn&#8217;t any way that a small business owner can achieve their dream if they don&#8217;t have the support of the government.&#8221; 

However, Somers said the notion that businesses and wealthy individuals owe their success to government &#8220;isn&#8217;t necessarily true.&#8221; She added, &#8220;We put in &#8212; we work 80 hours [per week], and we live it, we breathe it, we sleep it.&#8221;
*
In fact, Obama and Warren seem to have the argument backward: If it were not for private entrepreneurs applying their ingenuity and sweat-equity to building businesses, creating wealth, and hiring others &#8212; hence spreading their newly created wealth &#8212; government would have no source of wealth with which to build public roads in the first place.*


----------



## P@triot

This year is the fifth straight fiscal year in which the federal government has increased its debt by more than a trillion dollars, reports CNSNews.com.

Great work Obama - thanks for collapsing what took 235 years and hundreds of thousands of lives to build....


----------



## Cecilie1200

American_Jihad said:


> *Outraged small business owners fire back at Obama*
> Jul 28, 2012
> 
> Entrepreneurs say, 'We did build this'
> Outraged small business owners fire back at Obama



Wow.  It's like everyone in the country, except for Obama's most slavish worshippers, heard his speech EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.


----------



## Cecilie1200

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bad, I guess romney wasn't first
> 
> Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own' - First Read
> 
> Was just copying off the President then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suggesting a round of applause isn't quite the same as imposing additional taxation, which is ultimately enforced at the point of gun.  But nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS usually seizes bank assets or garnishes wages and salaries when it is owed money you refuse to pay. Seldom does it require a weapon. I have no idea how we got on the subject of law enforcement - but why not? So go ahead and explain to us how you would prefer the IRS collect unpaid taxes? Should they just ask nicely? Perhaps send a singing telegram?
Click to expand...


You're an idiot if you think the IRS's power to seize assets isn't conveyed by the fact that there are armed law enforcement officials who will support them if need be.

The IRS took down Al Capone for tax evasion.  How do you suppose they did that?  With a crowd of bureaucrats waving reams of paper at him?


----------



## Cecilie1200

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.



Way to miss the point.  Conservatives don't say that businesses don't need civilization; they say that GOVERNMENT isn't where our civilization comes from. Civilization is not some gift benevolently handed to us by the the government and its officials, and we are in no way obligated to thank government for our civilization, or to "give something back" to government over and above what we already contribute.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.



Evidence?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Neotrotsky said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Pravda Reports"
> of course, that is news- the gov't says it plans will work
> Check out Papa Obama's website- they say it is great, as well
> 
> 
> 
> 7/23/12 One in 10 employers plans to drop health benefits, study finds
> _
> The study found that smaller firms were most likely to say they will drop coverage. Thirteen percent of companies with 50 to 100 workers said they would end policies within three years, compared with 2 percent of companies with more than 1,000 workers._​
> Survey: Under ObamaCare, companies could save billions by dropping health insurance coverage
> _Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this.
> "The penalties for the employers who drop coverage are very low, and the subsidies for the workers in the exchanges are very high," said James Capretta, with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
> 
> _​
> 
> So much for if you like your plan you will be able to keep it
> Yes unintended consequences and more
> costs that were not factored in.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."
> 
> CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)the health care legislation enacted in March 2010will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance exchanges that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCTs estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will
> 
> No doubt it will run just as well as the Post Office
Click to expand...


You ever been to a welfare office?  Welcome to the new and improved version of your doctor's waiting room.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will it
> 
> smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
> purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public
> 
> 
> Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.
> 
> BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?
Click to expand...


You make the mistake of believing that the same thing motivates Romney as motivates Obama.  The later needed the support of the insurance companies to pass his socialist monstrosity.  Romney doesn't need their support to repeal it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it EVER occur to YOU that Business IS civilization that operates under a set of rules that Government has perverted, and that YOU have bought into the Government meme?
> 
> IDIOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that where the indivdual would foot the cost of things like having the police come out to your house o, well, wouldn't you be charged for everything pretty much? At this point i'm wondering because im not sure....dude
Click to expand...


Dear, the individual DOES foot the bill for the cops.  Where do you think that tax money comes from?  Just because you don't see the bill handed to you point-of-service doesn't mean you're not paying it.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will it
> 
> smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
> purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public
> 
> 
> Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.
Click to expand...


Wrong, Obama and he Dims in Congress destroyed it.



Bfgrn said:


> BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?



Name one country where it's allowed to operate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bad, I guess romney wasn't first
> 
> Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own' - First Read
> 
> Was just copying off the President then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suggesting a round of applause isn't quite the same as imposing additional taxation, which is ultimately enforced at the point of gun.  But nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IRS usually seizes bank assets or garnishes wages and salaries when it is owed money you refuse to pay. Seldom does it require a weapon. I have no idea how we got on the subject of law enforcement - but why not? So go ahead and explain to us how you would prefer the IRS collect unpaid taxes? Should they just ask nicely? Perhaps send a singing telegram?
Click to expand...


Does your brain actually work when you are posting? How is garnishing wages not a use of force? How is seizing bank assets not a use of force? Do you think a government that did not have guns could get away with with taking people's money?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you AGAIN for ignoring what Moffit wrote. Maybe you will read what Stuart M. Butler wrote, back when the individual mandate was THEIR invention:
> 
> "If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance . . . society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services . . . .
> 
> A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. . . . Each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."[1]
> 
> [1] Start M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Lectures 218, p. 8(1989).
> 
> Here is a history lesson for you.
> 
> The Individual Mandate, a Brief History  Part I, Conservative Origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I have and outside of the word mandate
> there is not much
> 
> state control, catastrophic coverage- Papa Obama care- not
> 
> tax credits---  Papa Obama care - not and with a penalty/tax
> so yes there is a mandate but the Heritage plan does not
> impose a penalty for no coverage- one just loses the tax break
> 
> Under Papa ObamaCare  each person would be allowed into pools without regard to age or preexisting conditions and the same cost to all of them- This would act as a large regressive cost to everyone in that pool
> 
> Fundamentally, Papa Obama always wanted single payer. He and the Democrats tried to get as close to it - But that was curbed by public response to their plans
> 
> So what go instead is the "first step" to that goal- Papa ObamaCare
> 
> A plan that was designed on purpose for employers to drop employees as quickly as possible into gov't run pools since the penalty is less than the cost of covering them. Insurers will leave the marketplace as the customer base dries up.
> 
> Furthermore with penalty/ tax for not having insurance being cheaper than buying
> your own insurance, people will just wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance and then billions will be removed from the insurance pool.
> It will not take much for this Ponzi scheme to collapse.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Again they share the word mandate- that is the majority of similarity.
> One was a system designed to be tax credit based system for working people
> to get help with catastrophic insurance costs in the market place
> 
> The other, PapaObama care is a comprehensive system designed on purpose
> to strain the markets, lead to their demise to be replaced by single payer
> 
> 
> Again this monstrosity called Papa Obama Care belongs to and is owned
> by the Left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
Click to expand...


What? I guess Joseph Antos didn't get that memo.

The Debt Deal Will Undo ObamaCare &mdash; The American Magazine

The Uninsured: It Will Get Worse Before It Gets Better &mdash; The American Magazine


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
Click to expand...


David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett


----------



## freedombecki

Barb said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that *benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. *A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.
> 
> Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and &#8220;stabilize&#8221; (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom
> 
> Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your words or a book quotation?  Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.
> 
> In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that.  He _gives_ you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%.  *It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay.*  At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.
> 
> Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty.  Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.  This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.
> 
> We should ALL be pissed about that.  This guy RAN on unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My words. I quoted my source.
> 
> As to the bolded above, horse shit.
Click to expand...

Barb, if only it were. I owned a business for 23 years. Nobody ever ran to my aid the 2 years it was being embezzled, and following that episode, repayment for losses required a full five years of paying them back with interest when I borrowed to keep doors open and employees paid. You couldn't pay me a million bucks to repeat the wrenching that horrible series of thefts placed on my little world of barely making it through the years by the seat of my pants. Thieving employees take something away from their victims business and place distrust and loss of health with it. The entire time, that employee took what little my business home while I was at the bank every two weeks, wondering what was going on to make merchandise march out the door and not enough receipts to replace that. It wasn't until all other employees left and it was just the two of us that the crimes done were revealed through daily acts of theft I won'[t go into here.

In the end, you may have irrefutable accounting and eyewitness proofs of theft, but in a small town, you have zero trust left for that person's associates, all of whom caterwaul (without knowing) that you are rich by virtue of being your own boss while they are poor, whereas you as a business owner haven't a fraction of their take-home power from the profitable businesses they gather to.

I'm not sure that will mean anything to anyone, but it was a lesson in not ever being somebody else's chump for more than a week. That went on for two years, and the sinister thefts were uncovered by me by sheer accident of stumbling upon a red-handed catch so clear it was irrefutable in and of itself. The feedback I got came through an enraged friend who believed only the lies of a con artist and dissed me, the person who was holding the bag and was bound by employment laws of not being able to discuss the length, depth, and loss inflicted on the business by an employee. The law is clear. Employers may not discuss any personal thing about their employee to another employer except date hired and date left. Proving a 30,000 to 40,000 heist could cost you $100,000  in lawyer and accountant fees. Every time I see a "going out of business" sign, I wonder who hit them, and how much was stolen for that sign to be posted outside the door, and the people cleaning shelves could be bank employees trying to recover everybody's hurt from that worker, protected by his own lies to pals who pity and buy the hubris.

I'd rethink what I said to Murf. He may have a hands-on knowledge his case is built on solid rock.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Foxfyre said:


> Attention:  This thread is NOT about Health Care Reform.    There are many many threads out there to discuss healthcare reform.
> 
> This thread is about American business and how much it owes to Obama and the government.



Good point
but the Left's lies are so hard to ignore some time


I am guilty of continuing with the leftist 
If only Papa ObamaCare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) death panels
were in place, I could turn myself in for the good of the collective's health


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. The bottom line here is Obama and his idea of government wants to own you.
2. His ideals are based on control, controlling everything.
3. Obama should of been born in China, his ideals fit the dictators, and leaders of China.
4. He isn't a *True Blue American* no one can argue against that.
5. Why did he become President?
6. *American Guilt*, plain and simple, *White Guilt* got him elected, and mainly those in the middle the *Independents* allowed this individual into the Presidency, which he didn't have any business getting, also the appeasers wanted to get this known Muslim into office to get the fucking Muslims off our backs, which it has partially worked, but don't count on it lasting.
7. The Independents, along with the liberal parrots, fucked us all.
8. There is your answers.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Foxfyre

Neotrotsky said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attention:  This thread is NOT about Health Care Reform.    There are many many threads out there to discuss healthcare reform.
> 
> This thread is about American business and how much it owes to Obama and the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point
> but the Left's lies are so hard to ignore some time
> 
> 
> I am guilty of continuing with the leftist
> If only Papa ObamaCare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) death panels
> were in place, I could turn myself in for the good of the collective's health
Click to expand...


Obamacare is pertinent to this discussion only in the sense that it helps or hurts business.  Of course Obama will take the position that Obamacare will do nothing but help business and thereby take more credit for what we the business people of the world add to the economy.   Those who have actually evaluated it may or may not agree that it will be the total disaster as some see it, but I haven't found anybody credible yet who doesn't know that it WILL raise taxes and it WILL be much more costly than anything the federal government has admitted and it will NOT reduce healthcare costs.

And of course to cover the escalating costs, it is important to tax business more.

Becki hit the nail on the head re how a bad employee is so detrimental to a business and conversely, how valuable the honest, productive, and ambitious employee can be.

Likewise bad government is detrimental to business and becomes a kind of theft.  It is also  possible for government to put policy and regulation in place that encourages free enterprise, commerce, and industry and allows American business to thrive.  But such good government may pat itself on the back for facilitating a strong economy, but it won't take credit for the success of the successful business.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett
Click to expand...


Please quote the text that supports your claim.  I'm not going to read the entire article.


----------



## Foxfyre

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please quote the text that supports your claim.  I'm not going to read the entire article.
Click to expand...


Oh God, now you're encouraging him to spam the thread with pages and pages more of irrelevent and nonsensical garbage that he will claim supports his point of view.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett
Click to expand...


You consider the fact that David Frum being fired after penning a column that called the ACA a defeat of free market and conservative principles proof that AEI scholars were banned from speaking to the media because they agreed with Obama?

Does you brain actually work?

By the way, why was David Frum actively writing columns if he was forbidden to talk to the media?


----------



## Listening

Foxfyre said:


> Obamacare is pertinent to this discussion only in the sense that it helps or hurts business.  Of course Obama will take the position that Obamacare will do nothing but help business and thereby take more credit for what we the business people of the world add to the economy.   Those who have actually evaluated it may or may not agree that it will be the total disaster as some see it, but I haven't found anybody credible yet who doesn't know that it WILL raise taxes and it WILL be much more costly than anything the federal government has admitted and it will NOT reduce healthcare costs.
> 
> And of course to cover the escalating costs, it is important to tax business more.
> *
> Becki hit the nail on the head re how a bad employee is so detrimental to a business and conversely, how valuable the honest, productive, and ambitious employee can be.*
> 
> Likewise bad government is detrimental to business and becomes a kind of theft.  It is also  possible for government to put policy and regulation in place that encourages free enterprise, commerce, and industry and allows American business to thrive.  But such good government may pat itself on the back for facilitating a strong economy, but it won't take credit for the success of the successful business.



O.K.

Here is another "government built it" moment.

I worked for a large company and our division was facing two sex discrimination suites.  They were pretty high profile.

All the managers were getting pounded on diversity and the like.  We had an admin staff to our engineering group that had a white supervisor with four white subordinates, three black and one hispanic.  Three of these people were notorious incompetents who happened to be coupled with bad attitudes (and I mean bad).  Two of them were black and one was white.

A constant conversation was why we didn't fire their asses and the response was around the repercussions in court that would come.  So we lived with them.

You got what you got from one of them and if you dare said anything about it not being enough, you'd get an earful.  It was never cooperative.  People simply bypassed them and did not ask them for help.  I don't know what they did during the day.

For me, it all got clear when, one day....one of the black goof-offs took on the supervisor in the supervisors office where everyone could hear her (the supervisor was giving her formal reprimand for a whole list of stuff).  She went at the supervisor with all kinds of accusations all the while saying she was going to use all the tricks (discrimination ,etc.) if the supervisor dared to put anything in her personal file that was negative.

She won.  The super was told to stand down and deal with it.  The troublemaker got the to the point where she would come in late, take a two hour lunch (I was thinking we should encourage her to take longer) and leave early.  An attempt was made to transfer her to a different department, but you can bet the other department was not at all interested.

All thanks to the government and it's willingness to support the kind of laws, rules, and regulations regarding employees.

Morale in the department was low and it really did become something of joke that this was allowed to go on all because of the cost and publicity associated with getting rid of her.  I complained to my boss who simply said I should not worry about the issue. 

To their credit, the other two "problems" saw the contrast and heard the whisperings.  It was noted that about six months after the blow up I described above....these two had shown a marked willingness to cooperate and to become more a part of the engineering groups efforts.

Ms. Bum was still in the department two years after the incident.

I've seen this over and over again in other places.

Instead of firing them, they get settled into the place where they can do the least harm and take up a salary someone else might work to get.


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You consider the fact that David Frum being fired after penning a column that called the ACA a defeat of free market and conservative principles proof that AEI scholars were banned from speaking to the media because they agreed with Obama?
> 
> Does you brain actually work?
> 
> By the way, why was David Frum actively writing columns if he was forbidden to talk to the media?
Click to expand...


Bruce Bartlett was fired for personalizing his criticisms and furthering a diatribe against a personality rather than focusing on specific policy.   NCPA has strict rules against that and all affiliated with NCPA agree to those rules.  Bartlett violated the rules, refused to comply with them, and that is why he was dismissed.

I suspect if the skinny on Frum here is accurate, something similar was in the works. 

I also suspect if that there was more focus on being honest and accurate about a lot of things, we might have much better information on which to form our own opinions and convictions about things.

Would it be asking too much for the President of the United States to do that?  Most especially when it affects national commerce and industry and our ability to make a living?


----------



## Listening

Foxfyre said:


> Would it be asking too much for the President of the United States to do that?  Most especially when it affects national commerce and industry and our ability to make a living?



I'd like him just to be honest about what he really is trying to do.


----------



## Foxfyre

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be asking too much for the President of the United States to do that?  Most especially when it affects national commerce and industry and our ability to make a living?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like him just to be honest about what he really is trying to do.
Click to expand...


You know, after looking at this in every possible way for the last four years, and doing my damndest to try to be as objective as possible, I am convinced that it may not be a fact, but it also very well could be possible that if the President was honest about what he is trying to do, he would be clearly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and subject to impeachment.  Not that his worshippers would ever agree to that though no matter what he says or does.


----------



## Bfgrn

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You consider the fact that David Frum being fired after penning a column that called the ACA a defeat of free market and conservative principles proof that AEI scholars were banned from speaking to the media because they agreed with Obama?
> 
> Does you brain actually work?
> 
> By the way, why was David Frum actively writing columns if he was forbidden to talk to the media?
Click to expand...


My God, are you right wingers THAT fear-filled and insecure to even READ something that would disturb your dogma and lock-step doctrinaire?

Bruce Bartlett wrote about David Frum: 

"Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI scholars on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

    It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasnt already.

    Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin. 

Why was David Frum actively writing columns if he was forbidden to talk to the media?

Simple: because the health care debate was over. The Affordable Health care Bill passed.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the fact that David Frum being fired after penning a column that called the ACA a defeat of free market and conservative principles proof that AEI scholars were banned from speaking to the media because they agreed with Obama?
> 
> Does you brain actually work?
> 
> By the way, why was David Frum actively writing columns if he was forbidden to talk to the media?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bruce Bartlett was fired for personalizing his criticisms and furthering a diatribe against a personality rather than focusing on specific policy.   NCPA has strict rules against that and all affiliated with NCPA agree to those rules.  Bartlett violated the rules, refused to comply with them, and that is why he was dismissed.
> 
> I suspect if the skinny on Frum here is accurate, something similar was in the works.
> 
> I also suspect if that there was more focus on being honest and accurate about a lot of things, we might have much better information on which to form our own opinions and convictions about things.
> 
> Would it be asking too much for the President of the United States to do that?  Most especially when it affects national commerce and industry and our ability to make a living?
Click to expand...


Here is an excerpt of what Frum wrote. It is available to anyone with the courage to read it.

Waterloo
March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm | David Frum

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

Its hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that theyll compensate for todays expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) Its a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November  by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for todays disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obamas Waterloo  just as healthcare was Clintons in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clintons 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romneys Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise  without weighing so heavily on small business  without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the doughnut hole and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there  would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be asking too much for the President of the United States to do that?  Most especially when it affects national commerce and industry and our ability to make a living?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like him just to be honest about what he really is trying to do.
Click to expand...


I hear you 

Come next election 
this may be a moot point


----------



## bripat9643

Quantum Windbag said:


> You consider the fact that David Frum being fired after penning a column that called the ACA a defeat of free market and conservative principles proof that AEI scholars were banned from speaking to the media because they agreed with Obama?
> 
> Does you brain actually work?
> 
> By the way, why was David Frum actively writing columns if he was forbidden to talk to the media?




Thanks for sparing me the trouble of reading his propaganda.  I knew it wouldn't come close to proving his claim.


----------



## Foxfyre

David Frum himself said that nothing he wrote or no policy position he ever took at AEI had anything to do with his leaving AEI.  He left over a contract dispute.   The powers that be at AEI wanted him to come to the office more to earn his $100k salary and he didn't want to.  So they parted company.  It was as simple as that.

But like the President, his worshippers, and surrogate media are wont to do, they put a dishonest spin on that and try to make it look like something very different from what it was.  They can't attack it as it is, so they put a dishonest spin on it.

Anerican business has been under that kind of assault fron the President, his worshippers, and their surrogate media for some time now.

And I for one am quite pleased to see the great sleeping American public shake off their apathy and start waking up and fighting back.   It was about time.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> David Frum himself said that nothing he wrote or no policy position he ever took at AEI had anything to do with his leaving AEI.  He left over a contract dispute.   The powers that be at AEI wanted him to come to the office more to earn his $100k salary and he didn't want to.  So they parted company.  It was as simple as that.
> 
> But like the President, his worshippers, and surrogate media are wont to do, they put a dishonest spin on that and try to make it look like something very different from what it was.  They can't attack it as it is, so they put a dishonest spin on it.
> 
> Anerican business has been under that kind of assault fron the President, his worshippers, and their surrogate media for some time now.
> 
> And I for one am quite pleased to see the great sleeping American public shake off their apathy and start waking up and fighting back.   It was about time.



Link?


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the fact that David Frum being fired after penning a column that called the ACA a defeat of free market and conservative principles proof that AEI scholars were banned from speaking to the media because they agreed with Obama?
> 
> Does you brain actually work?
> 
> By the way, why was David Frum actively writing columns if he was forbidden to talk to the media?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bruce Bartlett was fired for personalizing his criticisms and furthering a diatribe against a personality rather than focusing on specific policy.   NCPA has strict rules against that and all affiliated with NCPA agree to those rules.  Bartlett violated the rules, refused to comply with them, and that is why he was dismissed.
> 
> I suspect if the skinny on Frum here is accurate, something similar was in the works.
> 
> I also suspect if that there was more focus on being honest and accurate about a lot of things, we might have much better information on which to form our own opinions and convictions about things.
> 
> Would it be asking too much for the President of the United States to do that?  Most especially when it affects national commerce and industry and our ability to make a living?
Click to expand...


Link??


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the fact that David Frum being fired after penning a column that called the ACA a defeat of free market and conservative principles proof that AEI scholars were banned from speaking to the media because they agreed with Obama?
> 
> Does you brain actually work?
> 
> By the way, why was David Frum actively writing columns if he was forbidden to talk to the media?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God, are you right wingers THAT fear-filled and insecure to even READ something that would disturb your dogma and lock-step doctrinaire?
> 
> Bruce Bartlett wrote about David Frum:
> 
> "Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI scholars on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
> 
> It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasnt already.
> 
> Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
> 
> Why was David Frum actively writing columns if he was forbidden to talk to the media?
> 
> Simple: because the health care debate was over. The Affordable Health care Bill passed.
Click to expand...


Yes, he wrote that, so what? That is known as hearsay, and is only as good as the person repeating it. The problem with your position is that Frum has published a weekly column for years, and did so before, during, and after the Obamacare debate. That column is published in a newspaper. In addition, he writes various columns for US News, the New York Times, and the Guardian, among others. He also did a regular stint on Marketplace.

Seriously, I am having trouble believing you believe this crap, much less believe it myself.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasnt already.



of course there was a lot of difference between all the Republicans in the primaries.

IF AEI wants a unified conservative/ libertarian message that is their right, much like the White House has a right to look coherent with a unified message.

The issue is whether  the message is correct. A liberal will lack the IQ to know and will try to change the subject to the coherency of AEI as if it matters.


----------



## Foxfyre

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasnt already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course there was a lot of difference between all the Republicans in the primaries.
> 
> IF AEI wants a unified conservative/ libertarian message that is their right, much like the White House has a right to look coherent with a unified message.
> 
> The issue is whether  the message is correct. A liberal will lack the IQ to know and will try to change the subject to the coherency of AEI as if it matters.
Click to expand...


The thing is though that AEI does NOT require a unified conservative/libertarian point of view any more than CATO does, and it has hosted more than one spirited debate offering many differences of opinion.  Ditto NCPA.  The former incident with Frum involved a contract dispute, not a quarrel with his opinion.  NCPA's dispute with Bartlett had nothing to do with any issue but rather had to do with a tightly enforced rule of not attacking personalities but rather focusing on policy and Bartlett violated that rule and refused to comply when asked to do so.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasnt already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course there was a lot of difference between all the Republicans in the primaries.
> 
> IF AEI wants a unified conservative/ libertarian message that is their right, much like the White House has a right to look coherent with a unified message.
> 
> The issue is whether  the message is correct. A liberal will lack the IQ to know and will try to change the subject to the coherency of AEI as if it matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is though that AEI does NOT require a unified conservative/libertarian point of view any more than CATO does, and it has hosted more than one spirited debate offering many differences of opinion.  Ditto NCPA.  The former incident with Frum involved a contract dispute, not a quarrel with his opinion.  NCPA's dispute with Bartlett had nothing to do with any issue but rather had to do with a tightly enforced rule of not attacking personalities but rather focusing on policy and Bartlett violated that rule and refused to comply when asked to do so.
Click to expand...


Where are your links Foxfyre?

HERE is what David Frum had to say about his being fired.

David Frum told us last night that he believes his axing from his $100,000-a-year resident scholar gig at the conservative American Enterprise Institute was related to DONOR PRESSURE following his viral blog post arguing Republicans had suffered a devastating, generational Waterloo in their loss to President Obama on health reform. There's a lot about the story I don't really understand, Frum said from his iPhone. But the core of the story is the kind of economic pressure that intellectual conservatives are under. AEI represents the best of the conservative world. [AEI President] Arthur Brooks is a brilliant man, and his books are fantastic. But the elite isnt leading anymore. Its trapped. Partly because of the desperate economic situation in the country, what were once the leading institutions of conservatism are constrained. I think Arthur took no pleasure in this. I think he was embarrassed. I think he would have avoided it if he possibly could, but he couldn't. 

I can GUARANTEE one thing: The AEI is not going to say they fired Frum because of his Waterloo column.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course there was a lot of difference between all the Republicans in the primaries.
> 
> IF AEI wants a unified conservative/ libertarian message that is their right, much like the White House has a right to look coherent with a unified message.
> 
> The issue is whether  the message is correct. A liberal will lack the IQ to know and will try to change the subject to the coherency of AEI as if it matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is though that AEI does NOT require a unified conservative/libertarian point of view any more than CATO does, and it has hosted more than one spirited debate offering many differences of opinion.  Ditto NCPA.  The former incident with Frum involved a contract dispute, not a quarrel with his opinion.  NCPA's dispute with Bartlett had nothing to do with any issue but rather had to do with a tightly enforced rule of not attacking personalities but rather focusing on policy and Bartlett violated that rule and refused to comply when asked to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are your links Foxfyre?
> 
> HERE is what David Frum had to say about his being fired.
> 
> David Frum told us last night that he believes his axing from his $100,000-a-year resident scholar gig at the conservative American Enterprise Institute was related to DONOR PRESSURE following his viral blog post arguing Republicans had suffered a devastating, generational Waterloo in their loss to President Obama on health reform. There's a lot about the story I don't really understand, Frum said from his iPhone. But the core of the story is the kind of economic pressure that intellectual conservatives are under. AEI represents the best of the conservative world. [AEI President] Arthur Brooks is a brilliant man, and his books are fantastic. But the elite isnt leading anymore. Its trapped. Partly because of the desperate economic situation in the country, what were once the leading institutions of conservatism are constrained. I think Arthur took no pleasure in this. I think he was embarrassed. I think he would have avoided it if he possibly could, but he couldn't.
> 
> I can GUARANTEE one thing: The AEI is not going to say they fired Frum because of his Waterloo column.
Click to expand...


The same article in your link also rebuts what Frum said.  Frum had been with AEI for a long time and had frequently disagreed with the others on various issues.  The idea he would be sacked on this particular issue is ludicrous.  And also differs from what he told others:

article.wn.com/view/2012/06/29/David_Frums_Alternate_Health_Care_Reality/
 Jun 29, 2012 ... By W. James Antle, III on 6.29.12 @ 2:23PM David Frum is once ... He is relying on some rather questionable political analysis to get to this conclusion. ... Conservative Fired For Criticizing Fox News & Republicans ..... but Frum said that the AEI had not cited his criticism as the reason for his termination.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is though that AEI does NOT require a unified conservative/libertarian point of view any more than CATO does, and it has hosted more than one spirited debate offering many differences of opinion.  Ditto NCPA.  The former incident with Frum involved a contract dispute, not a quarrel with his opinion.  NCPA's dispute with Bartlett had nothing to do with any issue but rather had to do with a tightly enforced rule of not attacking personalities but rather focusing on policy and Bartlett violated that rule and refused to comply when asked to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are your links Foxfyre?
> 
> HERE is what David Frum had to say about his being fired.
> 
> David Frum told us last night that he believes his axing from his $100,000-a-year &#8220;resident scholar&#8221; gig at the conservative American Enterprise Institute was related to DONOR PRESSURE following his viral blog post arguing Republicans had suffered a devastating, generational &#8220;Waterloo&#8221; in their loss to President Obama on health reform. &#8220;There's a lot about the story I don't really understand,&#8221; Frum said from his iPhone. &#8220;But the core of the story is the kind of economic pressure that intellectual conservatives are under. AEI represents the best of the conservative world. [AEI President] Arthur Brooks is a brilliant man, and his books are fantastic. But the elite isn&#8217;t leading anymore. It&#8217;s trapped. Partly because of the desperate economic situation in the country, what were once the leading institutions of conservatism are constrained. I think Arthur took no pleasure in this. I think he was embarrassed. I think he would have avoided it if he possibly could, but he couldn't.&#8221;
> 
> I can GUARANTEE one thing: The AEI is not going to say they fired Frum because of his Waterloo column.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same article in your link also rebuts what Frum said.  Frum had been with AEI for a long time and had frequently disagreed with the others on various issues.  The idea he would be sacked on this particular issue is ludicrous.  And also differs from what he told others:
> 
> article.wn.com/view/2012/06/29/David_Frums_Alternate_Health_Care_Reality/
> Jun 29, 2012 ... By W. James Antle, III on 6.29.12 @ 2:23PM David Frum is once ... He is relying on some rather questionable political analysis to get to this conclusion. ... Conservative Fired For Criticizing Fox News & Republicans ..... but Frum said that the AEI had not cited his criticism as the reason for his termination.
Click to expand...


Frum is a lost RINO looking for cheap shots
to make money via the MSM

I often laugh at the "conservatives" the left and the MSM like to toss out
Brooks, Meghan Mccain, Sullivan and Frum to name a few.  

Good article here

Odious Conservatives

_WASHINGTON -- A major proposition that I advance in a book that will be published later this month, After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery, is that there exists an odious subgroup of conservatives who since the beginning of the conservative movement have made their way to prominence in the mainstream media by a cheap act. They disparage with great melodrama other conservatives. Liberals love it -- and for a while love the disparagers. In the late 1990s Arianna Huffington exploited this instrument of self-promotion brazenly. For several years David Frum has been doing it haltingly, even timorously. However, in the last two weeks he has been pulling a Huffington with unusual boldness.

First he smeared Sean Hannity. Then he reproached conservative opponents of the Democrats' healthcare monstrosity. Now he is claiming martyrdom at the hands of Arthur Brooks, the head of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that housed him as a resident fellow for seven years, reportedly at a salary of $100,000 a year. Brooks was willing to let him stay on at AEI but without a salary. Very theatrically Frum(p) quit, and the Liberals pronounced him a great man. _​


Never trust the left on spending, taxes, and especially never
trust them to identify who "real" conservatives are......
----------------------------------------------------------------



Back to the issue at hand

Papa Obama is to the left of Kennedy, Clinton, Reagan, Ford on taxes
and how free enterprise works


His ideas are very un-American

Which probably explains why

Obama is not working


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course there was a lot of difference between all the Republicans in the primaries.
> 
> IF AEI wants a unified conservative/ libertarian message that is their right, much like the White House has a right to look coherent with a unified message.
> 
> The issue is whether  the message is correct. A liberal will lack the IQ to know and will try to change the subject to the coherency of AEI as if it matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is though that AEI does NOT require a unified conservative/libertarian point of view any more than CATO does, and it has hosted more than one spirited debate offering many differences of opinion.  Ditto NCPA.  The former incident with Frum involved a contract dispute, not a quarrel with his opinion.  NCPA's dispute with Bartlett had nothing to do with any issue but rather had to do with a tightly enforced rule of not attacking personalities but rather focusing on policy and Bartlett violated that rule and refused to comply when asked to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are your links Foxfyre?
> 
> HERE is what David Frum had to say about his being fired.
> 
> David Frum told us last night that he believes his axing from his $100,000-a-year resident scholar gig at the conservative American Enterprise Institute was related to DONOR PRESSURE following his viral blog post arguing Republicans had suffered a devastating, generational Waterloo in their loss to President Obama on health reform. There's a lot about the story I don't really understand, Frum said from his iPhone. But the core of the story is the kind of economic pressure that intellectual conservatives are under. AEI represents the best of the conservative world. [AEI President] Arthur Brooks is a brilliant man, and his books are fantastic. But the elite isnt leading anymore. Its trapped. Partly because of the desperate economic situation in the country, what were once the leading institutions of conservatism are constrained. I think Arthur took no pleasure in this. I think he was embarrassed. I think he would have avoided it if he possibly could, but he couldn't.
> 
> I can GUARANTEE one thing: The AEI is not going to say they fired Frum because of his Waterloo column.
Click to expand...


Great way to make your point.



> There's a lot about the story I don't really understand,


In other words, he doesn't know why he was fired, he is guessing it had something to do with money.

I also like the part where Frum insists he was forbidden to talk to the media.



> But he maintains he developed and spread conservative ideas -- AEIs  stated goal -- with the 300,000 words a year that he writes for his  blog, FrumForum.com; his weekly columns for CNN.com, The Week, and the  National Post of Canada; his biweekly offerings for TIME and American  Public Medias Marketplace; and his three TV and three radio  appearances in a typical week.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Outraged small business owners fire back at Obama*
> Jul 28, 2012
> 
> Entrepreneurs say, 'We did build this'
> Outraged small business owners fire back at Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  It's like everyone in the country, except for Obama's most slavish worshippers, heard his speech EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.
Click to expand...


Er, no. Just bitter and twisted neocons. And those who listen to the likes of fox news etc twisting his words. IOW, people who can't think for themselves...


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.
> 
> BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA.
> 
> Now, can we get back to Obama and the off speech yacking he did that essentially reminded so many people who in love with the government he is.
> 
> I've already described the issues one of my family members had with the start up a travel agency in a small town in AZ.  Nobody on the left wanted to address the fact that besides spending time going through a great deal of red tape which cost a lot of money and brought no value it also delayed the opening (only for red tape reasons) long enough for them to miss the busy season.
> 
> Why ?  Because there is nothing to say.  Obama's attitude is why he needs to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cost of Doing Nothing
> *Why the Cost of Failing to Fix Our Health System Is Greater than the Cost of Reform*
> 
> 2008
> 
> The U.S. health care system is in crisis. Health care costs too much; we often get too little in exchange for our health care dollar; and tens of millions of Americans are uninsured.
> 
> Our economy loses hundreds of billions of dollars every year because of the diminished health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. Rising health care costs undermine the ability of U.S. firms to compete internationally, threaten the stability of American jobs, and place increasing strain on local, state, and federal budgets. As health care costs continue to rise faster than wages, health insurance becomes more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day.
> 
> Yet, the recent financial services meltdown has led some people to suggest that we cannot afford health reform and that fixing our broken health care system will have to wait once again. But waiting comes with a price. The crisis worsens every day that we do not act. Premiums will continue to rise; Americans will continue to pay more for less-generous health coverage; and fewer employers will offer health insurance to their workers.
> 
> We must reform our struggling health system not in spite of our economic crisis, but rather because of the impact health care has on the American economy. The economic and social impact of inaction is high and it will only rise over time.
> 
> *Economic Cost*
> 
> The economic cost of failing to fix our broken health care system is greater than the upfront expense of comprehensive health reform. In 2006, our economy lost as much as $200 billion because of the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. This is by most estimates as much as, if not greater than, the public costs of ensuring all Americans have quality, affordable, health coverage. The economies in California, Texas, and Florida suffer most from productivity loses stemming from the uninsured. Yet, Delawares economy loses more per uninsured person -- over $6,800 per uninsured resident.
> 
> *Affordability*
> 
> As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, health insurance will become more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day. The financial burdens associated with health care and health insurance will only get worse over time without action.The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. *Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.*
> 
> More
Click to expand...


Nice opinion piece...
'Here it is ...."under this scenario we estimate..."
What a bunch of pro Obama care propaganda.
These people do not have the facts. The Obama regime has the facts and the regime is hiding the real cost not just in dollars, but the cost in job losses, the cost of the rationing of care and of course the cost in emotional strain once the bureaucrats in charge start telling older people the care they USED to receive is too expensive and of course "we are sorry. Perhaps you should get your affairs in order."
Happens in the UK all the time.


----------



## saveliberty

Obama hasn't done thing one to help small business.  My guess is losing in November is his best shot.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

saveliberty said:


> Obama hasn't done thing one to help small business.  My guess is losing in November is his best shot.




Sure. 50% or depreciation on 27.5 year real property bought in 2011 is worthless to small businesses. It only allows myself to deduct nearly $40,000 in depreciation expenses from my rental activity in one year - as opposed to less than $3000 - that didn't help at all.


And if the 12 billion dollars in small business tax cuts were no good for the small businesses - why don't they send them back?

Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Oh, my bad, I forget that right wingers never, ever, ever do their homework.


----------



## saveliberty

OohPooPahDoo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hasn't done thing one to help small business.  My guess is losing in November is his best shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. 50% or depreciation on 27.5 year real property bought in 2011 is worthless to small businesses. It only allows myself to deduct nearly $40,000 in depreciation expenses from my rental activity in one year - as opposed to less than $3000 - that didn't help at all.
> 
> 
> And if the 12 billion dollars in small business tax cuts were no good for the small businesses - why don't they send them back?
> 
> Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my bad, I forget that right wingers never, ever, ever do their homework.
Click to expand...


It only helps those with new property.  Again, picking winners and losers.  I have not witnessed dime one in tax savings from Obama.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hasn't done thing one to help small business.  My guess is losing in November is his best shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. 50% or depreciation on 27.5 year real property bought in 2011 is worthless to small businesses. It only allows myself to deduct nearly $40,000 in depreciation expenses from my rental activity in one year - as opposed to less than $3000 - that didn't help at all.
> 
> 
> And if the 12 billion dollars in small business tax cuts were no good for the small businesses - why don't they send them back?
> 
> Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my bad, I forget that right wingers never, ever, ever do their homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only helps those with new property.  Again, picking winners and losers.  I have not witnessed dime one in tax savings from Obama.
Click to expand...


That's it.  Qualifying for the government loans and tax breaks was simply unfeasible or impossible for the vast  majority of business owners which is why we're not seeing any testimonials praising them from business owners. The capital gains tax break did help out a few businessmen who had to close down businesses and liquidate due to the crappy economy.  Whoop de doo.  ANY of the things government could have done to boost economic growth was turned thumbs down by Fearless Leader and the Democratically controlled Congress.


----------



## saveliberty

I'm finding all the nonbusiness owners telling us how well we have done quite enlightening.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. Obama is toast for saying this.
2. Slap butter on em, he's done!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Listening

OohPooPahDoo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hasn't done thing one to help small business.  My guess is losing in November is his best shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. 50% or depreciation on 27.5 year real property bought in 2011 is worthless to small businesses. It only allows myself to deduct nearly $40,000 in depreciation expenses from my rental activity in one year - as opposed to less than $3000 - that didn't help at all.
> 
> 
> And if the 12 billion dollars in small business tax cuts were no good for the small businesses - why don't they send them back?
> 
> Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my bad, I forget that right wingers never, ever, ever do their homework.
Click to expand...


Just like the stimulus...a lot of bogus numbers.

Keep ooping....


----------



## francoHFW

Listening to Fox etc, no wonder you don't know...a disgrace. Pubs have also blocked everything for the last 3 years...more stuff you don't know about....

Stimulus worked DUH!, but the meltdown was worse than known at the time, NINE PER CENT retraction, 40 % of middle class wealth. Great job, corrupt Pubs/cronies...dupes!


----------



## Vidi

NBCNews.com Video Player


You Olympians, however, know you didn&#8217;t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We&#8217;ve already cheered the Olympians, let&#8217;s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist].

- Mitt Romney 2002

My how times have changed...oh no, wait, no they haven't, it's just Mitt!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

saveliberty said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hasn't done thing one to help small business.  My guess is losing in November is his best shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. 50% or depreciation on 27.5 year real property bought in 2011 is worthless to small businesses. It only allows myself to deduct nearly $40,000 in depreciation expenses from my rental activity in one year - as opposed to less than $3000 - that didn't help at all.
> 
> 
> And if the 12 billion dollars in small business tax cuts were no good for the small businesses - why don't they send them back?
> 
> Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my bad, I forget that right wingers never, ever, ever do their homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only helps those with new property.  Again, picking winners and losers.  I have not witnessed dime one in tax savings from Obama.
Click to expand...


Ahh. So by "Obama hasn't done thing one to help small business", you really meant "Obama hasn't done thing one to help* MY *small business"

Got it!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

saveliberty said:


> I'm finding all the nonbusiness owners telling us how well we have done quite enlightening.


You don't mean "us", you mean "me", we've already established tax benefits to businesses only count if they help you in particular.


----------



## Too Tall

Dr Grump said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesnt run a communist system.
> 
> Nice attempt to dodge though. Progressives progress towards socialism/communism. It's historical fact that that is their goal. They argue for evolution versus revolution of the new economic order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What type of system is it? A benevolent dictatorship?
Click to expand...


It should be of no concern to you.


----------



## saveliberty

OohPooPahDoo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm finding all the nonbusiness owners telling us how well we have done quite enlightening.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't mean "us", you mean "me", we've already established tax benefits to businesses only count if they help you in particular.
Click to expand...


No fool, we means the three actual business owners who have posted here and none of them has had any benefit from the supposed tax breaks.  The one person who did claim some type of benefit is now in the position of losing his break when he sells his asset well before the depreciation period ends.  Yes, the government takes that back and it will be huge.  Short term thinkers you and your buddy.


----------



## Full-Auto

OohPooPahDoo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. 50% or depreciation on 27.5 year real property bought in 2011 is worthless to small businesses. It only allows myself to deduct nearly $40,000 in depreciation expenses from my rental activity in one year - as opposed to less than $3000 - that didn't help at all.
> 
> 
> And if the 12 billion dollars in small business tax cuts were no good for the small businesses - why don't they send them back?
> 
> Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my bad, I forget that right wingers never, ever, ever do their homework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only helps those with new property.  Again, picking winners and losers.  I have not witnessed dime one in tax savings from Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh. So by "Obama hasn't done thing one to help small business", you really meant "Obama hasn't done thing one to help* MY *small business"
> 
> Got it!
Click to expand...


Besides picking winners and losers in his small business proposals...............Nothing nadda................ zip..........

But go ahead and post the things that helped all of Americas small businesses.


----------



## Listening

francoHFW said:


> Listening to Fox etc, no wonder you don't know...a disgrace. Pubs have also blocked everything for the last 3 years...more stuff you don't know about....
> 
> Stimulus worked DUH!, but the meltdown was worse than known at the time, NINE PER CENT retraction, 40 % of middle class wealth. Great job, corrupt Pubs/cronies...dupes!



Is there any way we can check to see how many times this post has been put up word for word on this entire board ?

I'll bet it has been a thousand times.

Francblo does not have much of a vocabulary (teacher my ass), but you think she could change the words around from time to time.

Neg rep on the way.

Not that he even understands how a lot of that contraction was from expansion that should never have taken place thanks to the dems allowing the housing bubble to form.

But when you listen to Randi Roadkill....I guess your I.Q. is bound to drop.


----------



## Barb

freedombecki said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those your words or a book quotation?  Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.
> 
> In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that.  He _gives_ you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%.  *It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay.*  At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.
> 
> Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty.  Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year.  This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.
> 
> We should ALL be pissed about that.  This guy RAN on unity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My words. I quoted my source.
> 
> As to the bolded above, horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Barb, if only it were. I owned a business for 23 years. Nobody ever ran to my aid the 2 years it was being embezzled, and following that episode, repayment for losses required a full five years of paying them back with interest when I borrowed to keep doors open and employees paid. You couldn't pay me a million bucks to repeat the wrenching that horrible series of thefts placed on my little world of barely making it through the years by the seat of my pants. Thieving employees take something away from their victims business and place distrust and loss of health with it. The entire time, that employee took what little my business home while I was at the bank every two weeks, wondering what was going on to make merchandise march out the door and not enough receipts to replace that. It wasn't until all other employees left and it was just the two of us that the crimes done were revealed through daily acts of theft I won'[t go into here.
> 
> In the end, you may have irrefutable accounting and eyewitness proofs of theft, but in a small town, you have zero trust left for that person's associates, all of whom caterwaul (without knowing) that you are rich by virtue of being your own boss while they are poor, whereas you as a business owner haven't a fraction of their take-home power from the profitable businesses they gather to.
> 
> I'm not sure that will mean anything to anyone, but it was a lesson in not ever being somebody else's chump for more than a week. That went on for two years, and the sinister thefts were uncovered by me by sheer accident of stumbling upon a red-handed catch so clear it was irrefutable in and of itself. The feedback I got came through an enraged friend who believed only the lies of a con artist and dissed me, the person who was holding the bag and was bound by employment laws of not being able to discuss the length, depth, and loss inflicted on the business by an employee. The law is clear. Employers may not discuss any personal thing about their employee to another employer except date hired and date left. Proving a 30,000 to 40,000 heist could cost you $100,000  in lawyer and accountant fees. Every time I see a "going out of business" sign, I wonder who hit them, and how much was stolen for that sign to be posted outside the door, and the people cleaning shelves could be bank employees trying to recover everybody's hurt from that worker, protected by his own lies to pals who pity and buy the hubris.
> 
> I'd rethink what I said to Murf. He may have a hands-on knowledge his case is built on solid rock.
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges, Becky. Your situation, while horrible, has NOTHING to do with tax law, profit and loss on the scale we're discussing here. I do sympathise, though. I tried to warn those who stabbed me in the back, before and after they did so, that they were welcoming a skunk to the woodpile. It was my family business, and while it was fun on one level to be proven correct and see those I'd trusted pay a price for not trusting me, it was frustrating to see something like that come down when it was avoidable.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> NBCNews.com Video Player
> 
> 
> You Olympians, however, know you didnt get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. Weve already cheered the Olympians, lets also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist].
> 
> - Mitt Romney 2002
> 
> My how times have changed...oh no, wait, no they haven't, it's just Mitt!



Mitt did not suggest for a minute that the Olympians did not put in the work, effort, endure the pain, the disappointments, and the struggle to reach a level to become competitive in the Olympics.  The fact that others supported them along the way takes nothing away from their own efforts.  No suggestion that those medals should be cut up and distributed to everybody because the Olympians don't deserve to keep them.

Obama tells us who built businesses that we didn't do that but government did it; that we owe everybody else our profits because we don't deserve them.


----------



## saveliberty

Did Mitt suggest the Olympians return their medals or turn over funds they earned in endorsements to the government or parents?


----------



## Foxfyre

Yeah, think about Obama giving that same speech re the Olympics:

You say it is because you are talented.  Well a whole bunch of people are talented.
You say it is because you put in the time and effort to train.  Well a whole bunch of people put in time and effort on a lot of things.
You won that race?  You didn't run that.  There were people who built the track and painted the lanes and found a starting pistol.  All of us working together won that race.  So you're going to have to hand over some of your medal and record from the record book and share with everybody else.


----------



## saveliberty

Foxfyre said:


> Yeah, think about Obama giving that same speech re the Olympics:
> 
> You say it is because you are talented.  Well a whole bunch of people are talented.
> You say it is because you put in the time and effort to train.  Well a whole bunch of people put in time and effort on a lot of things.
> You won that race?  You didn't run that.  There were people who built the track and painted the lanes and found a starting pistol.  All of us working together won that race.  So you're going to have to hand over some of your medal and record from the record book and share with everybody else.



Just hand over any medal you get to Michelle, she's right there...


----------



## Barb

saveliberty said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, think about Obama giving that same speech re the Olympics:
> 
> You say it is because you are talented.  Well a whole bunch of people are talented.
> You say it is because you put in the time and effort to train.  Well a whole bunch of people put in time and effort on a lot of things.
> You won that race?  You didn't run that.  There were people who built the track and painted the lanes and found a starting pistol.  All of us working together won that race.  So you're going to have to hand over some of your medal and record from the record book and share with everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just hand over any medal you get to Michelle, she's right there...
Click to expand...


Some days you're the voice of sweet reason, other days...well, not so much.


----------



## saveliberty

Barb said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, think about Obama giving that same speech re the Olympics:
> 
> You say it is because you are talented.  Well a whole bunch of people are talented.
> You say it is because you put in the time and effort to train.  Well a whole bunch of people put in time and effort on a lot of things.
> You won that race?  You didn't run that.  There were people who built the track and painted the lanes and found a starting pistol.  All of us working together won that race.  So you're going to have to hand over some of your medal and record from the record book and share with everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just hand over any medal you get to Michelle, she's right there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some days you're the voice of sweet reason, other days...well, not so much.
Click to expand...


I guess if I was being serious, you'd have a good point.  lol  Have a wonderful day Barb.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> Yeah, think about Obama giving that same speech re the Olympics:
> 
> You say it is because you are talented.  Well a whole bunch of people are talented.
> You say it is because you put in the time and effort to train.  Well a whole bunch of people put in time and effort on a lot of things.
> You won that race?  You didn't run that.  There were people who built the track and painted the lanes and found a starting pistol.  All of us working together won that race.  So you're going to have to hand over some of your medal and record from the record book and share with everybody else.




We should start our kids off right too and have Barry give the speech to all of our school children!!! Our liberal schools already produce the dumbest kids in the world , so it couldn't hurt!!


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> NBCNews.com Video Player
> 
> 
> You Olympians, however, know you didnt get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. Weve already cheered the Olympians, lets also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist].
> 
> - Mitt Romney 2002
> 
> My how times have changed...oh no, wait, no they haven't, it's just Mitt!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt did not suggest for a minute that the Olympians did not put in the work, effort, endure the pain, the disappointments, and the struggle to reach a level to become competitive in the Olympics.  The fact that others supported them along the way takes nothing away from their own efforts.  No suggestion that those medals should be cut up and distributed to everybody because the Olympians don't deserve to keep them.
> 
> Obama tells us who built businesses that we didn't do that but government did it; that we owe everybody else our profits because we don't deserve them.
Click to expand...


"Weve already cheered the Olympians, lets also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities."

Pay your tax to the support staff!


Show me a successful business on an island with ONE person one it?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> NBCNews.com Video Player
> 
> 
> You Olympians, however, know you didnt get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. Weve already cheered the Olympians, lets also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist].
> 
> - Mitt Romney 2002
> 
> My how times have changed...oh no, wait, no they haven't, it's just Mitt!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt did not suggest for a minute that the Olympians did not put in the work, effort, endure the pain, the disappointments, and the struggle to reach a level to become competitive in the Olympics.  The fact that others supported them along the way takes nothing away from their own efforts.  No suggestion that those medals should be cut up and distributed to everybody because the Olympians don't deserve to keep them.
> 
> Obama tells us who built businesses that we didn't do that but government did it; that we owe everybody else our profits because we don't deserve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Weve already cheered the Olympians, lets also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities."
> 
> Pay your tax to the support staff!
> 
> 
> Show me a successful business on an island with ONE person one it?
Click to expand...


show me a successful student on an island with one person on it!!


so back in civilization we should rip off the businessman and student???
 See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt did not suggest for a minute that the Olympians did not put in the work, effort, endure the pain, the disappointments, and the struggle to reach a level to become competitive in the Olympics.  The fact that others supported them along the way takes nothing away from their own efforts.  No suggestion that those medals should be cut up and distributed to everybody because the Olympians don't deserve to keep them.
> 
> Obama tells us who built businesses that we didn't do that but government did it; that we owe everybody else our profits because we don't deserve them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We&#8217;ve already cheered the Olympians, let&#8217;s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities."
> 
> Pay your tax to the support staff!
> 
> 
> Show me a successful business on an island with ONE person one it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> show me a successful student on an island with one person on it!!
> 
> 
> so back in civilization we should rip off the businessman and student???
> See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??
Click to expand...


as usual your posts make no sense whatsoever...fail

Or maybe youre just afraid to show me a successful business on a deserted island? What is it about it that makes you so afraid?


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> Yeah, think about Obama giving that same speech re the Olympics:
> 
> You say it is because you are talented.  Well a whole bunch of people are talented.
> You say it is because you put in the time and effort to train.  Well a whole bunch of people put in time and effort on a lot of things.
> You won that race?  You didn't run that.  There were people who built the track and painted the lanes and found a starting pistol.  All of us working together won that race.  So you're going to have to hand over some of your medal and record from the record book and share with everybody else.





Well done.

Who do they think they ARE, anyway?

.


----------



## saveliberty

The opportunity is roughly equal, we also already make those who made more of their opportunity pay more.  Obama just thinks it needs to be all the higher, because he wants to put the money to his higher purpose.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> Or maybe youre just afraid to show me a successful business on a deserted island?



cant show that and cant show you a successful student or athlete on an island either. Therefore we should rip them all off as Barry implied??

Tell us genius why Barry didn't give the same speech to students and athletes!!


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay let's use the classroom analogy.

You are serious about your studies?  Well lots of other people are serious too.
You stayed home nights and studied and learned the material?  Well there's lots of people who have learned stuff.
You made an A on that test?  You didn't make that A.  The people who built the school and taught the class and your parents who got you up in the morning and all of us working together earned that A.  Never mind that there were lots of others in the same class, in the same school who didn't bother to study or benefit as much from the opportunity.

We'll need to bust you back to a B minus so we can give more of what you think you accomplished to those who know they didn't accomplish it.


----------



## Mac1958

Foxfyre said:


> Okay let's use the classroom analogy.
> 
> You are serious about your studies?  Well lots of other people are serious too.
> You stayed home nights and studied and learned the material?  Well there's lots of people who have learned stuff.
> You made an A on that test?  You didn't make that A.  The people who built the school and taught the class and your parents who got you up in the morning and all of us working together earned that A.  Never mind that there were lots of others in the same class, in the same school who didn't bother to study or benefit as much from the opportunity.
> 
> We'll need to bust you back to a B minus so we can give more of what you think you accomplished to those who know they didn't accomplish it.




And you got to school on a ROAD!!!

.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> Okay let's use the classroom analogy.
> 
> You are serious about your studies?  Well lots of other people are serious too.
> You stayed home nights and studied and learned the material?  Well there's lots of people who have learned stuff.
> You made an A on that test?  You didn't make that A.  The people who built the school and taught the class and your parents who got you up in the morning and all of us working together earned that A.  Never mind that there were lots of others in the same class, in the same school who didn't bother to study or benefit as much from the opportunity.
> 
> We'll need to bust you back to a B minus so we can give more of what you think you accomplished to those who know they didn't accomplish it.



Vidi is just about the refute your argument!! I can hardly wait for the genius liberal to strike. I'm sure it will devastating!!


----------



## Dr Grump

Too Tall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesnt run a communist system.
> 
> Nice attempt to dodge though. Progressives progress towards socialism/communism. It's historical fact that that is their goal. They argue for evolution versus revolution of the new economic order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What type of system is it? A benevolent dictatorship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be of no concern to you.
Click to expand...


Why not?


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe youre just afraid to show me a successful business on a deserted island?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cant show that and cant show you a successful student or athlete on an island either. Therefore we should rip them all off as Barry implied??
> 
> Tell us genius why Barry didn't give the same speech to students and athletes!!
Click to expand...



Giving back into the pool you took from is not being "ripped off" its called gratitude, respect for the system and being humble.


You see truly great people never believe they did it all on their own, because thats arrogant nonsense. 

Neil Armstring didnt design the rocket that got him to the moon.

Charles Lindbergh didnt design the airplane he flew across the Atlantic.

Steve Jobs didnt invent the personal computer. Hell, he didnt even build the first APPLE computer.

Henry Ford didnt invent the automoble.

ALL of these great accomplishments were done with the help of others.

So name one that wasnt?

Or are you afraid?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vidi said:


> Show me a successful business on an island with ONE person one it?



Tom Hanks had a very successful fish processing business and coconut harvesting concern in Castaway.

Marxist platitudes only sound good until you actually think about them...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> Giving back into the pool you took from is not being "ripped off" its called gratitude, respect for the system and being humble.



Barry didn't talk about a pool?????????? He said teacher, road builder, etc all of whom got jobs paid for by the rich who pay all the taxes, and all of whom in theory owed other people who got them  the help they neeeded to be teachers or road builders.

So the rich pay 100% for teachers and road builders and Barry is reminding  them  they need to pay more to union stiffs who already make double the going free market wage?


----------



## Vidi

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a successful business on an island with ONE person one it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Hanks had a very successful fish processing business and coconut harvesting concern in Castaway.
> 
> Marxist platitudes only sound good until you actually think about them...
Click to expand...


your example is just like the validity of your argument...fictional


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> cant show that and cant show you a successful student or athlete on an island either. Therefore we should rip them all off as Barry implied??
> 
> Tell us genius why Barry didn't give the same speech to students and athletes!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giving back into the pool you took from is not being "ripped off" its called gratitude, respect for the system and being humble.
> 
> 
> You see truly great people never believe they did it all on their own, because thats arrogant nonsense.
> 
> Neil Armstring didnt design the rocket that got him to the moon.
> 
> Charles Lindbergh didnt design the airplane he flew across the Atlantic.
> 
> Steve Jobs didnt invent the personal computer. Hell, he didnt even build the first APPLE computer.
> 
> Henry Ford didnt invent the automoble.
> 
> ALL of these great accomplishments were done with the help of others.
> 
> So name one that wasnt?
> 
> Or are you afraid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us genius why Barry didn't give the same speech to students and athletes!!!!
Click to expand...


There you go Little Eddie, changing the subject because youve reached the limits of your tiny tiny intelliect. So filled with fear that your bullshit might be ( has been ) proven completely wrong. 

No. You dont get to dodge, coward, *answer the challenge *or concede!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vidi said:


> your example is just like the validity of your argument...fictional



Like your ability to reason.

The capitalist pig alone on an island will hoard all profit and not share any with the needy. He will exploit the natural resources without giving anything back to Obama.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe youre just afraid to show me a successful business on a deserted island?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cant show that and cant show you a successful student or athlete on an island either. Therefore we should rip them all off as Barry implied??
> 
> Tell us genius why Barry didn't give the same speech to students and athletes!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Giving back into the pool you took from is not being "ripped off" its called gratitude, respect for the system and being humble.
> 
> 
> You see truly great people never believe they did it all on their own, because thats arrogant nonsense.
> 
> Neil Armstring didnt design the rocket that got him to the moon.
> 
> Charles Lindbergh didnt design the airplane he flew across the Atlantic.
> 
> Steve Jobs didnt invent the personal computer. Hell, he didnt even build the first APPLE computer.
> 
> Henry Ford didnt invent the automoble.
> 
> ALL of these great accomplishments were done with the help of others.
> 
> So name one that wasnt?
> 
> Or are you afraid?
Click to expand...


So just using one of your examples, who gets the credit.  The guy who thought up the internal combustion engine?  Or the guy who figured out how to make it useful for millions of people and in the process made it possible for tens of thousands to have a good job and make a living.

Moving on to the guy on the assembly line, how much of his paycheck does he owe the heirs of the inventor?   How much cut should the heirs of Henry Ford get of that?  And how much is he owed by all the people around the auto plant who have jobs and earn a living because the plant is there and the guy on the line shows up to work five days a week?


----------



## LeftofLeft

Black entrepreneurs can look themselves in a mirror every day and know that the son of a white woman who grew up in a privileged Hawaii life is telling them as President that they did not build their businesses on their own.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> answer the challenge or concede!



what challenge exactly???????????????????????


----------



## Vidi

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> your example is just like the validity of your argument...fictional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like your ability to reason.
> 
> The capitalist pig alone on an island will hoard all profit and not share any with the needy. He will exploit the natural resources without giving anything back to Obama.
Click to expand...



Your argument is that these people do it ALL on their own. Im simply asking for an example. Said example would HAVE to be completely alone on a deserted island for your argument to be true.

Just because YOU failed to think your position through before you threw it out there and got ass raped by reality, dont put that off on me.


And because reality doesnt coincide with your very broken argument, you provided a fictional account based on a fictional character, once again proving that you are very fucking wrong.

NEXT!


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> answer the challenge or concede!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what challenge exactly???????????????????????
Click to expand...



Give an example.

If you dont know what Im talking about, then look back on my posts to you in this conversation. If you can do that, then tell your nurse its time to change your diaper and you need your internet priviledges revoked.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

LeftofLeft said:


> they did not build their businesses on their own.



if they didn't build it then society did and so society really owns it and the profits.

Thats not a surprising argument from a guy who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> cant show that and cant show you a successful student or athlete on an island either. Therefore we should rip them all off as Barry implied??
> 
> Tell us genius why Barry didn't give the same speech to students and athletes!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giving back into the pool you took from is not being "ripped off" its called gratitude, respect for the system and being humble.
> 
> 
> You see truly great people never believe they did it all on their own, because thats arrogant nonsense.
> 
> Neil Armstring didnt design the rocket that got him to the moon.
> 
> Charles Lindbergh didnt design the airplane he flew across the Atlantic.
> 
> Steve Jobs didnt invent the personal computer. Hell, he didnt even build the first APPLE computer.
> 
> Henry Ford didnt invent the automoble.
> 
> ALL of these great accomplishments were done with the help of others.
> 
> So name one that wasnt?
> 
> Or are you afraid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just using one of your examples, who gets the credit.  The guy who thought up the internal combustion engine?  Or the guy who figured out how to make it useful for millions of people and in the process made it possible for tens of thousands to have a good job and make a living.
> 
> Moving on to the guy on the assembly line, how much of his paycheck does he owe the heirs of the inventor?   How much cut should the heirs of Henry Ford get of that?  And how much is he owed by all the people around the auto plant who have jobs and earn a living because the plant is there and the guy on the line shows up to work five days a week?
Click to expand...



which question you want anwered first...oh darn I wasnt aware that I was supposed to break out my slide rule and abacus for this assignment.

We are talking about HOW MUCH are we? We are talking about IF THEY DID IT ON THEIR OWN. Its not a HOW MUCH debate. Its a did they get there all by themselves debate.

If you want to discuss what a fair tax rate is...thats a different debate... one Im sure we will also disagree on...but start the thread, pm me the link and we can debate that too.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> Moving on to the guy on the assembly line, how much of his paycheck does he owe the heirs of the inventor?



what a liberal lacks the IQ to grasp is that capitalism distributes the money according to a very very precise formula based on the value of ones contribution to the process. There is a reason wages go from minimum to millions in the same corporation.

If liberals scrambled the formula so everyone got the same pay  in one company, for example,  that company would go bankrupt because no one would bother to be, say,  an engineer if it resulted in the same pay as a less trained guy.


----------



## Pho_King

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe youre just afraid to show me a successful business on a deserted island?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cant show that and cant show you a successful student or athlete on an island either. Therefore we should rip them all off as Barry implied??
> 
> Tell us genius why Barry didn't give the same speech to students and athletes!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Giving back into the pool you took from is not being "ripped off" its called gratitude, respect for the system and being humble.
> 
> 
> You see truly great people never believe they did it all on their own, because thats arrogant nonsense.
> 
> Neil Armstring didnt design the rocket that got him to the moon.
> 
> Charles Lindbergh didnt design the airplane he flew across the Atlantic.
> 
> Steve Jobs didnt invent the personal computer. Hell, he didnt even build the first APPLE computer.
> 
> Henry Ford didnt invent the automoble.
> 
> ALL of these great accomplishments were done with the help of others.
> 
> So name one that wasnt?
> 
> Or are you afraid?
Click to expand...


The black messiah isn't asking for others to give.   He's letting them know that He wants to take.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> answer the challenge or concede!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what challenge exactly???????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give an example.
Click to expand...


an example of what??????????????????


----------



## chanel

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving back into the pool you took from is not being "ripped off" its called gratitude, respect for the system and being humble.
> 
> 
> You see truly great people never believe they did it all on their own, because thats arrogant nonsense.
> 
> Neil Armstring didnt design the rocket that got him to the moon.
> 
> Charles Lindbergh didnt design the airplane he flew across the Atlantic.
> 
> Steve Jobs didnt invent the personal computer. Hell, he didnt even build the first APPLE computer.
> 
> Henry Ford didnt invent the automoble.
> 
> ALL of these great accomplishments were done with the help of others.
> 
> So name one that wasnt?
> 
> Or are you afraid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just using one of your examples, who gets the credit.  The guy who thought up the internal combustion engine?  Or the guy who figured out how to make it useful for millions of people and in the process made it possible for tens of thousands to have a good job and make a living.
> 
> Moving on to the guy on the assembly line, how much of his paycheck does he owe the heirs of the inventor?   How much cut should the heirs of Henry Ford get of that?  And how much is he owed by all the people around the auto plant who have jobs and earn a living because the plant is there and the guy on the line shows up to work five days a week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which question you want anwered first...oh darn I wasnt aware that I was supposed to break out my slide rule and abacus for this assignment.
> 
> We are talking about HOW MUCH are we? We are talking about IF THEY DID IT ON THEIR OWN. Its not a HOW MUCH debate. Its a did they get there all by themselves debate.
> 
> If you want to discuss what a fair tax rate is...thats a different debate... one Im sure we will also disagree on...but start the thread, pm me the link and we can debate that too.
Click to expand...


No one makes it on their own. Successful budiness owners have families and employees and customers who help a business grow. But Papa O wasnt talking about their contributions and rewards. He was talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I can say with certainty that the feds did nothing to help our business. Nothing. And shut up about the fucking roads. Most of them belong to the state.


----------



## chanel

Oh and I would guestimate that we have paid the feds over a million dollars since we've been in business. We own the fucking road.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

chanel said:


> No one makes it on their own.



this is true not the business owner, parent, teacher,  road builder or the guy who invented the wheel 1 million years ago to make everything possible today,  but everyone did what they did for the money or psychic rewards. 

Then, along comes Barry, with his two communist parents, with a new formula about how everyone must pay everyone back and the formula is: give me the money and I'll decide.


----------



## saveliberty

Did the government provide the genetic material that makes up the individual?  Did they decide when you started kindergarten?  Did they show up at your hosue and help with math homework?  Was government present when you decided who your friends were?  How about whether or where you atended church?  A million and one small decisions which formed you and what you were able to do with your potential.  Yet government was not present at any of them.

Yet, the government decided what was a fair portion to pay the school for your education K-12.  It was paid in full.  The roads and other public services were funded with tax dollars from the public and the bill paid in full.  Everything was calculated as to cost and paid for or a loan taken.  So what is left to pay back?


----------



## flacaltenn

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving back into the pool you took from is not being "ripped off" its called gratitude, respect for the system and being humble.
> 
> 
> You see truly great people never believe they did it all on their own, because thats arrogant nonsense.
> 
> Neil Armstring didnt design the rocket that got him to the moon.
> 
> Charles Lindbergh didnt design the airplane he flew across the Atlantic.
> 
> Steve Jobs didnt invent the personal computer. Hell, he didnt even build the first APPLE computer.
> 
> Henry Ford didnt invent the automoble.
> 
> ALL of these great accomplishments were done with the help of others.
> 
> So name one that wasnt?
> 
> Or are you afraid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us genius why Barry didn't give the same speech to students and athletes!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go Little Eddie, changing the subject because youve reached the limits of your tiny tiny intelliect. So filled with fear that your bullshit might be ( has been ) proven completely wrong.
> 
> No. You dont get to dodge, coward, *answer the challenge *or concede!
Click to expand...


Vidi -- no one is denying that TECHNOLOGY, SCIENCE and KNOWLEDGE are one continuum of leveraging past achievements (and failures) for that matter. That's not the assertion that Obama was making. He prefaced the "you didn't build that" remark with comments about how he believes "a lot of folks work hard" and there are "a lot of smart people", implying that ALL SWEAT EQUITY should be regarded as EQUAL CONTRIBUTIONS. That people who are successful work NO harder and NO smarter than everyone else. It's that collectivist theme that was objectionable. 

Actually he's RIGHT about a lot of people working hard.. But what he doesn't demonstrate an understanding of is that the OPERATORS of a business applied a particular kind of creativity, innovation, intense focus, and risk tolerance that is BEYOND a bucket of sweat. 

The orderlies that clean the operating room work as hard as the surgeons -- but one has rare talents and skills -- the other has common commodities skills. 

In an attempt to make a point -- his deep leftist indocrination caused him to be frank and honest about the simplistic Collectivist philosophy of equal sweat for equal reward. And without that preface to the "you didn't build that" remark -- he couldn't make the case for contributions all being approximately equal.. Like roads and bridges are equal to vision and innovation and not just an EXPECTED result of human development.  That's NOT the world Americans know.. 

I KNOW YOU know how offensive that concept can be for biz folk. Especially when the conversion is what to do about the inequity of reimbursement for different contributions to the venture.


----------



## chanel

When a business does well they generally reward employees with raises and bonuses. Papa O thinks those profits should go to him instead. 

How can anyone with a job be OK with that?

This topic makes me angrier every passing day. I have a feeling I am not alone.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

chanel said:


> When a business does well they generally reward employees with raises and bonuses. Papa O thinks those profits should go to him instead.
> 
> How can anyone with a job be OK with that?
> 
> This topic makes me angrier every passing day. I have a feeling I am not alone.



Yes everyone who takes any pride in what they have accomplished was, in effect,  attacked by Barry and his two communist parents.


----------



## Vidi

chanel said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just using one of your examples, who gets the credit.  The guy who thought up the internal combustion engine?  Or the guy who figured out how to make it useful for millions of people and in the process made it possible for tens of thousands to have a good job and make a living.
> 
> Moving on to the guy on the assembly line, how much of his paycheck does he owe the heirs of the inventor?   How much cut should the heirs of Henry Ford get of that?  And how much is he owed by all the people around the auto plant who have jobs and earn a living because the plant is there and the guy on the line shows up to work five days a week?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which question you want anwered first...oh darn I wasnt aware that I was supposed to break out my slide rule and abacus for this assignment.
> 
> We are talking about HOW MUCH are we? We are talking about IF THEY DID IT ON THEIR OWN. Its not a HOW MUCH debate. Its a did they get there all by themselves debate.
> 
> If you want to discuss what a fair tax rate is...thats a different debate... one Im sure we will also disagree on...but start the thread, pm me the link and we can debate that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one makes it on their own. Successful budiness owners have families and employees and customers who help a business grow. But Papa O wasnt talking about their contributions and rewards. He was talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I can say with certainty that the feds did nothing to help our business. Nothing. And shut up about the fucking roads. Most of them belong to the state.
Click to expand...



No. Papa O was talking about the contribution that THE PEOPLE put into the system, bulding roads and schools and fire houses and cop shops. 

Why do so many people forget that WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT?!?!?!?!


----------



## Vidi

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> what challenge exactly???????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give an example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an example of what??????????????????
Click to expand...


Cowardly dodging again I see.

How many times you going to play the Little Eddie is stupid card?


----------



## Dr.House

Vidi said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> which question you want anwered first...oh darn I wasnt aware that I was supposed to break out my slide rule and abacus for this assignment.
> 
> We are talking about HOW MUCH are we? We are talking about IF THEY DID IT ON THEIR OWN. Its not a HOW MUCH debate. Its a did they get there all by themselves debate.
> 
> If you want to discuss what a fair tax rate is...thats a different debate... one Im sure we will also disagree on...but start the thread, pm me the link and we can debate that too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one makes it on their own. Successful budiness owners have families and employees and customers who help a business grow. But Papa O wasnt talking about their contributions and rewards. He was talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I can say with certainty that the feds did nothing to help our business. Nothing. And shut up about the fucking roads. Most of them belong to the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. Papa O was talking about the contribution that THE PEOPLE put into the system, bulding roads and schools and fire houses and cop shops.
Click to expand...


Well that's just stupid...  Those same roads, bridges, schools and fire houses didn't help the failed businesses...

If they helped the successful businesses then they didn't help the failed businesses...

IOW, you need to remove them from the equation...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an example of what??????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cowardly dodging again I see.
> 
> How many times you going to play the Little Eddie is stupid card?
Click to expand...


an example of what, liberal?? Why be afraid to say??


----------



## Vidi

saveliberty said:


> Did the government provide the genetic material that makes up the individual?  Did they decide when you started kindergarten?  Did they show up at your hosue and help with math homework?  Was government present when you decided who your friends were?  How about whether or where you atended church?  A million and one small decisions which formed you and what you were able to do with your potential.  Yet government was not present at any of them.
> 
> Yet, the government decided what was a fair portion to pay the school for your education K-12.  It was paid in full.  The roads and other public services were funded with tax dollars from the public and the bill paid in full.  Everything was calculated as to cost and paid for or a loan taken.  So what is left to pay back?



What youre saying is true but youre missing the fact that all of those things are essentially paid for by the previous generation. Therefore, its OUR responsibility to pay for it for the NEXT generation.

And the government was present for ALL of those decisions.

It was present when it kept your parents safe from the Nazis. It was present when they enjoyed their freedom to marry who they chose to and to have as many children as theyd like, unlike Communist China. It was present when it picked you up with the yellow bus to take you to school. It was present when it paid the teacher to teach you, the principal to oversee things. It was present when it repaired and expanded the roads on which you were driven to school, when you drove to your first job, your first self owned business. It was present when it protected your church's right to exist instead of demanding that ALL churches be the same denomination. It was present when it chose the textbooks from which your homework assignments were given.

The simple truth is we are a product of our society. Our society that was created and passed down to us from our Founding Fathers to us. 

Theres a line in the John Adams mini series, that I HOPE John Adams actually said. He was meeting the French Aristocracy for the first time and felt completely out of place, and a woman told him he neednt concern himself with politics all the time.

He replied," I must concern myself with politics, madam. I may be a poor politician but I must concern myself with politics so my children can concern themselves with industry and commerce and their children may concern themselves with art and literature. "

In that statement is the contract, the Dream. That previous generations sacrifice in order for the next generations gain. We cannot now say we will take it all and leave nothing for the next generation. It violates the contract, the Dream.

Its our turn. Are we going to hand over nothing?


----------



## Neotrotsky

It was there when we had slavery
It was there when we had Japanese Americans locked up in camps

oh wait....


----------



## Vidi

Dr.House said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one makes it on their own. Successful budiness owners have families and employees and customers who help a business grow. But Papa O wasnt talking about their contributions and rewards. He was talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I can say with certainty that the feds did nothing to help our business. Nothing. And shut up about the fucking roads. Most of them belong to the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Papa O was talking about the contribution that THE PEOPLE put into the system, bulding roads and schools and fire houses and cop shops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's just stupid...  Those same roads, bridges, schools and fire houses didn't help the failed businesses...
> 
> If they helped the successful businesses then they didn't help the failed businesses...
> 
> IOW, you need to remove them from the equation...
Click to expand...


No its NOT stupid. Not when youve LIVED it!


Weve seen this very principle IN ACTION within the last decade. When the bridge fell here in Minneapolis. Businesses were hurt when their customers could no longer reach them. Many small mom and pop operations on one side of the river or the other either hit sudden hard times or went under completely. Through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. A bridge fell and suddenly their customer base disappeared.

Remember the old saying, " Location, Location, Location" ?

Guess who does the districting? Guess who decides where the roads will go? Where the next bridge gets built?

Its the community NOT the single rugged individual business owner that decides such things. The community and therefore the government decides which location, location, location is going to be the prime location.


----------



## Vidi

Neotrotsky said:


> It was there when we had slavery
> It was there when we had Japanese Americans locked up in camps
> 
> oh wait....



No keep going because youre absolutely RIGHT. 110% correct in fact. The government is US, the PEOPLE. And people are flawed and make HORRIBLE mistakes.

We CANNOT accept the benefits of self governance and ignore the penalties and responsibilities that go along with that. We MUST be honest about our mistakes, accept blame and learn from them or we are doomed to repeat them over and over again.

So please, by all means, continue your list.


----------



## Dr.House

Vidi said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Papa O was talking about the contribution that THE PEOPLE put into the system, bulding roads and schools and fire houses and cop shops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's just stupid...  Those same roads, bridges, schools and fire houses didn't help the failed businesses...
> 
> If they helped the successful businesses then they didn't help the failed businesses...
> 
> IOW, you need to remove them from the equation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No its NOT stupid. Not when youve LIVED it!
> 
> 
> Weve seen this very principle IN ACTION within the last decade. When the bridge fell here in Minneapolis. Businesses were hurt when their customers could no longer reach them. Many small mom and pop operations on one side of the river or the other either hit sudden hard times or went under completely. Through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. A bridge fell and suddenly their customer base disappeared.
Click to expand...

Some businesses succeeded after that collapse and others didn't...

You CANNOT use bridges and roads as a measure of success for a business...



> Remember the old saying, " Location, Location, Location" ?
> 
> Guess who does the districting? Guess who decides where the roads will go? Where the next bridge gets built?
> 
> Its the community NOT the single rugged individual business owner that decides such things. The community and therefore the government decides which location, location, location is going to be the prime location.



Yet 0bama said his remarks to ALL successful businesses...  Not just the ones with prime location...

There are others in a warehouse on the end of a dirt road who are successful....

Businesses on the same street fail while others succeed....

Barry was fucked-up wrong...


----------



## Vidi

Dr.House said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's just stupid...  Those same roads, bridges, schools and fire houses didn't help the failed businesses...
> 
> If they helped the successful businesses then they didn't help the failed businesses...
> 
> IOW, you need to remove them from the equation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No its NOT stupid. Not when youve LIVED it!
> 
> 
> Weve seen this very principle IN ACTION within the last decade. When the bridge fell here in Minneapolis. Businesses were hurt when their customers could no longer reach them. Many small mom and pop operations on one side of the river or the other either hit sudden hard times or went under completely. Through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. A bridge fell and suddenly their customer base disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some businesses succeeded after that collapse and others didn't...
> 
> You CANNOT use bridges and roads as a measure of success for a business...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the old saying, " Location, Location, Location" ?
> 
> Guess who does the districting? Guess who decides where the roads will go? Where the next bridge gets built?
> 
> Its the community NOT the single rugged individual business owner that decides such things. The community and therefore the government decides which location, location, location is going to be the prime location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet 0bama said his remarks to ALL successful businesses...  Not just the ones with prime location...
> 
> There are others in a warehouse on the end of a dirt road who are successful....
> 
> Businesses on the same street fail while others succeed....
> 
> Barry was fucked-up wrong...
Click to expand...


/facepalm

wow, way to laser focus on a tree and COMPLETELY miss the forest.


----------



## Dr.House

Vidi said:


> /facepalm
> 
> wow, way to laser focus on a tree and COMPLETELY miss the forest.



Way to defend Barry's dumbass remarks...

Again, for those who fail to see reality:  Bridges and roads are there for customers of failed businesses and successful businesses...

To credit them for the success of some while ignoring them for the failure of others is beyond stupid...


----------



## Vidi

Dr.House said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> wow, way to laser focus on a tree and COMPLETELY miss the forest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to defend Barry's dumbass remarks...
> 
> Again, for those who fail to see reality:  Bridges and roads are there for customers of failed businesses and successful businesses...
> 
> To credit them for the success of some while ignoring them for the failure of others is beyond stupid...
Click to expand...



I just credited them for the failure of once successful businesses.

So again I issue the challenge: Show me an example of a successful business that NEVER utilized the commons.

Until you CAN, your argument is invalid.


----------



## Dr.House

Vidi said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> wow, way to laser focus on a tree and COMPLETELY miss the forest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to defend Barry's dumbass remarks...
> 
> Again, for those who fail to see reality:  Bridges and roads are there for customers of failed businesses and successful businesses...
> 
> To credit them for the success of some while ignoring them for the failure of others is beyond stupid...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just credited them for the failure of once successful businesses.
> 
> So again I issue the challenge: Show me an example of a successful business that NEVER utilized the commons.
> 
> Until you CAN, your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...


Bullshit....

You and Barry are the ones making the claim that it was roads and bridges that made all businesses successful...  Those same roads and bridges failed other businesses on the same fucking block...

You and Barry's argument failed before it was uttered....

What a dumb argument....


----------



## regent

Reminds one of the Hoover speeches during the Great Depression. Hoover telling Americans how self reliant they were; able to do for themselves even as some starved and died from malnutriion. But some bought that bunk, some probably believing  they began life by delivering themselves at birth. 
Man is one of the most dependent creatures on earth. The long childhood is ample evidence. To deny humans are not dependent on others, we need only to look about us,  and in additon we are dependent upon government including conservatives and businessmen. If we were not dependent on government why would our founders have needed to change our government making it stronger, larger, with tremendous new powers, and some of those powers created were to help businessmen. But because we are dependent on others, America needs business, industry, hospitals, schools doctors all that make a nation.


----------



## saveliberty

I don't see where if you use a preexisting resource you have no right to claim you succeeded on your own merits.  Those resources were paid in full from the past and given equally as an opportunity for all.  Penalizing or diminishing what that person accomplished as government given is just plain wrong.


----------



## Vidi

saveliberty said:


> I don't see where if you use a preexisting resource you have no right to claim you succeeded on your own merits.  Those resources were paid in full from the past and given equally as an opportunity for all.  Penalizing or diminishing what that person accomplished as government given is just plain wrong.



Thats not what Im saying at all.

First let me answer your "paid in full" statement. What is paid in full? Is the highway system done? Because theres an old joke here in Minnesota, we have two seasons: Winter and Highway Construction. 


Which resource is "paid in full"? Which one doesnt have to constantly be renewed? Do we not need to train new fire people, police officers, teachers? Do we not constantly have to repair our infrastructure?

The previous generation maintained our society for us to inherit. We must do the same for the next. 

Second, who says the government _gave_ them their success? I certainly didnt. I did say they didnt do it all on their own. I will say that NO MAN IS AN ISLAND. 

Look Im a fairly successful business owner. I own several businesses. I worked my ass off to make them successful, but in the end, I didnt do it alone. I didnt educate my workers. I didnt build the roads that my products are delvered on. I had help. And no successful business owner can HONESTLY say they did it all on their own. 

My taxes will go to maintain those roads, possibly build new ones. My taxes will go to educate the next generation fo workers. My taxes will train the next generation of teachers and police officers and firemen and soldiers that will defend my freedom and the freedom of my children. 

I OWE it to this country that provided me the opportunity to become successful to do what I can to provide that same opportunity to others. Because I sure as hell wouldnt have had this opportunity in Russia, or China.

Its called Patriotism. Patriotism isnt about selfish greed. Its about pledging your life, your honor and your fortune to the country you love. Either you have it, and you understand what Im talking about, or you dont, and you dont.


----------



## Dr.House

You're missing the point vidi...

THE SAME bridges and roads that you claim helped you somehow failed other businesses...

Solyndra somehow couldn't use those bridges and roads to make it work...

It wasn't the magical roads and bridges that made your business successful....

Barry was wrong and he's in full damage control trying to spin it around....


----------



## saveliberty

Vidi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where if you use a preexisting resource you have no right to claim you succeeded on your own merits.  Those resources were paid in full from the past and given equally as an opportunity for all.  Penalizing or diminishing what that person accomplished as government given is just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not what Im saying at all.
> 
> First let me answer your "paid in full" statement. What is paid in full? Is the highway system done? Because theres an old joke here in Minnesota, we have two seasons: Winter and Highway Construction.
> 
> 
> Which resource is "paid in full"? Which one doesnt have to constantly be renewed? Do we not need to train new fire people, police officers, teachers? Do we not constantly have to repair our infrastructure?
> 
> The previous generation maintained our society for us to inherit. We must do the same for the next.
> 
> Second, who says the government _gave_ them their success? I certainly didnt. I did say they didnt do it all on their own. I will say that NO MAN IS AN ISLAND.
> 
> Look Im a fairly successful business owner. I own several businesses. I worked my ass off to make them successful, but in the end, I didnt do it alone. I didnt educate my workers. I didnt build the roads that my products are delvered on. I had help. And no successful business owner can HONESTLY say they did it all on their own.
> 
> My taxes will go to maintain those roads, possibly build new ones. My taxes will go to educate the next generation fo workers. My taxes will train the next generation of teachers and police officers and firemen and soldiers that will defend my freedom and the freedom of my children.
> 
> I OWE it to this country that provided me the opportunity to become successful to do what I can to provide that same opportunity to others. Because I sure as hell wouldnt have had this opportunity in Russia, or China.
> 
> Its called Patriotism. Patriotism isnt about selfish greed. Its about pledging your life, your honor and your fortune to the country you love. Either you have it, and you understand what Im talking about, or you dont, and you dont.
Click to expand...


You're under the false impresssion that we are paying anything forward in this government.  So much debt has been accumulated, that we can't even pay for the recent past.  How dare you suggest you are paying a single thing forward.  It is unpatriotic to burden the future with your present wants, yet that is what you are doing.


----------



## Vidi

Dr.House said:


> You're missing the point vidi...
> 
> THE SAME bridges and roads that you claim helped you somehow failed other businesses...
> 
> Solyndra somehow couldn't use those bridges and roads to make it work...
> 
> It wasn't the magical roads and bridges that made your business successful....
> 
> Barry was wrong and he's in full damage control trying to spin it around....



Sorry House old buddy, youre missing the point.

YES, the business owner is a MAJOR factor. I couldnt have been successful WITHOUT my own contribution. But I also couldnnt have been successful WITHOUT the contribution of society. and THAT was Obamas point. And one Im sorry to say you missed.


In fairness, Obama didnt make the point nearly as well as Elizabeth Warren did.


----------



## saveliberty

Nope, Obama said all of that to justify raising taxes.  Assuming a successful person owes more than his fellow Americans.  Its socialist and wrong.


----------



## Dr Grump

Dr.House said:


> You're missing the point vidi...
> 
> THE SAME bridges and roads that you claim helped you somehow failed other businesses...
> 
> Solyndra somehow couldn't use those bridges and roads to make it work...
> 
> It wasn't the magical roads and bridges that made your business successful....
> 
> Barry was wrong and he's in full damage control trying to spin it around....



But you're giving a circular argument to validate your hatred of Obama. How can a road or a bridge 'fail' a business unless a bridge collapsed and deliveries couldn't be made. However, a working road or bridge does add to the success. You are giving the scenario's equal value when you shouldn't.

Obama is only wrong if he said things that the right are trying to make out he said. In context, he never said those things. Only a partisan hack would say otherwise. So, are you? A partisan hack that is...


----------



## Vidi

saveliberty said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where if you use a preexisting resource you have no right to claim you succeeded on your own merits.  Those resources were paid in full from the past and given equally as an opportunity for all.  Penalizing or diminishing what that person accomplished as government given is just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not what Im saying at all.
> 
> First let me answer your "paid in full" statement. What is paid in full? Is the highway system done? Because theres an old joke here in Minnesota, we have two seasons: Winter and Highway Construction.
> 
> 
> Which resource is "paid in full"? Which one doesnt have to constantly be renewed? Do we not need to train new fire people, police officers, teachers? Do we not constantly have to repair our infrastructure?
> 
> The previous generation maintained our society for us to inherit. We must do the same for the next.
> 
> Second, who says the government _gave_ them their success? I certainly didnt. I did say they didnt do it all on their own. I will say that NO MAN IS AN ISLAND.
> 
> Look Im a fairly successful business owner. I own several businesses. I worked my ass off to make them successful, but in the end, I didnt do it alone. I didnt educate my workers. I didnt build the roads that my products are delvered on. I had help. And no successful business owner can HONESTLY say they did it all on their own.
> 
> My taxes will go to maintain those roads, possibly build new ones. My taxes will go to educate the next generation fo workers. My taxes will train the next generation of teachers and police officers and firemen and soldiers that will defend my freedom and the freedom of my children.
> 
> I OWE it to this country that provided me the opportunity to become successful to do what I can to provide that same opportunity to others. Because I sure as hell wouldnt have had this opportunity in Russia, or China.
> 
> Its called Patriotism. Patriotism isnt about selfish greed. Its about pledging your life, your honor and your fortune to the country you love. Either you have it, and you understand what Im talking about, or you dont, and you dont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're under the false impresssion that we are paying anything forward in this government.  So much debt has been accumulated, that we can't even pay for the recent past.  How dare you suggest you are paying a single thing forward.  It is unpatriotic to burden the future with your present wants, yet that is what you are doing.
Click to expand...


I couldnt agree with you more. Which is WHY I support a MAJOR raise in taxes. WE need to pay for this. Not our children or our grandchildren...US!

Look, since the Reagan years ( back in high school ) all I heard was how my generation was going to be the first to do worse than our parents because of the rising debt. And its only gotten worse. The Baby Boomers really fucked us, lets just be honest about that. They put everything on a credit card and pushed the bill onto the next generation...talk about taxation without representation huh?...well, that next generation is US.

It wont be easy. Hell, after world war 2 the top tax rate was 91%!!!!!!! Thats crazy, but thats what was required to get the country on track and turn it into the superpower that it became. 

Now Im not saying we should go back to 91% by any means, but the difference is the "greatest generation" were willing to make the sacrifices neccessary to provide for the future of this great nation.

Are we?


----------



## saveliberty

This might surprise you, but I think taxes should go up too.  My concern is that government show fiscal responsibility with what they already have before we give them more to use.  Real annual balanced budgets actually approved by Congress.  A true fix to secure the future of Social Security.  Things like that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> NBCNews.com Video Player
> 
> 
> You Olympians, however, know you didnt get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. Weve already cheered the Olympians, lets also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist].
> 
> - Mitt Romney 2002
> 
> My how times have changed...oh no, wait, no they haven't, it's just Mitt!



No, times have changed.  We've gone from "let's cheer and applaud the individuals in a person's life who stood by them" to "let's cheer and applaud the government that made it all possible, and give it more tax money".

Oh, and once upon a time, there were a lot fewer people as stupid and gullible as you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> NBCNews.com Video Player
> 
> 
> You Olympians, however, know you didnt get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. Weve already cheered the Olympians, lets also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist].
> 
> - Mitt Romney 2002
> 
> My how times have changed...oh no, wait, no they haven't, it's just Mitt!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt did not suggest for a minute that the Olympians did not put in the work, effort, endure the pain, the disappointments, and the struggle to reach a level to become competitive in the Olympics.  The fact that others supported them along the way takes nothing away from their own efforts.  No suggestion that those medals should be cut up and distributed to everybody because the Olympians don't deserve to keep them.
> 
> Obama tells us who built businesses that we didn't do that but government did it; that we owe everybody else our profits because we don't deserve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Weve already cheered the Olympians, lets also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities."
> 
> Pay your tax to the support staff!
> 
> 
> Show me a successful business on an island with ONE person one it?
Click to expand...


And if Obama had been talking about simply appreciating the other private individuals in the community, that would have been one thing.  But he wasn't.  He was specifically talking about all the goodies that government, in his opinion, gifted business owners with, and how they NOW needed to stop bitching and cough up more money.

There's no "tax" involved in giving people a round of applause, dipshit.  Only you leftists would be ignorant enough to conflate applause with taxes.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, times have changed.  We've gone from "let's cheer and applaud the individuals in a person's life who stood by them" to "let's cheer and applaud the government that made it all possible, and give it more tax money".
> .



If that was what Obama was saying, you might be right. But he didn't. So you are dead wrong (for a change <sarcasm>)



Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, and once upon a time, there were a lot fewer people as stupid and gullible as you.



Says one of the most stupid and gullible people posting on the USMB. Oh, the irony..


----------



## HenryBHough

He knows because He didn't get there on his own.

He was put where He is by puppet-master George Soros who made his fortune by _betting *against *America_.  Old George knew a good thing when he saw it.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> And if Obama had been talking about simply appreciating the other private individuals in the community, that would have been one thing.  But he wasn't.  He was specifically talking about all the goodies that government, in his opinion, gifted business owners with, and how they NOW needed to stop bitching and cough up more money.
> 
> There's no "tax" involved in giving people a round of applause, dipshit.  Only you leftists would be ignorant enough to conflate applause with taxes.



Do you guys make this shit up as you go along? Seriously? Please link to where he said this, because it sure as shit ain't in what he said in the vid in the OP.

As for your tax and applause analogy, that wasn't even his point. Don't worry, you're not bright enough to get his point. Just informing your ignorant arse...


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to defend Barry's dumbass remarks...
> 
> Again, for those who fail to see reality:  Bridges and roads are there for customers of failed businesses and successful businesses...
> 
> To credit them for the success of some while ignoring them for the failure of others is beyond stupid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just credited them for the failure of once successful businesses.
> 
> So again I issue the challenge: Show me an example of a successful business that NEVER utilized the commons.
> 
> Until you CAN, your argument is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit....
> 
> You and Barry are the ones making the claim that it was roads and bridges that made all businesses successful...  Those same roads and bridges failed other businesses on the same fucking block...
> 
> You and Barry's argument failed before it was uttered....
> 
> What a dumb argument....
Click to expand...


Youreally are nothing but a disingenuous hack. Nobody said they are the be all, end all that makes a business successful just that they are part of the individual + collective equation. This has been pointed out to you dishonest losers many times in this thread but you keep ignoring it and going back to the same tired lie because you have no argument against the truth.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe youre just afraid to show me a successful business on a deserted island?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cant show that and cant show you a successful student or athlete on an island either. Therefore we should rip them all off as Barry implied??
> 
> Tell us genius why Barry didn't give the same speech to students and athletes!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Giving back into the pool you took from is not being "ripped off" its called gratitude, respect for the system and being humble.
Click to expand...


Because those people haven't ALREADY "given back into the pool", is that what you're saying?  "You damned business owners have gotten rich off of government infrastructure everyone else has paid for you to have, so it's time for YOU to pay, too"?  Wait, I thought you leftist twits were trying to tell us that WASN'T what Obama's speech was saying.  Make up your mind.



Vidi said:


> You see truly great people never believe they did it all on their own, because thats arrogant nonsense.



Whoever told you that YOU were qualified to speak to what truly great people believe and do?



Vidi said:


> Neil Armstring didnt design the rocket that got him to the moon.
> 
> Charles Lindbergh didnt design the airplane he flew across the Atlantic.
> 
> Steve Jobs didnt invent the personal computer. Hell, he didnt even build the first APPLE computer.
> 
> Henry Ford didnt invent the automoble.



Straw men.  Only two of the people listed were running businesses, and since the government sure as shit didn't design Apple's computers or invent the automobile (oh, and your belief that Ford's claim to fame as an inventor was for the automobile just shows how ignorant you truly are.  He's credited with developing the assembly line).  And your "no man is an island" schtick just shows that you know you don't have a leg to stand on, since Obama was NOT up there saying, "Appreciate your community and the individuals in your life."  He was SPECIFICALLY talking about government. If you don't want to tell us how government built Apple and Ford Motor Company into successful businesses, you're just obfuscating and wasting time.

If you blow many more smoke up my ass, my sphincter is going to sue Phillip Morris.



Vidi said:


> ALL of these great accomplishments were done with the help of others.



See above.

So name one that wasnt?

Or are you afraid?[/QUOTE]

I believe we've already mentioned many businesses that were NOT built by the government, and your attempt to conflate Obama's grab for credit ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT with private individuals in people's lives for whom he has no right to speak is impressing no one.


----------



## flacaltenn

Vidi said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> wow, way to laser focus on a tree and COMPLETELY miss the forest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to defend Barry's dumbass remarks...
> 
> Again, for those who fail to see reality:  Bridges and roads are there for customers of failed businesses and successful businesses...
> 
> To credit them for the success of some while ignoring them for the failure of others is beyond stupid...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just credited them for the failure of once successful businesses.
> 
> So again I issue the challenge: Show me an example of a successful business that NEVER utilized the commons.
> 
> Until you CAN, your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...


It's NOT about "the commons" -- it's about the "collective".. Again -- he set the tone by trying to make the Collectivist argument that ALL Labor and ALL contributions are equal "because a lot of folks work hard".. It's not what he said about roads and bridges. It was his attempt to measure contributions in equal Buckets O' Sweat.. That anyone that sweats and has a brain gets equal credit.. 

And creativity, risk taking, resolve and sacrifice was not even CONSIDERED as reasons for success. 

You can't seriously believe that if I wanted to plop a new $2Bill Auto plant in the middle of a cow pasture in Tenn -- that a little thing like a lack of a road WOULD STOP ME VIDI???  or a drill site on the North Shore of Alaska? No road, no problem. We'll fix it. Even if we have to FLY the employees in for a while. 

In FACT -- the opposite flow of funding is more prevalent. Where industries donate Parks, Schools, EVEN CITY HALLS as part of the deal to locate a major development.


----------



## Dr.House

Article 15 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just credited them for the failure of once successful businesses.
> 
> So again I issue the challenge: Show me an example of a successful business that NEVER utilized the commons.
> 
> Until you CAN, your argument is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit....
> 
> You and Barry are the ones making the claim that it was roads and bridges that made all businesses successful...  Those same roads and bridges failed other businesses on the same fucking block...
> 
> You and Barry's argument failed before it was uttered....
> 
> What a dumb argument....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youreally are nothing but a disingenuous hack.
Click to expand...

My God, How will I sleep at night?  A fuckstain like you thinks I'm a hack...

The horrors...



> Nobody said they are the be all, end all that makes a business successful just that they are part of the individual + collective equation.


Had you been paying attention you'd have noticed I never said they did either...  But you're a low IQ little shit who couldn't be bothered to read what's posted...

The roads and bridges are neutral factors in  a businesses success...   They are no more to blame for a business' failure as they are for a business' success...

Neutral...

You fleebaggers really need to pay more attention to what's written....



> This has been pointed out to you dishonest losers many times in this thread but you keep ignoring it and going back to the same tired lie because you have no argument against the truth.



Again, you make no intelligent point and continue rambling like an idiot...  Maybe you were dropped on your head often as a child...  It certainly would explain a few things...


----------



## Dr Grump

flacaltenn said:


> [q
> 
> It's NOT about "the commons" -- it's about the "collective".. Again -- he set the tone by trying to make the Collectivist argument that ALL Labor and ALL contributions are equal "because a lot of folks work hard".. It's not what he said about roads and bridges. It was his attempt to measure contributions in equal Buckets O' Sweat.. That anyone that sweats and has a brain gets equal credit.



He said no such thing....
Did you actually listen to the whole vid, or just cherry pick? Seriously?


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> Do you guys make this shit up as you go along? Seriously?



yes. they do.


----------



## Dr Grump

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you guys make this shit up as you go along? Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. they do.
Click to expand...


It was rhetorical....


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you guys make this shit up as you go along? Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was rhetorical....
Click to expand...


i know.


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> Obama is only wrong if he said things that the right are trying to make out he said. In context, he never said those things. Only a partisan hack would say otherwise. So, are you? A partisan hack that is...



Only you and Ed Shultz believe that.

A Catholic Priest does not stand up and give a Jewish Sermon.

Obama's off-the-cuff remarks are consistent with his theme of more government and Joe Biden's statement that "paying taxes is patriotic".

You spin monkeys are always good for a laugh.


----------



## Vidi

Listening said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is only wrong if he said things that the right are trying to make out he said. In context, he never said those things. Only a partisan hack would say otherwise. So, are you? A partisan hack that is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only you and Ed Shultz believe that.
> 
> A Catholic Priest does not stand up and give a Jewish Sermon.
> 
> Obama's off-the-cuff remarks are consistent with his theme of more government and Joe Biden's statement that "paying taxes is patriotic".
> 
> You spin monkeys are always good for a laugh.
Click to expand...



Nonsense.

I posted the FULL TEXT earlier in the thread. I suggest you read it. Only an idiot or a pratisan hack would take the statements IN CONTEXT to mean what the radical ridiculous right would have us believe.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> your example is just like the validity of your argument...fictional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like your ability to reason.
> 
> The capitalist pig alone on an island will hoard all profit and not share any with the needy. He will exploit the natural resources without giving anything back to Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that these people do it ALL on their own. Im simply asking for an example. Said example would HAVE to be completely alone on a deserted island for your argument to be true.
> 
> Just because YOU failed to think your position through before you threw it out there and got ass raped by reality, dont put that off on me.
> 
> 
> And because reality doesnt coincide with your very broken argument, you provided a fictional account based on a fictional character, once again proving that you are very fucking wrong.
> 
> NEXT!
Click to expand...


Straw man.  No one has ever said, "They did it ALL on their own".  Thanks for showing us that you have no response for the REAL argument, which is that government did not build their businesses, and they do not owe gratitude and MORE TAXES to government to "give back" for their success.

When you actually respond to the REAL topic and manage to make a valid point, much less out-argue someone, THEN you can shout "NEXT!"  If you knew anything about business, you'd know that you don't move onto the next customer until you're finished serving the first one, and dipshit, you haven't even STARTED.


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was there when we had slavery
> It was there when we had Japanese Americans locked up in camps
> 
> oh wait....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No keep going because youre absolutely RIGHT. 110% correct in fact. The government is US, the PEOPLE. And people are flawed and make HORRIBLE mistakes.
Click to expand...


The government is not us, numskull.  If it was, then why can't I stop paying taxes?  Government is a gang of men, separate and distinct from the rest of us.



Vidi said:


> We CANNOT accept the benefits of self governance and ignore the penalties and responsibilities that go along with that. We MUST be honest about our mistakes, accept blame and learn from them or we are doomed to repeat them over and over again.
> 
> So please, by all means, continue your list.



Since I'm not the government, your rant is totally meaningless.


----------



## Vidi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like your ability to reason.
> 
> The capitalist pig alone on an island will hoard all profit and not share any with the needy. He will exploit the natural resources without giving anything back to Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that these people do it ALL on their own. Im simply asking for an example. Said example would HAVE to be completely alone on a deserted island for your argument to be true.
> 
> Just because YOU failed to think your position through before you threw it out there and got ass raped by reality, dont put that off on me.
> 
> 
> And because reality doesnt coincide with your very broken argument, you provided a fictional account based on a fictional character, once again proving that you are very fucking wrong.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw man.  No one has ever said, "They did it ALL on their own".  Thanks for showing us that you have no response for the REAL argument, which is that government did not build their businesses, and they do not owe gratitude and MORE TAXES to government to "give back" for their success.
> 
> When you actually respond to the REAL topic and manage to make a valid point, much less out-argue someone, THEN you can shout "NEXT!"  If you knew anything about business, you'd know that you don't move onto the next customer until you're finished serving the first one, and dipshit, you haven't even STARTED.
Click to expand...


Riiight.

If they didnt get there on their own, then everyone agrees with what Obama said and this thread wouldnt be 263 pages long.

NO ONE not even Obama, said that the government built their business for them. The ONLY ones making THAT claim are the partisan hacks.

Nice dodge from the argument.

NEXT!


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> I just credited them for the failure of once successful businesses.
> 
> So again I issue the challenge: Show me an example of a successful business that NEVER utilized the commons.
> 
> Until you CAN, your argument is invalid.



government forces us to pay for and use its services, so how is that possible?

Your demand is idiotic.  It ignores the essential feature of the relationship between government and the citizenry: compulsion.


----------



## Article 15

Dr.House said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit....
> 
> You and Barry are the ones making the claim that it was roads and bridges that made all businesses successful...  Those same roads and bridges failed other businesses on the same fucking block...
> 
> You and Barry's argument failed before it was uttered....
> 
> What a dumb argument....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youreally are nothing but a disingenuous hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God, How will I sleep at night?  A fuckstain like you thinks I'm a hack...
> 
> The horrors...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they are the be all, end all that makes a business successful just that they are part of the individual + collective equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had you been paying attention you'd have noticed I never said they did either...  But you're a low IQ little shit who couldn't be bothered to read what's posted...
> 
> The roads and bridges are neutral factors in  a businesses success...   They are no more to blame for a business' failure as they are for a business' success...
> 
> Neutral...
> 
> You fleebaggers really need to pay more attention to what's written....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been pointed out to you dishonest losers many times in this thread but you keep ignoring it and going back to the same tired lie because you have no argument against the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you make no intelligent point and continue rambling like an idiot...  Maybe you were dropped on your head often as a child...  It certainly would explain a few things...
Click to expand...


If they are neutral then by all means, please, go to an island without them and the rest of a civilized society, start a business and report back how well you have done without them.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> Reminds one of the Hoover speeches during the Great Depression. Hoover telling Americans how self reliant they were; able to do for themselves even as some starved and died from malnutriion. But some bought that bunk, some probably believing  they began life by delivering themselves at birth.




What bullshit.  These "Hoover speeches" never occurred.  I challenge to produce an example of one.



regent said:


> Man is one of the most dependent creatures on earth. The long childhood is ample evidence. To deny humans are not dependent on others, we need only to look about us,  and in additon we are dependent upon government including conservatives and businessmen. If we were not dependent on government why would our founders have needed to change our government making it stronger, larger, with tremendous new powers, and some of those powers created were to help businessmen. But because we are dependent on others, America needs business, industry, hospitals, schools doctors all that make a nation.



Your first mistake is in believing that the Founders needed to change our government.  They didn't.  Many of them argued against the Constitution.  Also, they didn't give the government "tremendous new powers."  Those didn't appear until the tyrant Lincoln was elected who made war on his fellow Americans.  That's when the government genuinely underwent a fundamental transformation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

chanel said:


> When a business does well they generally reward employees with raises and bonuses. Papa O thinks those profits should go to him instead.
> 
> How can anyone with a job be OK with that?
> 
> This topic makes me angrier every passing day. I have a feeling I am not alone.



What makes me angrier every day are these leftists trying to excuse, justify, and explain away their greed as displayed _via _Obama.


----------



## Article 15

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you guys make this shit up as you go along? Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. they do.
Click to expand...


They are liars by nature.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> which question you want anwered first...oh darn I wasnt aware that I was supposed to break out my slide rule and abacus for this assignment.
> 
> We are talking about HOW MUCH are we? We are talking about IF THEY DID IT ON THEIR OWN. Its not a HOW MUCH debate. Its a did they get there all by themselves debate.
> 
> If you want to discuss what a fair tax rate is...thats a different debate... one Im sure we will also disagree on...but start the thread, pm me the link and we can debate that too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one makes it on their own. Successful budiness owners have families and employees and customers who help a business grow. But Papa O wasnt talking about their contributions and rewards. He was talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I can say with certainty that the feds did nothing to help our business. Nothing. And shut up about the fucking roads. Most of them belong to the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. Papa O was talking about the contribution that THE PEOPLE put into the system, bulding roads and schools and fire houses and cop shops.
> 
> Why do so many people forget that WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT?!?!?!?!
Click to expand...


And in so doing, implying that business owners are not a part of "the people".

Why do YOU keep forgetting that "we" are the government, as in "we" already paid for that infrastructure?  Why do YOU think it's okay for Obama to tell business owners, "You didn't build that" when they DID, and continue to do so, because THEY are part of the "we" that is the government?

There is not any way in the world to spin what he said that will make it correct or acceptable to anyone who doesn't already have his head up Obama's colon.


----------



## bripat9643

Dr.House said:


> You're missing the point vidi...
> 
> THE SAME bridges and roads that you claim helped you somehow failed other businesses...
> 
> Solyndra somehow couldn't use those bridges and roads to make it work...
> 
> It wasn't the magical roads and bridges that made your business successful....
> 
> Barry was wrong and he's in full damage control trying to spin it around....



Vidi is just trying to justify the parasite's belief that he's entitled to what you produced with your own mind and your own two hands.  That's the fundamental creed of liberalism:  That we're all obligated to serve as hosts for the worthless blood suckers.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.House said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one makes it on their own. Successful budiness owners have families and employees and customers who help a business grow. But Papa O wasnt talking about their contributions and rewards. He was talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I can say with certainty that the feds did nothing to help our business. Nothing. And shut up about the fucking roads. Most of them belong to the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Papa O was talking about the contribution that THE PEOPLE put into the system, bulding roads and schools and fire houses and cop shops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's just stupid...  Those same roads, bridges, schools and fire houses didn't help the failed businesses...
> 
> If they helped the successful businesses then they didn't help the failed businesses...
> 
> IOW, you need to remove them from the equation...
Click to expand...


As I said in my analogy that 100% of the leftists on this thread were too afraid to address, government is not part of the team.  Government is the field, a part of the environment or backdrop against which we all live our lives.  It does not make us successful or unsuccessful.  It is just there, a factor which we all need to consider and work around in our decisions, like weather and geography.


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was there when we had slavery
> It was there when we had Japanese Americans locked up in camps
> 
> oh wait....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No keep going because youre absolutely RIGHT. 110% correct in fact. The government is US, the PEOPLE. And people are flawed and make HORRIBLE mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is not us, numskull.  If it was, then why can't I stop paying taxes?  Government is a gang of men, separate and distinct from the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We CANNOT accept the benefits of self governance and ignore the penalties and responsibilities that go along with that. We MUST be honest about our mistakes, accept blame and learn from them or we are doomed to repeat them over and over again.
> 
> So please, by all means, continue your list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I'm not the government, your rant is totally meaningless.
Click to expand...


Never heard of "of, for and by the people" huh?

Shame. Its a very interesting concept. Been around just over a couple hundred years now. 

A Republican President mentioned something about it once...at Gettysburg...but he wasnt for States rights so I guess he didnt count.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dr.House said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> wow, way to laser focus on a tree and COMPLETELY miss the forest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to defend Barry's dumbass remarks...
> 
> Again, for those who fail to see reality:  Bridges and roads are there for customers of failed businesses and successful businesses...
> 
> To credit them for the success of some while ignoring them for the failure of others is beyond stupid...
Click to expand...


Bridges and roads are even used by people who don't have businesses AT ALL.

Infrastructure does not make a business successful.  It's just an environmental factor around which the REAL catalyst of success - the business owner - works.


----------



## bripat9643

Dr Grump said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point vidi...
> 
> THE SAME bridges and roads that you claim helped you somehow failed other businesses...
> 
> Solyndra somehow couldn't use those bridges and roads to make it work...
> 
> It wasn't the magical roads and bridges that made your business successful....
> 
> Barry was wrong and he's in full damage control trying to spin it around....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're giving a circular argument to validate your hatred of Obama. How can a road or a bridge 'fail' a business unless a bridge collapsed and deliveries couldn't be made. However, a working road or bridge does add to the success. You are giving the scenario's equal value when you shouldn't.
Click to expand...


A working bridge can't even exist until the taxpayers have already paid for it, so your argument is "circular."



Dr Grump said:


> Obama is only wrong if he said things that the right are trying to make out he said. In context, he never said those things. Only a partisan hack would say otherwise. So, are you? A partisan hack that is...



Anyone can listen to his remarks for themselves, so it's stupid for you to claim we didn't hear what we plainly heard.

Obama revealed his cloven hoof and accidentally told the world that he's a Marxist to the core.


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point vidi...
> 
> THE SAME bridges and roads that you claim helped you somehow failed other businesses...
> 
> Solyndra somehow couldn't use those bridges and roads to make it work...
> 
> It wasn't the magical roads and bridges that made your business successful....
> 
> Barry was wrong and he's in full damage control trying to spin it around....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi is just trying to justify the parasite's belief that he's entitled to what you produced with your own mind and your own two hands.  That's the fundamental creed of liberalism:  That we're all obligated to serve as hosts for the worthless blood suckers.
Click to expand...


LOL too funny. You make illogical arguments, deny the very foundation of our countries political system and then accuse someone who demands responsibility of being a parasite.

Nice.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> wow, way to laser focus on a tree and COMPLETELY miss the forest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to defend Barry's dumbass remarks...
> 
> Again, for those who fail to see reality:  Bridges and roads are there for customers of failed businesses and successful businesses...
> 
> To credit them for the success of some while ignoring them for the failure of others is beyond stupid...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just credited them for the failure of once successful businesses.
> 
> So again I issue the challenge: Show me an example of a successful business that NEVER utilized the commons.
> 
> Until you CAN, your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...


Except they weren't responsible for the failure of the businesses, because ALL the businesses that had previously made use of them didn't fail.  The failure of those businesses belongs to the owners/managers who didn't make the right decisions to deal with the random environmental factor that was introduced into everyone's life.

So why don't you try issuing a challenge that isn't predicated on an irrelevant straw man?


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point vidi...
> 
> THE SAME bridges and roads that you claim helped you somehow failed other businesses...
> 
> Solyndra somehow couldn't use those bridges and roads to make it work...
> 
> It wasn't the magical roads and bridges that made your business successful....
> 
> Barry was wrong and he's in full damage control trying to spin it around....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're giving a circular argument to validate your hatred of Obama. How can a road or a bridge 'fail' a business unless a bridge collapsed and deliveries couldn't be made. However, a working road or bridge does add to the success. You are giving the scenario's equal value when you shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A working bridge can't even exist until the taxpayers have already paid for it, so your argument is "circular."
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is only wrong if he said things that the right are trying to make out he said. In context, he never said those things. Only a partisan hack would say otherwise. So, are you? A partisan hack that is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can listen to his remarks for themselves, so it's stupid for you to claim we didn't hear what we plainly heard.
> 
> Obama revealed his cloven hoof and accidentally told the world that he's a Marxist to the core.
Click to expand...



cloven hoof? Now hes the anti christ?

and you expect ANYONE to take you seriously, nutjob?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point vidi...
> 
> THE SAME bridges and roads that you claim helped you somehow failed other businesses...
> 
> Solyndra somehow couldn't use those bridges and roads to make it work...
> 
> It wasn't the magical roads and bridges that made your business successful....
> 
> Barry was wrong and he's in full damage control trying to spin it around....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry House old buddy, youre missing the point.
> 
> YES, the business owner is a MAJOR factor. I couldnt have been successful WITHOUT my own contribution. But I also couldnnt have been successful WITHOUT the contribution of society. and THAT was Obamas point. And one Im sorry to say you missed.
> 
> 
> In fairness, Obama didnt make the point nearly as well as Elizabeth Warren did.
Click to expand...


No, Obama wasn't speaking for "society".  He was speaking for GOVERNMENT.  And no, they aren't the same thing.


----------



## Vidi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point vidi...
> 
> THE SAME bridges and roads that you claim helped you somehow failed other businesses...
> 
> Solyndra somehow couldn't use those bridges and roads to make it work...
> 
> It wasn't the magical roads and bridges that made your business successful....
> 
> Barry was wrong and he's in full damage control trying to spin it around....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry House old buddy, youre missing the point.
> 
> YES, the business owner is a MAJOR factor. I couldnt have been successful WITHOUT my own contribution. But I also couldnnt have been successful WITHOUT the contribution of society. and THAT was Obamas point. And one Im sorry to say you missed.
> 
> 
> In fairness, Obama didnt make the point nearly as well as Elizabeth Warren did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Obama wasn't speaking for "society".  He was speaking for GOVERNMENT.  And no, they aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...



/facepalm 

another idiot in desperate need of a civics class....sigh


do you have any concept of what self governance means? at all?


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> I couldnt agree with you more. Which is WHY I support a MAJOR raise in taxes. WE need to pay for this. Not our children or our grandchildren...US!



ROFL!  Now we get to the nut of the issue.  As we all knew from the beginning, this whole tirade is just a ploy to justify raising taxes.  What is the "this" we need to pay for?  Most of our taxes go to provide sustenance for parasites.  Very little goes to building roads and bridges.  What we really need to do is cut off the parasites.



Vidi said:


> Look, since the Reagan years ( back in high school ) all I heard was how my generation was going to be the first to do worse than our parents because of the rising debt. And its only gotten worse. The Baby Boomers really fucked us, lets just be honest about that. They put everything on a credit card and pushed the bill onto the next generation...talk about taxation without representation huh?...well, that next generation is US.
> 
> It wont be easy. Hell, after world war 2 the top tax rate was 91%!!!!!!! Thats crazy, but thats what was required to get the country on track and turn it into the superpower that it became.
> 
> Now Im not saying we should go back to 91% by any means, but the difference is the "greatest generation" were willing to make the sacrifices neccessary to provide for the future of this great nation.
> 
> Are we?



Fuck off.  

I'll never agree to turning over more of my paycheck to parasites.  You can go stick your head on the chopping block if you like, but you aren't taking me with you if I can do anything about it.


----------



## bripat9643

saveliberty said:


> This might surprise you, but I think taxes should go up too.  My concern is that government show fiscal responsibility with what they already have before we give them more to use.  Real annual balanced budgets actually approved by Congress.  A true fix to secure the future of Social Security.  Things like that.



The hell with raising taxes.  When has Congress ever demonstrated it can be trusted with additional revenues?


----------



## Vidi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to defend Barry's dumbass remarks...
> 
> Again, for those who fail to see reality:  Bridges and roads are there for customers of failed businesses and successful businesses...
> 
> To credit them for the success of some while ignoring them for the failure of others is beyond stupid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just credited them for the failure of once successful businesses.
> 
> So again I issue the challenge: Show me an example of a successful business that NEVER utilized the commons.
> 
> Until you CAN, your argument is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they weren't responsible for the failure of the businesses, because ALL the businesses that had previously made use of them didn't fail.  The failure of those businesses belongs to the owners/managers who didn't make the right decisions to deal with the random environmental factor that was introduced into everyone's life.
> 
> So why don't you try issuing a challenge that isn't predicated on an irrelevant straw man?
Click to expand...


no the failed businesses had access to those roads as well is the straw man.

Because NO ONE not even Obama is denying that a busniesses success is ALSO based on the decisions of those in charge of it.

The point is that the roads and bridges and cops and firement and educate workers ALSO contributed.

You see the difference? Cumlative argument vs an either or argument? Or is your world view SO black and white that you are simply blind to the greys?

NEXT!


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldnt agree with you more. Which is WHY I support a MAJOR raise in taxes. WE need to pay for this. Not our children or our grandchildren...US!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Now we get to the nut of the issue.  As we all knew from the beginning, this whole tirade is just a ploy to justify raising taxes.  What is the "this" we need to pay for?  Most of our taxes go to provide sustenance for parasites.  Very little goes to building roads and bridges.  What we really need to do is cut off the parasites.
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, since the Reagan years ( back in high school ) all I heard was how my generation was going to be the first to do worse than our parents because of the rising debt. And its only gotten worse. The Baby Boomers really fucked us, lets just be honest about that. They put everything on a credit card and pushed the bill onto the next generation...talk about taxation without representation huh?...well, that next generation is US.
> 
> It wont be easy. Hell, after world war 2 the top tax rate was 91%!!!!!!! Thats crazy, but thats what was required to get the country on track and turn it into the superpower that it became.
> 
> Now Im not saying we should go back to 91% by any means, but the difference is the "greatest generation" were willing to make the sacrifices neccessary to provide for the future of this great nation.
> 
> Are we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off.
> 
> I'll never agree to turning over more of my paycheck to parasites.  You can go stick your head on the chopping block if you like, but you aren't taking me with you if I can do anything about it.
Click to expand...



Typical selfish America hating response.

Keep up the good work, Kingsman.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not what Im saying at all.
> 
> First let me answer your "paid in full" statement. What is paid in full? Is the highway system done? Because theres an old joke here in Minnesota, we have two seasons: Winter and Highway Construction.
> 
> 
> Which resource is "paid in full"? Which one doesnt have to constantly be renewed? Do we not need to train new fire people, police officers, teachers? Do we not constantly have to repair our infrastructure?
> 
> The previous generation maintained our society for us to inherit. We must do the same for the next.
> 
> Second, who says the government _gave_ them their success? I certainly didnt. I did say they didnt do it all on their own. I will say that NO MAN IS AN ISLAND.
> 
> Look Im a fairly successful business owner. I own several businesses. I worked my ass off to make them successful, but in the end, I didnt do it alone. I didnt educate my workers. I didnt build the roads that my products are delvered on. I had help. And no successful business owner can HONESTLY say they did it all on their own.
> 
> My taxes will go to maintain those roads, possibly build new ones. My taxes will go to educate the next generation fo workers. My taxes will train the next generation of teachers and police officers and firemen and soldiers that will defend my freedom and the freedom of my children.
> 
> I OWE it to this country that provided me the opportunity to become successful to do what I can to provide that same opportunity to others. Because I sure as hell wouldnt have had this opportunity in Russia, or China.
> 
> Its called Patriotism. Patriotism isnt about selfish greed. Its about pledging your life, your honor and your fortune to the country you love. Either you have it, and you understand what Im talking about, or you dont, and you dont.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're under the false impresssion that we are paying anything forward in this government.  So much debt has been accumulated, that we can't even pay for the recent past.  How dare you suggest you are paying a single thing forward.  It is unpatriotic to burden the future with your present wants, yet that is what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldnt agree with you more. Which is WHY I support a MAJOR raise in taxes. WE need to pay for this. Not our children or our grandchildren...US!
> 
> Look, since the Reagan years ( back in high school ) all I heard was how my generation was going to be the first to do worse than our parents because of the rising debt. And its only gotten worse. The Baby Boomers really fucked us, lets just be honest about that. They put everything on a credit card and pushed the bill onto the next generation...talk about taxation without representation huh?...well, that next generation is US.
> 
> It wont be easy. Hell, after world war 2 the top tax rate was 91%!!!!!!! Thats crazy, but thats what was required to get the country on track and turn it into the superpower that it became.
> 
> Now Im not saying we should go back to 91% by any means, but the difference is the "greatest generation" were willing to make the sacrifices neccessary to provide for the future of this great nation.
> 
> Are we?
Click to expand...


We don't need "a MAJOR raise in taxes".  We don't need ANY raise in taxes.  What we need is disingenous, greedy assholes like you to stop hiding behind "roads and bridges" to justify trillions of dollars in spending on shit that has NOTHING to do with infrastructure, or ANY proper function of government.

Show us a MAJOR cut in frivolous spending, and then we'll talk.


----------



## bripat9643

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, times have changed.  We've gone from "let's cheer and applaud the individuals in a person's life who stood by them" to "let's cheer and applaud the government that made it all possible, and give it more tax money".
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was what Obama was saying, you might be right. But he didn't. So you are dead wrong (for a change <sarcasm>)
Click to expand...


Wrong, that's exactly what Obama was doing.  He was making a case for raising taxes on the rich.  You have to be suffering severe brain damage not to understand what he was saying.



Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and once upon a time, there were a lot fewer people as stupid and gullible as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says one of the most stupid and gullible people posting on the USMB. Oh, the irony..
Click to expand...


ROFL!  The irony of that is incredibly precious!


----------



## Vidi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under the false impresssion that we are paying anything forward in this government.  So much debt has been accumulated, that we can't even pay for the recent past.  How dare you suggest you are paying a single thing forward.  It is unpatriotic to burden the future with your present wants, yet that is what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldnt agree with you more. Which is WHY I support a MAJOR raise in taxes. WE need to pay for this. Not our children or our grandchildren...US!
> 
> Look, since the Reagan years ( back in high school ) all I heard was how my generation was going to be the first to do worse than our parents because of the rising debt. And its only gotten worse. The Baby Boomers really fucked us, lets just be honest about that. They put everything on a credit card and pushed the bill onto the next generation...talk about taxation without representation huh?...well, that next generation is US.
> 
> It wont be easy. Hell, after world war 2 the top tax rate was 91%!!!!!!! Thats crazy, but thats what was required to get the country on track and turn it into the superpower that it became.
> 
> Now Im not saying we should go back to 91% by any means, but the difference is the "greatest generation" were willing to make the sacrifices neccessary to provide for the future of this great nation.
> 
> Are we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need "a MAJOR raise in taxes".  We don't need ANY raise in taxes.  What we need is disingenous, greedy assholes like you to stop hiding behind "roads and bridges" to justify trillions of dollars in spending on shit that has NOTHING to do with infrastructure, or ANY proper function of government.
> 
> Show us a MAJOR cut in frivolous spending, and then we'll talk.
Click to expand...



go back in my posts and find a single statement I made about being in favor of RAISING spending. ANYWHERE. ANY THREAD. 

Go ahead.

Until you can find one, stop making assinine assumptions about who you think I am and what my political leanings may or may not be.

Go on. Find ONE statement I have made EVER in favor of raising spending!!!!!!!


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> I posted the FULL TEXT earlier in the thread. I suggest you read it. Only an idiot or a pratisan hack would take the statements IN CONTEXT to mean what the radical ridiculous right would have us believe.



We've all heard what he said dozens of times.  The fact that you and the other leftwing turds in this thread are trying to justify higher taxes on the wealthy using Obama's excuse only serves to reinforce the understanding of his statement that anyone who isn't totally brainwashed has.


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> I posted the FULL TEXT earlier in the thread. I suggest you read it. Only an idiot or a pratisan hack would take the statements IN CONTEXT to mean what the radical ridiculous right would have us believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We've all heard what he said dozens of times*.  The fact that you and the other leftwing turds in this thread are trying to justify higher taxes on the wealthy using Obama's excuse only serves to reinforce the understanding of his statement that anyone who isn't totally brainwashed has.
Click to expand...


Obviously you have UNDERSTOOD it though have you? 

I know its hard with only half your brain, but ask an adult to explain it to you...slowly.


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a business does well they generally reward employees with raises and bonuses. Papa O thinks those profits should go to him instead.
> 
> How can anyone with a job be OK with that?
> 
> This topic makes me angrier every passing day. I have a feeling I am not alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes me angrier every day are these leftists trying to excuse, justify, and explain away their greed as displayed _via _Obama.
Click to expand...



On the one hand they claim Obama didn't say what we all know he said.  On the other they claim we are obligated to pay higher taxes because we owe the government for our success.  In other words, they agree exactly with our understanding of what Obama said and even defend it.

This spectacle of pure idiocy is too fantastic to believe.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that these people do it ALL on their own. Im simply asking for an example. Said example would HAVE to be completely alone on a deserted island for your argument to be true.
> 
> Just because YOU failed to think your position through before you threw it out there and got ass raped by reality, dont put that off on me.
> 
> 
> And because reality doesnt coincide with your very broken argument, you provided a fictional account based on a fictional character, once again proving that you are very fucking wrong.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man.  No one has ever said, "They did it ALL on their own".  Thanks for showing us that you have no response for the REAL argument, which is that government did not build their businesses, and they do not owe gratitude and MORE TAXES to government to "give back" for their success.
> 
> When you actually respond to the REAL topic and manage to make a valid point, much less out-argue someone, THEN you can shout "NEXT!"  If you knew anything about business, you'd know that you don't move onto the next customer until you're finished serving the first one, and dipshit, you haven't even STARTED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiight.
> 
> If they didnt get there on their own, then everyone agrees with what Obama said and this thread wouldnt be 263 pages long.
> 
> NO ONE not even Obama, said that the government built their business for them. The ONLY ones making THAT claim are the partisan hacks.
> 
> Nice dodge from the argument.
> 
> NEXT!
Click to expand...


The thread is so long because disingenuous hacks like you keep trying to pretend Obama didn't say what he said, and that people are trying to argue things they aren't.

Obama - and you - most certainly DID try to say they owe the success of their businesses to government entities.  And you're quite right about the people making that claim being partisan hacks, because you both are.

The more you yell, "NEXT!" without having said anything, the more it sounds like, "ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE I CAN'T RESPOND!"


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No keep going because youre absolutely RIGHT. 110% correct in fact. The government is US, the PEOPLE. And people are flawed and make HORRIBLE mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government is not us, numskull.  If it was, then why can't I stop paying taxes?  Government is a gang of men, separate and distinct from the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We CANNOT accept the benefits of self governance and ignore the penalties and responsibilities that go along with that. We MUST be honest about our mistakes, accept blame and learn from them or we are doomed to repeat them over and over again.
> 
> So please, by all means, continue your list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I'm not the government, your rant is totally meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard of "of, for and by the people" huh?
Click to expand...


yes, I've heard of it.  It may sound eloquent, but it's complete bullshit.   Government "of, by and for the people" is an oxymoron.  Government exists for its own sake.  It preys on the rest of us.



Vidi said:


> Shame. Its a very interesting concept. Been around just over a couple hundred years now.
> 
> A Republican President mentioned something about it once...at Gettysburg...but he wasnt for States rights so I guess he didnt count.



It's actually only been around since Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg Address, not "a couple of hundred years."   Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution and destroyed the original arrangement this country was founded on which was as a voluntary union of independent states.


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point vidi...
> 
> THE SAME bridges and roads that you claim helped you somehow failed other businesses...
> 
> Solyndra somehow couldn't use those bridges and roads to make it work...
> 
> It wasn't the magical roads and bridges that made your business successful....
> 
> Barry was wrong and he's in full damage control trying to spin it around....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi is just trying to justify the parasite's belief that he's entitled to what you produced with your own mind and your own two hands.  That's the fundamental creed of liberalism:  That we're all obligated to serve as hosts for the worthless blood suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL too funny. You make illogical arguments, deny the very foundation of our countries political system and then accuse someone who demands responsibility of being a parasite.
> 
> Nice.
Click to expand...


I do deny the foundation of our political system, because it's all bullshit.  "Demanding responsibility" means taking a bigger piece of the hides of productive people for the benefit of parasites.  You're an apologist for the parasites.  Whether you are one yourself is something I don't have enough information to determine.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry House old buddy, youre missing the point.
> 
> YES, the business owner is a MAJOR factor. I couldnt have been successful WITHOUT my own contribution. But I also couldnnt have been successful WITHOUT the contribution of society. and THAT was Obamas point. And one Im sorry to say you missed.
> 
> 
> In fairness, Obama didnt make the point nearly as well as Elizabeth Warren did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Obama wasn't speaking for "society".  He was speaking for GOVERNMENT.  And no, they aren't the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> another idiot in desperate need of a civics class....sigh
> 
> 
> do you have any concept of what self governance means? at all?
Click to expand...


In the case of a republic, like this one, it means that we elect a bunch of people, who then hire a bunch of other people, and they run the government for us so that we don't have to devote our entire lives to casting ballots on every little fucking thing that comes along.

Sadly, in our case, it also means that we have allowed those elected people, and the bureaucrats they hired, to set themselves up as essentially a separate entity from the people governed, with a monstrous appetite for our money in order to shore up their power bases.

None of this has fuck-all to do with the self-evident fact that government is not society.  If YOU had ever taken a civics class, rather than assuming your dipshit leftist opinion constituted civics, you would know that government is, at best, a tool of society, and at worst, a burden upon it.  It IS NOT society.


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can listen to his remarks for themselves, so it's stupid for you to claim we didn't hear what we plainly heard.
> 
> Obama revealed his cloven hoof and accidentally told the world that he's a Marxist to the core.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cloven hoof? Now hes the anti christ?
> 
> and you expect ANYONE to take you seriously, nutjob?
Click to expand...


That's called a rhetorical flourish, nimrod.  It isn't meant to be taken literally.


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Obama wasn't speaking for "society".  He was speaking for GOVERNMENT.  And no, they aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> another idiot in desperate need of a civics class....sigh
> 
> 
> do you have any concept of what self governance means? at all?
Click to expand...


"Self governance" is a euphemism for mob rule.


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldnt agree with you more. Which is WHY I support a MAJOR raise in taxes. WE need to pay for this. Not our children or our grandchildren...US!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Now we get to the nut of the issue.  As we all knew from the beginning, this whole tirade is just a ploy to justify raising taxes.  What is the "this" we need to pay for?  Most of our taxes go to provide sustenance for parasites.  Very little goes to building roads and bridges.  What we really need to do is cut off the parasites.
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, since the Reagan years ( back in high school ) all I heard was how my generation was going to be the first to do worse than our parents because of the rising debt. And its only gotten worse. The Baby Boomers really fucked us, lets just be honest about that. They put everything on a credit card and pushed the bill onto the next generation...talk about taxation without representation huh?...well, that next generation is US.
> 
> It wont be easy. Hell, after world war 2 the top tax rate was 91%!!!!!!! Thats crazy, but thats what was required to get the country on track and turn it into the superpower that it became.
> 
> Now Im not saying we should go back to 91% by any means, but the difference is the "greatest generation" were willing to make the sacrifices neccessary to provide for the future of this great nation.
> 
> Are we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off.
> 
> I'll never agree to turning over more of my paycheck to parasites.  You can go stick your head on the chopping block if you like, but you aren't taking me with you if I can do anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Typical selfish America hating response.
> 
> Keep up the good work, Kingsman.
Click to expand...


In other words, you have no facts or logic to support your case.


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Obama wasn't speaking for "society".  He was speaking for GOVERNMENT.  And no, they aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> another idiot in desperate need of a civics class....sigh
> 
> 
> do you have any concept of what self governance means? at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of a republic, like this one, it means that we elect a bunch of people, who then hire a bunch of other people, and they run the government for us so that we don't have to devote our entire lives to casting ballots on every little fucking thing that comes along.
> 
> Sadly, in our case, it also means that we have allowed those elected people, and the bureaucrats they hired, to set themselves up as essentially a separate entity from the people governed, with a monstrous appetite for our money in order to shore up their power bases.
> 
> None of this has fuck-all to do with the self-evident fact that government is not society.  If YOU had ever taken a civics class, rather than assuming your dipshit leftist opinion constituted civics, you would know that government is, at best, a tool of society, and at worst, a burden upon it.  It IS NOT society.
Click to expand...


A government is part of a soceity, Dipshit. Anybody who says otherwise is, well, a Dipshit....





...oh that's right..




...carry on.....


----------



## Mac1958

Listening said:


> Obama's off-the-cuff remarks are consistent with his theme of more government and Joe Biden's statement that "paying taxes is patriotic".




This is a point that's being overlooked (gee, I wonder why).  Obama's comments were questionable if taken in a vacuum, but they fit right into the theme that Obama and the Democrats are anti-business.   It's a little tougher to believe the spin when taken in the larger context.

And then there is the passage that pissed me off, personally - "*I&#8217;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 &#8212; there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

That's the President of the United States first putting words (bolded, to make it simple) into the mouths of business owners, and then mocking them for those words.  Does anyone else recall such a statement from a President?

You say you know what we think?  You don't.  You couldn't.

And business owners don't talk about what you claim.  I'm with them every day.  They're too busy trying to keep the doors open.

You can't spin an insult.

.


----------



## Bfgrn

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a successful business on an island with ONE person one it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Hanks had a very successful fish processing business and coconut harvesting concern in Castaway.
> 
> Marxist platitudes only sound good until you actually think about them...
Click to expand...


And you resort to fiction... Gee, I bet poor Tom had to spend time in a hospital after making that MOVIE. I'm sure he REALLY did all those things.

You just proved that Wilson has more brains than you...


----------



## Mac1958

Mac1958 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's off-the-cuff remarks are consistent with his theme of more government and Joe Biden's statement that "paying taxes is patriotic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a point that's being overlooked (gee, I wonder why).  Obama's comments were questionable if taken in a vacuum, but they fit right into the theme that Obama and the Democrats are anti-business.   It's a little tougher to believe the spin when taken in the larger context.
> 
> And then there is the passage that pissed me off, personally - "*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."
> 
> That's the President of the United States first putting words (bolded, to make it simple) into the mouths of business owners, and then mocking them for those words.  Does anyone else recall such a statement from a President?
> 
> You say you know what we think?  You don't.  You couldn't.
> 
> And business owners don't talk about what you claim.  I'm with them every day.  They're too busy trying to keep the doors open.
> 
> You can't spin an insult.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Y'know, I've brought this up at least a couple of times now, and I can't get any of the spinners to provide a response.

I realize it can't be spun with the diversionary "roads and bridges" schtick, but can't you come up with something else here?

.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. The bottom line is Obama is a screw up.
2. Any company started out has to dream the dream first, take the right steps to get it started, and then with caution and expertise launch it and watch everything very closely at first to make sure the whole thing stays on track.
3. There is *NO* government agency or path to success available, you will make it on your own skill and work ethics, being a honorable person factors in as well, honesty and doing what you say you can is important, and then doing it, don't make excuses, get the job done!
4. These are the raw facts to success, and without these, you are destined to fail.
5. Nothing else will matter, if there is a road out there, or a bridge out there, the infrastructure isn't going to make or break you, Obama is on acid, its not even close to whats going to make you a success.
6. Learn people, but don't try to learn from a failure, Obama,.....his name will go down in history as a complete failure, because he has.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## saveliberty

Another day and the spin team can't shake the truth that Obama thinks small business owners owe him MORE.  That we can't achieve anything without his divine governance.  Hopefully the shrill voices of the left will further insult us today with Obama's blessing.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> another idiot in desperate need of a civics class....sigh
> 
> 
> do you have any concept of what self governance means? at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of a republic, like this one, it means that we elect a bunch of people, who then hire a bunch of other people, and they run the government for us so that we don't have to devote our entire lives to casting ballots on every little fucking thing that comes along.
> 
> Sadly, in our case, it also means that we have allowed those elected people, and the bureaucrats they hired, to set themselves up as essentially a separate entity from the people governed, with a monstrous appetite for our money in order to shore up their power bases.
> 
> None of this has fuck-all to do with the self-evident fact that government is not society.  If YOU had ever taken a civics class, rather than assuming your dipshit leftist opinion constituted civics, you would know that government is, at best, a tool of society, and at worst, a burden upon it.  It IS NOT society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A government is part of a soceity, Dipshit. Anybody who says otherwise is, well, a Dipshit....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...oh that's right..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...carry on.....
Click to expand...


It's not that simple dipshit - we have a Bill of Rights dipshit...

Government cant just do whatever the fuck they want dipshit..

Understand dipshit?


----------



## Bfgrn

Mac1958 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's off-the-cuff remarks are consistent with his theme of more government and Joe Biden's statement that "paying taxes is patriotic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a point that's being overlooked (gee, I wonder why).  Obama's comments were questionable if taken in a vacuum, but they fit right into the theme that Obama and the Democrats are anti-business.   It's a little tougher to believe the spin when taken in the larger context.
> 
> And then there is the passage that pissed me off, personally - "*I&#8217;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 &#8212; there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."
> 
> That's the President of the United States first putting words (bolded, to make it simple) into the mouths of business owners, and then mocking them for those words.  Does anyone else recall such a statement from a President?
> 
> You say you know what we think?  You don't.  You couldn't.
> 
> And business owners don't talk about what you claim.  I'm with them every day.  They're too busy trying to keep the doors open.
> 
> You can't spin an insult.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know, I've brought this up at least a couple of times now, and I can't get any of the spinners to provide a response.
> 
> I realize it can't be spun with the diversionary "roads and bridges" schtick, but can't you come up with something else here?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I think you need to look at yourself and the Ayn Rand conservatives who have espoused on this board, in the political arena and on the airwaves their firm belief in what conservatism has devolved into...social Darwinism. Survival of the richest and calling hard working American working class people 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers'. While those 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers' have sent their sons and daughters off to die on foreign soil to WHOSE financial benefit?


----------



## Dr Grump

saveliberty said:


> Another day and the spin team can't shake the truth that Obama thinks small business owners owe him MORE.  That we can't achieve anything without his divine governance.  Hopefully the shrill voices of the left will further insult us today with Obama's blessing.



Then again maybe you'll either get over, or find a cure for, your Obama Derangement Syndrome....


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of a republic, like this one, it means that we elect a bunch of people, who then hire a bunch of other people, and they run the government for us so that we don't have to devote our entire lives to casting ballots on every little fucking thing that comes along.
> 
> Sadly, in our case, it also means that we have allowed those elected people, and the bureaucrats they hired, to set themselves up as essentially a separate entity from the people governed, with a monstrous appetite for our money in order to shore up their power bases.
> 
> None of this has fuck-all to do with the self-evident fact that government is not society.  If YOU had ever taken a civics class, rather than assuming your dipshit leftist opinion constituted civics, you would know that government is, at best, a tool of society, and at worst, a burden upon it.  It IS NOT society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A government is part of a soceity, Dipshit. Anybody who says otherwise is, well, a Dipshit....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...oh that's right..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...carry on.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that simple dipshit - we have a Bill of Rights dipshit...
> 
> Government cant just do whatever the fuck they want dipshit..
> 
> Understand dipshit?
Click to expand...


Which has what to do with my point Retard?

here, I'll even give you a hint: NOTHING...understand yet, Retard?


----------



## saveliberty

I see the handout entitlement crowd has arrived.  Obama's not planning on giving you a raise from all of this, but keeping acting like you are.


----------



## Dr Grump

saveliberty said:


> I see the handout entitlement crowd has arrived.  Obama's not planning on giving you a raise from all of this, but keeping acting like you are.



I see the "We'll make any shit we like up about what Obama said" crowd has arrived. 

Just so you know, you can call an apple and orange as many times as you like. You can even gift wrap it and turn into a kewpie doll if you like. But, alas, it still remains an apple...


----------



## saveliberty

I know, when is the left going to stop and call what Obama did by its real name.  The socialist has lifted his mask.  Deal with it.  By the way, he considers his supporters little more than pawns, so don't think his opinion of you is any different than the rest of us.


----------



## Mac1958

Bfgrn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a point that's being overlooked (gee, I wonder why).  Obama's comments were questionable if taken in a vacuum, but they fit right into the theme that Obama and the Democrats are anti-business.   It's a little tougher to believe the spin when taken in the larger context.
> 
> And then there is the passage that pissed me off, personally - "*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."
> 
> That's the President of the United States first putting words (bolded, to make it simple) into the mouths of business owners, and then mocking them for those words.  Does anyone else recall such a statement from a President?
> 
> You say you know what we think?  You don't.  You couldn't.
> 
> And business owners don't talk about what you claim.  I'm with them every day.  They're too busy trying to keep the doors open.
> 
> You can't spin an insult.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know, I've brought this up at least a couple of times now, and I can't get any of the spinners to provide a response.
> 
> I realize it can't be spun with the diversionary "roads and bridges" schtick, but can't you come up with something else here?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to look at yourself and the Ayn Rand conservatives who have espoused on this board, in the political arena and on the airwaves their firm belief in what conservatism has devolved into...social Darwinism. Survival of the richest and calling hard working American working class people 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers'. While those 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers' have sent their sons and daughters off to die on foreign soil to WHOSE financial benefit?
Click to expand...



Well, that was a lovely diversionary effort, and it's nice to know that I'm now an Ayn Rand conservative.  At least until a right-winger calls me a "commie" next.

So, that's it?  May I assume that you agree with Obama's mockery?

Yikes.

.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> A government is part of a soceity, Dipshit. Anybody who says otherwise is, well, a Dipshit....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...oh that's right..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...carry on.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple dipshit - we have a Bill of Rights dipshit...
> 
> Government cant just do whatever the fuck they want dipshit..
> 
> Understand dipshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has what to do with my point Retard?
> 
> here, I'll even give you a hint: NOTHING...understand yet, Retard?
Click to expand...


You don't have one...


----------



## Dr Grump

saveliberty said:


> I know, when is the left going to stop and call what Obama did by its real name.  The socialist has lifted his mask.  Deal with it.  By the way, he considers his supporters little more than pawns, so don't think his opinion of you is any different than the rest of us.



Depends on when the right are going to stop reading more into what he said, other than what he said. 

You do realise that the only people who are buying your argument are neocon whackjobs, right? Centrists, liberals, normals and independents are laughing at you right now. If only one of those groups was, or even two, you might have a point. But when they all are?

You remind me of group of people watching the Super Bowl and a person comes in and says, "How many rebounds has Iversen got?"

Yes, you are that out of whack....but, hey, if you want to live in la-la land...


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple dipshit - we have a Bill of Rights dipshit...
> 
> Government cant just do whatever the fuck they want dipshit..
> 
> Understand dipshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has what to do with my point Retard?
> 
> here, I'll even give you a hint: NOTHING...understand yet, Retard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have one...
Click to expand...


Oh, there was a point all right.
I'm not sitting here wondering why it went over your head. It's par for the course. Carry on...


----------



## Mr.Nick

Mac1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know, I've brought this up at least a couple of times now, and I can't get any of the spinners to provide a response.
> 
> I realize it can't be spun with the diversionary "roads and bridges" schtick, but can't you come up with something else here?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to look at yourself and the Ayn Rand conservatives who have espoused on this board, in the political arena and on the airwaves their firm belief in what conservatism has devolved into...social Darwinism. Survival of the richest and calling hard working American working class people 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers'. While those 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers' have sent their sons and daughters off to die on foreign soil to WHOSE financial benefit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a lovely diversionary effort, and it's nice to know that I'm now an Ayn Rand conservative.  At least until a right-winger calls me a "commie" next.
> 
> So, that's it?  May I assume that you agree with Obama's mockery?
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as an "Ayn Rand Conservative."


----------



## saveliberty

The last gasp of a losing argument, attack the poster.  lol

In the context of the whole speech, which the left reminds us is necessary, it started out talking about taxes.  Then it moved to the small business owner and how they didn't succeed by themselves and owe the government more (taxes).  The logic was clear and pointed.  How you missed it is a mystery.


----------



## Mac1958

Mr.Nick said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to look at yourself and the Ayn Rand conservatives who have espoused on this board, in the political arena and on the airwaves their firm belief in what conservatism has devolved into...social Darwinism. Survival of the richest and calling hard working American working class people 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers'. While those 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers' have sent their sons and daughters off to die on foreign soil to WHOSE financial benefit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a lovely diversionary effort, and it's nice to know that I'm now an Ayn Rand conservative.  At least until a right-winger calls me a "commie" next.
> 
> So, that's it?  May I assume that you agree with Obama's mockery?
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an "Ayn Rand Conservative."
Click to expand...



Well, whatever, I was just hoping for a direct response to my post and I can't seem to get one.

.


----------



## saveliberty

Mac1958 said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a lovely diversionary effort, and it's nice to know that I'm now an Ayn Rand conservative.  At least until a right-winger calls me a "commie" next.
> 
> So, that's it?  May I assume that you agree with Obama's mockery?
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an "Ayn Rand Conservative."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, whatever, I was just hoping for a direct response to my post and I can't seem to get one.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


...I can call you a commie, if it helps.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Dr Grump said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has what to do with my point Retard?
> 
> here, I'll even give you a hint: NOTHING...understand yet, Retard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, there was a point all right.
> I'm not sitting here wondering why it went over your head. It's par for the course. Carry on...
Click to expand...


No, sorry you didn't...

Can you make a point in a single sentence?


----------



## Dr Grump

saveliberty said:


> The last gasp of a losing argument, attack the poster.  lol
> 
> In the context of the whole speech, which the left reminds us is necessary, it started out talking about taxes.  Then it moved to the small business owner and how they didn't succeed by themselves and owe the government more (taxes).  The logic was clear and pointed.  How you missed it is a mystery.



I assume you're talking to me, but since you are not quoting posts I have no idea.

I was not attacking you in the slightest. I can only gauge what goes on by people's reactions around me and what I read. The international reaction to his speech has been zero. It appears it hasn't made much of a dent in the US either other than on this board. Only right-wing shills have been banging on about it and they seem marginalised at the best of times. And that is what I see. Now if you fall into the neocon category that I talked about then that is on you.

As for what he actually said, this is what I heard.
_
People like me (Obama) earn enough money that we can pay more taxes. Now before all you people like me rant and rave about only you earned this type of money and the govt only wants more, remember this: you didnt do it one your own. It was a combined effort - your ingenuity, and by working together, we have accomplished this together._

And do you know the funniest thing about this whole thing? All these 'small' business owners that think Obama was having a crack at them probably don't even fit into the category he was mentioning.

Look at the facts: He earns $400,000 as president and a lot more in other ventures. Those are the types that can afford more taxes and who he was having a crack at. Most small businesses are things like plumbers, electricians, bakers, car repairers, etc. You think they earn those kinds of dollars? Does the average plumber drive around in the latest Beamer, Merc or Porsche? No. He was talking about the top 1 percent. But, no! The neocon whackjobs on this board an their enablers think he's having a crack and mom and pop stores yadda, yadda. And THAT is why I laugh at you, as do most of the rest of the world. We look at what he ACTUALLY said instead of what our partisan blinders would LIKE him to have MEANT. Two different things.

So you carry on in our ignorant bliss, and we'll carry on laughing and pat you on the head like the good little partisan that you are.


----------



## tjvh

*Liberals*: Obama didn't say what he said (even though we have video, and transcripts), well he said what he said but he meant something completely different than what he said and how dare Conservatives misinterpret what he said even though he said it, because it wasn't meant to be interpreted exactly how Obama said it, it was meant to mean something different than how Conservatives interpreted it.... Phew... I think I got it now.


----------



## Dr Grump

Mr.Nick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, there was a point all right.
> I'm not sitting here wondering why it went over your head. It's par for the course. Carry on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sorry you didn't...
> 
> Can you make a point in a single sentence?
Click to expand...


Sure. Your old man got his arse kicked by the cops because your brother is a thief..

Actually, that might be two points...


----------



## Dr Grump

tjvh said:


> *Liberals*: Obama didn't say what he said (even though we have video, and transcripts), well he said what he said but he meant something completely different than what he said and how dare Conservatives misinterpret what he said even though he said it, because it wasn't meant to be interpreted exactly how Obama said it, it was meant to mean something different than how Conservatives interpreted it.... *Phew... I think I got it now.*



Er, not even close.

Here I'll help you. This is what you meant: "Obama said some shit that dissed busineses. Even though he didn't say that at all, if I repeat it enough, I'm hoping some people will believe it. And even if they don't believe it, and he didn't say it, I don't care. I'm a partisan hack and I will be heard!"

Now say thank you...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vidi said:


> No. Papa O was talking about the contribution that THE PEOPLE put into the system, bulding roads and schools and fire houses and cop shops.
> 
> Why do so many people forget that WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT?!?!?!?!



Because we aren't.


----------



## saveliberty

Dr Grump said:


> I assume you're talking to me, but since you are not quoting posts I have no idea.
> 
> I was not attacking you in the slightest. I can only gauge what goes on by people's reactions around me and what I read. The international reaction to his speech has been zero. It appears it hasn't made much of a dent in the US either other than on this board. Only right-wing shills have been banging on about it and they seem marginalised at the best of times. And that is what I see. Now if you fall into the neocon category that I talked about then that is on you.
> 
> As for what he actually said, this is what I heard.
> _
> People like me (Obama) earn enough money that we can pay more taxes. Now before all you people like me rant and rave about only you earned this type of money and the govt only wants more, remember this: you didnt do it one your own. It was a combined effort - your ingenuity, and by working together, we have accomplished this together._
> 
> And do you know the funniest thing about this whole thing? All these 'small' business owners that think Obama was having a crack at them probably don't even fit into the category he was mentioning.
> 
> Look at the facts: He earns $400,000 as president and a lot more in other ventures. Those are the types that can afford more taxes and who he was having a crack at. Most small businesses are things like plumbers, electricians, bakers, car repairers, etc. You think they earn those kinds of dollars? Does the average plumber drive around in the latest Beamer, Merc or Porsche? No. He was talking about the top 1 percent. But, no! The neocon whackjobs on this board an their enablers think he's having a crack and mom and pop stores yadda, yadda. And THAT is why I laugh at you, as do most of the rest of the world. We look at what he ACTUALLY said instead of what our partisan blinders would LIKE him to have MEANT. Two different things.
> 
> So you carry on in our ignorant bliss, and we'll carry on laughing and pat you on the head like the good little partisan that you are.



Why should interenational reactions have anything to do with domestic policy?  It is a fallacy of the left.  He never referred to the top 1%.  It was directed at small business owners and that is clearly not the top 1%.  Recast the speech as you will.  It is your only defense.


----------



## Dr Grump

saveliberty said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you're talking to me, but since you are not quoting posts I have no idea.
> 
> I was not attacking you in the slightest. I can only gauge what goes on by people's reactions around me and what I read. The international reaction to his speech has been zero. It appears it hasn't made much of a dent in the US either other than on this board. Only right-wing shills have been banging on about it and they seem marginalised at the best of times. And that is what I see. Now if you fall into the neocon category that I talked about then that is on you.
> 
> As for what he actually said, this is what I heard.
> _
> People like me (Obama) earn enough money that we can pay more taxes. Now before all you people like me rant and rave about only you earned this type of money and the govt only wants more, remember this: you didnt do it one your own. It was a combined effort - your ingenuity, and by working together, we have accomplished this together._
> 
> And do you know the funniest thing about this whole thing? All these 'small' business owners that think Obama was having a crack at them probably don't even fit into the category he was mentioning.
> 
> Look at the facts: He earns $400,000 as president and a lot more in other ventures. Those are the types that can afford more taxes and who he was having a crack at. Most small businesses are things like plumbers, electricians, bakers, car repairers, etc. You think they earn those kinds of dollars? Does the average plumber drive around in the latest Beamer, Merc or Porsche? No. He was talking about the top 1 percent. But, no! The neocon whackjobs on this board an their enablers think he's having a crack and mom and pop stores yadda, yadda. And THAT is why I laugh at you, as do most of the rest of the world. We look at what he ACTUALLY said instead of what our partisan blinders would LIKE him to have MEANT. Two different things.
> 
> So you carry on in our ignorant bliss, and we'll carry on laughing and pat you on the head like the good little partisan that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should interenational reactions have anything to do with domestic policy?  It is a fallacy of the left.  He never referred to the top 1%.  It was directed at small business owners and that is clearly not the top 1%.  Recast the speech as you will.  It is your only defense.
Click to expand...


So when he said "people like me can afford to pay more" he was referring to small business owners. So Obama earned $1.7 million in 2011 and $5.5 million in 2010. And this is what the average small business owner earns? Ooookaayy....Wow, small business owners must be at the end of the rainbow!


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the handout entitlement crowd has arrived.  Obama's not planning on giving you a raise from all of this, but keeping acting like you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the "We'll make any shit we like up about what Obama said" crowd has arrived.
> 
> Just so you know, you can call an apple and orange as many times as you like. You can even gift wrap it and turn into a kewpie doll if you like. But, alas, it still remains an apple...
Click to expand...


Correct.

He said what he said....spin all you want.....he said it.

They didn't build anything (just who is somebody else....could someone please  tell me that ?).  We built it meaning you helped build it....not somebody else and using his logic, no matter who you look at.....somebody else built that.

Which is just his way of saying "we did this together"....after he said "somebody else ?  The man is a jackass.

And if we do this together, please put a 2% minimum of fed taxes on everyone so the bottom 47% pay something.  Let's see how happy they are about doing things together.

If brains were dynamite, David Axelrod couldn't blow the fuzz off of a bee's balls.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vidi said:


> No its NOT stupid. Not when youve LIVED it!
> 
> 
> Weve seen this very principle IN ACTION within the last decade. When the bridge fell here in Minneapolis. Businesses were hurt when their customers could no longer reach them. Many small mom and pop operations on one side of the river or the other either hit sudden hard times or went under completely. Through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. A bridge fell and suddenly their customer base disappeared.
> 
> Remember the old saying, " Location, Location, Location" ?
> 
> Guess who does the districting? Guess who decides where the roads will go? Where the next bridge gets built?
> 
> Its the community NOT the single rugged individual business owner that decides such things. The community and therefore the government decides which location, location, location is going to be the prime location.



It is stupid. 

Foundational infrastructure is not the basis of success. If it were, then as Dr. House pointed out, all business would succeed. But most small business fails. In a strip mall in suburban Anaheim, a dress shop and a barbeque restaurant open, next door to each other, within a week of each other.  The dress shop plastered their window with a grand opening gala, bring in clothes with missing buttons or small tears, and they'll fix them free, as a way to introduce themselves. My wife took several items down and talked for what seemed like weeks with the owner, who also was a chatterbox. After that, we dropped in the BBQ place for lunch. It was clean, and we sat at a booth, and waited, and waited, and waited. Finally a waiter came and started speaking Spanish, I'm from German stock, first generation and my wife is a naturalized American who was a German National, neither of us look particularly Mexican, and this wasn't a Mexican restaurant. He left and another man came out and asked our order in English. The food took quite awhile to arrive, and when it did, it was okay, not great, but passable.

Two years later and the dress shop is doing great. My wife goes to chat as much as to shop, but she always buys things. The Barbeque joint? Oh, it didn't last three months.

Both of these are at La Palma and Tustin in Anaheim, both have the same streets and lights, same cops  and fire. So what did Obama do that made the Dress Shop succeed, but he didn't do for the BBQ place., Remember, Anna didn't build that, Barack did, but why did Barack fail with the restaurant? You know, since it is he and government that make business succeed and not the initiative of the business owner?


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> So when he said "people like me can afford to pay more" he was referring to small business owners. So Obama earned $1.7 million in 2011 and $5.5 million in 2010. And this is what the average small business owner earns? Ooookaayy....Wow, small business owners must be at the end of the rainbow!



If Obama can pay more, great.

Who is he to speak for others on this subject ?

What data does he have, or is this another one his comments that just shows he has this as a basic fabric of his approach to the rich ?

Also, where does he talk about real spending cuts ?

I'll vote for raising taxes on the rich.  1 dollar of tax increase for every 4 dollars of cuts (including SS. and Medicare).


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> I think you need to look at yourself and the Ayn Rand conservatives who have espoused on this board, in the political arena and on the airwaves their firm belief in what conservatism has devolved into...social Darwinism. Survival of the richest and calling hard working American working class people 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers'. While those 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers' have sent their sons and daughters off to die on foreign soil to WHOSE financial benefit?



You are either bitter or senile or both.


----------



## tjvh

Dr Grump said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberals*: Obama didn't say what he said (even though we have video, and transcripts), well he said what he said but he meant something completely different than what he said and how dare Conservatives misinterpret what he said even though he said it, because it wasn't meant to be interpreted exactly how Obama said it, it was meant to mean something different than how Conservatives interpreted it.... *Phew... I think I got it now.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er, not even close.
> 
> Here I'll help you. This is what you meant: "Obama said some shit that dissed busineses. Even though he didn't say that at all, if I repeat it enough, I'm hoping some people will believe it. And even if they don't believe it, and he didn't say it, I don't care. I'm a partisan hack and I will be heard!"
> 
> Now say thank you...
Click to expand...


The only people that *don't get* exactly what Obama said either have no grasp for the English language at all, or are simply partisan hacks spinning away on damage control duty in a vain attempt to hide the person who revealed to the public exactly who he was... Obama the socialist.


----------



## Katzndogz

What obama wanted to say, and in many cases have, is that we are all in this together.   Each one helping someone else be successful.   Overseeing all is the benevolent hand of government.   This is a village, and the hunters don't hunt only for themselves, but to feed the whole village.  The crops in the field belong to the whole village.  Children are raised by an entire village with each member a mother and father to the children who play in the village center.   

It might be true in Kenya, but not here.


----------



## Uncensored2008

tjvh said:


> The only people that *don't get* exactly what Obama said either have no grasp for the English language at all, or are simply partisan hacks spinning away on damage control duty in a vain attempt to hide the person who revealed to the public exactly who he was... Obama the socialist.



Gump is a Chicago socialist pretending to be a Sheep Shagger because leftists like him hate America and it's really cool to not be American...


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> Er, not even close.
> 
> Here I'll help you. This is what you meant: "Obama said some shit that dissed busineses. Even though he didn't say that at all, if I repeat it enough, I'm hoping some people will believe it. And even if they don't believe it, and he didn't say it, I don't care. I'm a partisan hack and I will be heard!"
> 
> Now say thank you...



O.K.

F**k you.

Spin all you want asswipe.  It's out there.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Listening said:


> O.K.
> 
> F**k you.
> 
> Spin all you want asswipe.  It's out there.



Gump is in a panic. Obama blurted out what he believes, which was simply meant to foster hatred with his core constituents against business owners. All part of the class warfare and general demagoguery that define this shameful administration.

The only issue was that the business owners didn't appreciate Obama scapegoating them. Obama and his team don't grasp why they should object to being scapegoats."


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dr Grump said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberals*: Obama didn't say what he said (even though we have video, and transcripts), well he said what he said but he meant something completely different than what he said and how dare Conservatives misinterpret what he said even though he said it, because it wasn't meant to be interpreted exactly how Obama said it, it was meant to mean something different than how Conservatives interpreted it.... *Phew... I think I got it now.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er, not even close.
> 
> Here I'll help you. This is what you meant: "Obama said some shit that dissed busineses. Even though he didn't say that at all, if I repeat it enough, I'm hoping some people will believe it. And even if they don't believe it, and he didn't say it, I don't care. I'm a partisan hack and I will be heard!"
> 
> Now say thank you...
Click to expand...


Here's Obama without the Context Filter

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."  -  Barack "You didn't build that" Obama

Now here's the same statement through the Obama Context Filter

"Yo! Mitten Robmoney! Where's da damn tax returns?"

See how easy that is?


----------



## Bfgrn

Mac1958 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know, I've brought this up at least a couple of times now, and I can't get any of the spinners to provide a response.
> 
> I realize it can't be spun with the diversionary "roads and bridges" schtick, but can't you come up with something else here?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to look at yourself and the Ayn Rand conservatives who have espoused on this board, in the political arena and on the airwaves their firm belief in what conservatism has devolved into...social Darwinism. Survival of the richest and calling hard working American working class people 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers'. While those 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers' have sent their sons and daughters off to die on foreign soil to WHOSE financial benefit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a lovely diversionary effort, and it's nice to know that I'm now an Ayn Rand conservative.  At least until a right-winger calls me a "commie" next.
> 
> So, that's it?  May I assume that you agree with Obama's mockery?
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It is not diversionary. It pleads for thinking things through to the end result. We have a revenue problem that has been the biggest cause of our debt. As the President said: 

" What's at stake is a decision between two fundamentally different views about where we take the country right now.  And the choice is up to you."

...at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if youre willing to work hard, if youre willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try. That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you wont go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love.  Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke. That your kids can get a great education, and if theyre willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldnt have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back. 

Thats the idea of America. It doesnt matter what you look like. It doesnt matter where you come from. It doesnt matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. Thats what binds us all together.   

Now, the reason that I think so many of us came together in 2008 was because we saw that for a decade that dream was fraying, that it was slipping away; that there were too many people who were working hard but not seeing their incomes or wages go up; that we had taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit -- we were running two wars on a credit card; that job growth was the most sluggish it had been in 50 years. There was a sense that those who were in charge didnt feel responsible. 

And so we came together to say we are going to bring about the kinds of changes that allow us to get back to those basics, allow us to restore and live out those values. What we didnt realize was that some of that recklessness, some of that irresponsibility would lead to the worst financial crisis weve seen since the Great Depression.  And I dont need to tell you what weve been through over the last three and a half years because youve lived it. Too many folks lost jobs. Too many people saw their homes lose value. Too many folks saw their savings take a hit. 

But you know whats given me confidence and faith is that fact that as Ive traveled around the country now, just like I used to travel around Illinois, that same decency, those same values -- theyre still alive, at least outside Washington. Times have been tough, but Americas character hasnt changed. The core decency of the American people is undiminished. Our willingness to fight through and work through the tough times and come together, thats still there.

And so, just as we came together in the last campaign -- not just Democrats, by the way, but Republicans and independents, because were not Democrats or Republicans first, were Americans first. Just like we came together in 2008, we know that weve got to keep working, we got to keep moving forward in 2012. And we knew back then that it wasnt going to be easy. These problems were facing, they didnt happen overnight, and theyre not going to be solved overnight. We understood it might take more than one year or one term or even one President. But what we also understood was that we werent going to stop until we had restored that basic American bargain that makes us the greatest country on Earth.

Our goal isnt just to put people back to work -- although thats priority number one -- it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded. Thats what this campaigns about, Roanoke. And thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States of America.

Now, let me say this. Its fashionable among some pundits -- and this happens every time America hits a rough patch -- its fashionable to be saying, well, this time its different, this time we really are in the soup; its going to be hard to solve our problems. Let me tell you something. Whats missing is not big ideas. Whats missing is not that weve got an absence of technical solutions to deal with issues like education or energy or our deficit.  The problem weve got right now is weve just got a stalemate in Washington.

And the outcome of this debate that were having is going to set the stage not just for the next year or five years, but for the next twenty. On the one side youve got my opponent in this presidential race and his Republican allies who --

     AUDIENCE:  Booo --

     THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, look -- I mean, were having a good, healthy, democratic debate. Thats how this works. And on their side, theyve got a basic theory about how you grow the economy. And the theory is very simple: They think that the economy grows from the top down. So their basic theory is, if wealthy investors are doing well then everybody does well. So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that thats somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job-training programs and gutting transportation projects, and maybe even seeing middle-class folks have a higher tax burden. 

So thats part number one, right.  More tax cuts for those at the top.

Part number two is they believe if you tear down all the regulations that weve put in place -- for example, on Wall Street banks or on insurance companies or on credit card companies or on polluters -- that somehow the economy is going to do much, much better. So those are their two theories. Theyve got the tax cuts for the high end, and theyve got rollback regulation.

Now, heres the problem.  You may have guessed -- we tried this. We tried this in the last decade and it did not work.

But I just want to point out that we tried their theory for almost 10 years, and heres what it got us:  We got the slowest job growth in decades.  We got deficits as far as the eye can see.  Your incomes and your wages didnt go up.  And it culminated in a crisis because there werent enough regulations on Wall Street and they could make reckless bets with other peoples money that resulted in this financial crisis, and you had to foot the bill.  So thats where their theory turned out. 

Now, we dont need more top-down economics.  Ive got a different view.  I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out.  (Applause.)  I believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up.  I believe that when working people are doing well, the country does well.  (Applause.)

     I believe in fighting for the middle class because if theyre prospering, all of us will prosper.  (Applause.)  Thats what I'm fighting for, and thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.  (Applause.) 

Now, this is what I've been focused on since I've been in office.  In 2008, I promised to make sure that middle-class taxes didnt go up.  And in fact, because of the recession, you needed some help, so we cut the typical family's income taxes by $3,600.  (Applause.)  So if you hear somebody say that I'm a big tax guy, just remember $3,600 for the typical family.  Thats the tax break you've gotten since I've been in office.  (Applause.)

Four years later, I'm running to keep middle-class taxes low.  So this week, I called on Congress to immediately extend income tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income.  Now, what that means is 98 percent of Americans make less than $250,000, so 98 percent of folks would have the certainty and security that your taxes, your income taxes would not go up a dime.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, this is not a hypothetical.  This wasn't some campaign promise.  The reason I called on Congress to act now is because if they dont do anything, on January 1st, almost everybody here, your taxes will go up an average of $1,600. 

So we need to stop that tax hike from happening.

So you would think that this makes sense, right, because the Republicans say they're the party of no new taxes, right?  Thats what they always say.  Except so far, they've refused to act.  And this might confuse you.  You might say, why would they not want to give 98 percent of Americans the certainty of this income tax cut? 

Well, it turns out they dont want you to get your tax break unless the other 2 percent, the top 2 percent, they get their tax break as well.

Now, understand, the top 2 percent, folks like me, we're the ones who most benefited over the last decade from not only tax breaks, but also a lot of the money from increased profits and productivity went up to that top 2 percent.  So the bottom line is, the top 2 percent doesnt need help.  They're doing just fine.

And I understand why they wouldnt want to pay more in taxes.  Nobody likes to pay more in taxes.  Here's the problem:  If you continue their tax breaks, that costs a trillion dollars.  And since we're trying to bring down our deficit and our debt, if we spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts for them, we're going to have to find that trillion dollars someplace else.  That means we're going to have to maybe make student loans more expensive for students.  Or we might have to cut back on the services we're providing our brave veterans when they come home.

Or we might have to stop investing in basic science and research that keeps us as a leading-edge economy.  Or, as they suggested, maybe you would have to turn Medicare into a voucher program. 

I dont think those are good ideas.  So what I've said to the Republicans is, look, all right, let's have this debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest folks.  I dont mind having that debate.  But in the meantime, let's go ahead and do what we agree on, which is give 98 percent of Americans some certainty and some security.  (Applause.)  So far, they haven't taken me up on my offer. 

Now, this gives you a sense of how Congress works these days -- you've got the possibility of your taxes going up in four months, five months, and instead of working on that, guess what they worked on this week?  

They voted for the 33rd time to try to repeal a health care bill we passed two years ago, after the Supreme Court said it's constitutional and we are going to go ahead and implement that law. I dont know about you, Virginia, but I think they've got a better way to use their time. I think helping you make sure your taxes dont go up, that would be a good use of congressional time.

Now, this is just a small example of the difference between myself and Mr. Romney, between myself and some of the Republicans who are running Congress. And look, Virginia, I want to repeat -- this is a choice. If you think their way of doing things is a recipe for economic growth and helping the middle class, then you should vote for them.

You can send those folks to Washington. I promise you they will carry out what they promise to do. 

But thats not why I went to Washington. I went to Washington to fight for the middle class. I went to Washington to fight for working people who are trying to get into the middle class, and have some sense of security in their lives. People like me and Mr. Romney dont need another tax cut. You need some help right now to make sure your kids are living the kind of life you want for them. And thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.

On almost every issue, you've got the same kind of choice. When the auto industry was about to go under, a million jobs lost, and my opponent said, "let's let Detroit go bankrupt," what did I say? I said I'm betting on America's workers. Im betting on American industry. And guess what? Three years later, GM is number one again and the American auto industry has come roaring back.

So I believe in American manufacturing. I believe in making stuff here in America. My opponent, he invested in companies who are called pioneers of outsourcing. I dont believe in outsourcing -- I believe in insourcing. I want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas; lets give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Roanoke, right here in the United States of America. Lets invest in American workers so they can make products and ship them around the world with those three proud words: Made in America.

Im running because our men and women in uniform have sacrificed so much. We could not be prouder of them and we could not be prouder of our veterans. And because of their efforts, I was able to keep my promise and end the war in Iraq. And I now intend to transition out of Afghanistan and bring our troops home. And what I said is, because of their outstanding work, weve been able to decimate al Qaeda and take out bin Laden. And so now its time for us to take half of the money we were saving on war and pay down our deficit, and use the other half to do some nation-building here at home. 

 Roanoke knows something about transportation -- this was a railroad hub for a long time.  So you know how important that is to growing an economy.  Lets take some of that money and rebuild our roads and our bridges and our rail systems, and lets build wireless networks into rural communities so everybody can tap into world markets.  Lets put construction workers back to work doing what they do best and that is rebuilding America.  Thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States.  Thats the choice you face.

Im running to make sure that our kids are getting the best education in the world.  When I came into office, we passed a tuition tax credit that has saved millions of families thousands of dollars, and now I want to extend it. But I dont want to stop there. We just won a fight thanks to some of the folks who are here, including students from VT that -- we just won a fight to make sure that student loan interest rates would not double.

But thats not enough. I want to lower tuition to make it more affordable for all young people. I want to help our elementary schools and our middle schools and our high schools hire more teachers, especially in math and science. I want 2 million more people to be able to go to community colleges to get trained in the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now -- because a higher education, a good education is not a luxury, it is an economic necessity. Thats how were going to win the race for the future. And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- to finish the job we started in 2008.

Weve got to deal with homeownership, and the fact of the matter is that my opponents philosophy when it comes to dealing with homeowners is, let the market bottom out and let as many foreclosures happen as it takes.  I dont think thats part of a solution -- thats part of the problem.

So what I want to do is, I want to let every single person refinance their homes and save about $3,000 a year because youll spend that $3,000 on some of these stores right here in downtown.  Youll help small businesses and large businesses grow because theyll have more customers.  It will be good for you and it will be good for the economy.  And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- because I want to help Americas homeowners.

I am running because I still believe that you shouldnt go bankrupt when you get sick.  We passed that health care law because it was the right thing to do. And because we did, 30 million people who dont have health insurance are going to get help getting health insurance. Six million young people who didnt have health insurance can now stay on their parents plan and get health insurance. 

Seniors are seeing their prescription drug costs go down. And, by the way, if youve got health insurance, youre not getting hit by a tax. The only thing thats happening to you is that you now have more security because insurance companies cant drop you when you get sick. And they cant mess around with you because of some fine print in your policy. If youre paying your policy, you will get the deal that you paid for. Thats why we passed health care reform.

Now, one last thing -- one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romneys plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts. 

Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if youre actually saying youre bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and youre still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut. Thats not a deficit reduction plan.  Thats a deficit expansion plan. 

Ive got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut -- weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficiently. Not every government program works the way its supposed to. And frankly, government cant solve every problem. If somebody doesnt want to be helped, government cant always help them.  Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids dont want to learn its hard to teach them.  

But you know what, Im not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who dont need them. So Im going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. And, by the way, weve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.

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.

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. 

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.

So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers -- how do we help them succeed? How do we make sure that their hard work pays off?  Thats what I've been thinking about the entire time I've been President."

more...MUCH more


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to look at yourself and the Ayn Rand conservatives who have espoused on this board, in the political arena and on the airwaves their firm belief in what conservatism has devolved into...social Darwinism. Survival of the richest and calling hard working American working class people 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers'. While those 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers' have sent their sons and daughters off to die on foreign soil to WHOSE financial benefit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a lovely diversionary effort, and it's nice to know that I'm now an Ayn Rand conservative.  At least until a right-winger calls me a "commie" next.
> 
> So, that's it?  May I assume that you agree with Obama's mockery?
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not diversionary. It pleads for thinking things through to the end result. We have a revenue problem that has been the biggest cause of our debt. As the President said:
> 
> " What's at stake is a decision between two fundamentally different views about where we take the country right now.  And the choice is up to you."
> 
> ...at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if youre willing to work hard, if youre willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try. That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you wont go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love.  Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke. That your kids can get a great education, and if theyre willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldnt have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back.
> 
> Thats the idea of America. It doesnt matter what you look like. It doesnt matter where you come from. It doesnt matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. Thats what binds us all together.
> 
> Now, the reason that I think so many of us came together in 2008 was because we saw that for a decade that dream was fraying, that it was slipping away; that there were too many people who were working hard but not seeing their incomes or wages go up; that we had taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit -- we were running two wars on a credit card; that job growth was the most sluggish it had been in 50 years. There was a sense that those who were in charge didnt feel responsible.
> 
> And so we came together to say we are going to bring about the kinds of changes that allow us to get back to those basics, allow us to restore and live out those values. What we didnt realize was that some of that recklessness, some of that irresponsibility would lead to the worst financial crisis weve seen since the Great Depression.  And I dont need to tell you what weve been through over the last three and a half years because youve lived it. Too many folks lost jobs. Too many people saw their homes lose value. Too many folks saw their savings take a hit.
> 
> But you know whats given me confidence and faith is that fact that as Ive traveled around the country now, just like I used to travel around Illinois, that same decency, those same values -- theyre still alive, at least outside Washington. Times have been tough, but Americas character hasnt changed. The core decency of the American people is undiminished. Our willingness to fight through and work through the tough times and come together, thats still there.
> 
> And so, just as we came together in the last campaign -- not just Democrats, by the way, but Republicans and independents, because were not Democrats or Republicans first, were Americans first. Just like we came together in 2008, we know that weve got to keep working, we got to keep moving forward in 2012. And we knew back then that it wasnt going to be easy. These problems were facing, they didnt happen overnight, and theyre not going to be solved overnight. We understood it might take more than one year or one term or even one President. But what we also understood was that we werent going to stop until we had restored that basic American bargain that makes us the greatest country on Earth.
> 
> Our goal isnt just to put people back to work -- although thats priority number one -- it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded. Thats what this campaigns about, Roanoke. And thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States of America.
> 
> Now, let me say this. Its fashionable among some pundits -- and this happens every time America hits a rough patch -- its fashionable to be saying, well, this time its different, this time we really are in the soup; its going to be hard to solve our problems. Let me tell you something. Whats missing is not big ideas. Whats missing is not that weve got an absence of technical solutions to deal with issues like education or energy or our deficit.  The problem weve got right now is weve just got a stalemate in Washington.
> 
> And the outcome of this debate that were having is going to set the stage not just for the next year or five years, but for the next twenty. On the one side youve got my opponent in this presidential race and his Republican allies who --
> 
> AUDIENCE:  Booo --
> 
> THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, look -- I mean, were having a good, healthy, democratic debate. Thats how this works. And on their side, theyve got a basic theory about how you grow the economy. And the theory is very simple: They think that the economy grows from the top down. So their basic theory is, if wealthy investors are doing well then everybody does well. So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that thats somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job-training programs and gutting transportation projects, and maybe even seeing middle-class folks have a higher tax burden.
> 
> So thats part number one, right.  More tax cuts for those at the top.
> 
> Part number two is they believe if you tear down all the regulations that weve put in place -- for example, on Wall Street banks or on insurance companies or on credit card companies or on polluters -- that somehow the economy is going to do much, much better. So those are their two theories. Theyve got the tax cuts for the high end, and theyve got rollback regulation.
> 
> Now, heres the problem.  You may have guessed -- we tried this. We tried this in the last decade and it did not work.
> 
> But I just want to point out that we tried their theory for almost 10 years, and heres what it got us:  We got the slowest job growth in decades.  We got deficits as far as the eye can see.  Your incomes and your wages didnt go up.  And it culminated in a crisis because there werent enough regulations on Wall Street and they could make reckless bets with other peoples money that resulted in this financial crisis, and you had to foot the bill.  So thats where their theory turned out.
> 
> Now, we dont need more top-down economics.  Ive got a different view.  I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out.  (Applause.)  I believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up.  I believe that when working people are doing well, the country does well.  (Applause.)
> 
> I believe in fighting for the middle class because if theyre prospering, all of us will prosper.  (Applause.)  Thats what I'm fighting for, and thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.  (Applause.)
> 
> Now, this is what I've been focused on since I've been in office.  In 2008, I promised to make sure that middle-class taxes didnt go up.  And in fact, because of the recession, you needed some help, so we cut the typical family's income taxes by $3,600.  (Applause.)  So if you hear somebody say that I'm a big tax guy, just remember $3,600 for the typical family.  Thats the tax break you've gotten since I've been in office.  (Applause.)
> 
> Four years later, I'm running to keep middle-class taxes low.  So this week, I called on Congress to immediately extend income tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income.  Now, what that means is 98 percent of Americans make less than $250,000, so 98 percent of folks would have the certainty and security that your taxes, your income taxes would not go up a dime.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, this is not a hypothetical.  This wasn't some campaign promise.  The reason I called on Congress to act now is because if they dont do anything, on January 1st, almost everybody here, your taxes will go up an average of $1,600.
> 
> So we need to stop that tax hike from happening.
> 
> So you would think that this makes sense, right, because the Republicans say they're the party of no new taxes, right?  Thats what they always say.  Except so far, they've refused to act.  And this might confuse you.  You might say, why would they not want to give 98 percent of Americans the certainty of this income tax cut?
> 
> Well, it turns out they dont want you to get your tax break unless the other 2 percent, the top 2 percent, they get their tax break as well.
> 
> Now, understand, the top 2 percent, folks like me, we're the ones who most benefited over the last decade from not only tax breaks, but also a lot of the money from increased profits and productivity went up to that top 2 percent.  So the bottom line is, the top 2 percent doesnt need help.  They're doing just fine.
> 
> And I understand why they wouldnt want to pay more in taxes.  Nobody likes to pay more in taxes.  Here's the problem:  If you continue their tax breaks, that costs a trillion dollars.  And since we're trying to bring down our deficit and our debt, if we spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts for them, we're going to have to find that trillion dollars someplace else.  That means we're going to have to maybe make student loans more expensive for students.  Or we might have to cut back on the services we're providing our brave veterans when they come home.
> 
> Or we might have to stop investing in basic science and research that keeps us as a leading-edge economy.  Or, as they suggested, maybe you would have to turn Medicare into a voucher program.
> 
> I dont think those are good ideas.  So what I've said to the Republicans is, look, all right, let's have this debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest folks.  I dont mind having that debate.  But in the meantime, let's go ahead and do what we agree on, which is give 98 percent of Americans some certainty and some security.  (Applause.)  So far, they haven't taken me up on my offer.
> 
> Now, this gives you a sense of how Congress works these days -- you've got the possibility of your taxes going up in four months, five months, and instead of working on that, guess what they worked on this week?
> 
> They voted for the 33rd time to try to repeal a health care bill we passed two years ago, after the Supreme Court said it's constitutional and we are going to go ahead and implement that law. I dont know about you, Virginia, but I think they've got a better way to use their time. I think helping you make sure your taxes dont go up, that would be a good use of congressional time.
> 
> Now, this is just a small example of the difference between myself and Mr. Romney, between myself and some of the Republicans who are running Congress. And look, Virginia, I want to repeat -- this is a choice. If you think their way of doing things is a recipe for economic growth and helping the middle class, then you should vote for them.
> 
> You can send those folks to Washington. I promise you they will carry out what they promise to do.
> 
> But thats not why I went to Washington. I went to Washington to fight for the middle class. I went to Washington to fight for working people who are trying to get into the middle class, and have some sense of security in their lives. People like me and Mr. Romney dont need another tax cut. You need some help right now to make sure your kids are living the kind of life you want for them. And thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.
> 
> On almost every issue, you've got the same kind of choice. When the auto industry was about to go under, a million jobs lost, and my opponent said, "let's let Detroit go bankrupt," what did I say? I said I'm betting on America's workers. Im betting on American industry. And guess what? Three years later, GM is number one again and the American auto industry has come roaring back.
> 
> So I believe in American manufacturing. I believe in making stuff here in America. My opponent, he invested in companies who are called pioneers of outsourcing. I dont believe in outsourcing -- I believe in insourcing. I want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas; lets give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Roanoke, right here in the United States of America. Lets invest in American workers so they can make products and ship them around the world with those three proud words: Made in America.
> 
> Im running because our men and women in uniform have sacrificed so much. We could not be prouder of them and we could not be prouder of our veterans. And because of their efforts, I was able to keep my promise and end the war in Iraq. And I now intend to transition out of Afghanistan and bring our troops home. And what I said is, because of their outstanding work, weve been able to decimate al Qaeda and take out bin Laden. And so now its time for us to take half of the money we were saving on war and pay down our deficit, and use the other half to do some nation-building here at home.
> 
> Roanoke knows something about transportation -- this was a railroad hub for a long time.  So you know how important that is to growing an economy.  Lets take some of that money and rebuild our roads and our bridges and our rail systems, and lets build wireless networks into rural communities so everybody can tap into world markets.  Lets put construction workers back to work doing what they do best and that is rebuilding America.  Thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States.  Thats the choice you face.
> 
> Im running to make sure that our kids are getting the best education in the world.  When I came into office, we passed a tuition tax credit that has saved millions of families thousands of dollars, and now I want to extend it. But I dont want to stop there. We just won a fight thanks to some of the folks who are here, including students from VT that -- we just won a fight to make sure that student loan interest rates would not double.
> 
> But thats not enough. I want to lower tuition to make it more affordable for all young people. I want to help our elementary schools and our middle schools and our high schools hire more teachers, especially in math and science. I want 2 million more people to be able to go to community colleges to get trained in the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now -- because a higher education, a good education is not a luxury, it is an economic necessity. Thats how were going to win the race for the future. And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- to finish the job we started in 2008.
> 
> Weve got to deal with homeownership, and the fact of the matter is that my opponents philosophy when it comes to dealing with homeowners is, let the market bottom out and let as many foreclosures happen as it takes.  I dont think thats part of a solution -- thats part of the problem.
> 
> So what I want to do is, I want to let every single person refinance their homes and save about $3,000 a year because youll spend that $3,000 on some of these stores right here in downtown.  Youll help small businesses and large businesses grow because theyll have more customers.  It will be good for you and it will be good for the economy.  And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- because I want to help Americas homeowners.
> 
> I am running because I still believe that you shouldnt go bankrupt when you get sick.  We passed that health care law because it was the right thing to do. And because we did, 30 million people who dont have health insurance are going to get help getting health insurance. Six million young people who didnt have health insurance can now stay on their parents plan and get health insurance.
> 
> Seniors are seeing their prescription drug costs go down. And, by the way, if youve got health insurance, youre not getting hit by a tax. The only thing thats happening to you is that you now have more security because insurance companies cant drop you when you get sick. And they cant mess around with you because of some fine print in your policy. If youre paying your policy, you will get the deal that you paid for. Thats why we passed health care reform.
> 
> Now, one last thing -- one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romneys plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts.
> 
> Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if youre actually saying youre bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and youre still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut. Thats not a deficit reduction plan.  Thats a deficit expansion plan.
> 
> Ive got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut -- weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficiently. Not every government program works the way its supposed to. And frankly, government cant solve every problem. If somebody doesnt want to be helped, government cant always help them.  Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids dont want to learn its hard to teach them.
> 
> But you know what, Im not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who dont need them. So Im going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. And, by the way, weve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers -- how do we help them succeed? How do we make sure that their hard work pays off?  Thats what I've been thinking about the entire time I've been President."
> 
> more...MUCH more
Click to expand...


are you a fucking retard?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The "American" Left is going to cut and paste every speech Obama ever made.....yikes!


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a lovely diversionary effort, and it's nice to know that I'm now an Ayn Rand conservative.  At least until a right-winger calls me a "commie" next.
> 
> So, that's it?  May I assume that you agree with Obama's mockery?
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not diversionary. It pleads for thinking things through to the end result. We have a revenue problem that has been the biggest cause of our debt. As the President said:
> 
> " What's at stake is a decision between two fundamentally different views about where we take the country right now.  And the choice is up to you."
> 
> ...at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if youre willing to work hard, if youre willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try. That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you wont go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love.  Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke. That your kids can get a great education, and if theyre willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldnt have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back.
> 
> Thats the idea of America. It doesnt matter what you look like. It doesnt matter where you come from. It doesnt matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. Thats what binds us all together.
> 
> Now, the reason that I think so many of us came together in 2008 was because we saw that for a decade that dream was fraying, that it was slipping away; that there were too many people who were working hard but not seeing their incomes or wages go up; that we had taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit -- we were running two wars on a credit card; that job growth was the most sluggish it had been in 50 years. There was a sense that those who were in charge didnt feel responsible.
> 
> And so we came together to say we are going to bring about the kinds of changes that allow us to get back to those basics, allow us to restore and live out those values. What we didnt realize was that some of that recklessness, some of that irresponsibility would lead to the worst financial crisis weve seen since the Great Depression.  And I dont need to tell you what weve been through over the last three and a half years because youve lived it. Too many folks lost jobs. Too many people saw their homes lose value. Too many folks saw their savings take a hit.
> 
> But you know whats given me confidence and faith is that fact that as Ive traveled around the country now, just like I used to travel around Illinois, that same decency, those same values -- theyre still alive, at least outside Washington. Times have been tough, but Americas character hasnt changed. The core decency of the American people is undiminished. Our willingness to fight through and work through the tough times and come together, thats still there.
> 
> And so, just as we came together in the last campaign -- not just Democrats, by the way, but Republicans and independents, because were not Democrats or Republicans first, were Americans first. Just like we came together in 2008, we know that weve got to keep working, we got to keep moving forward in 2012. And we knew back then that it wasnt going to be easy. These problems were facing, they didnt happen overnight, and theyre not going to be solved overnight. We understood it might take more than one year or one term or even one President. But what we also understood was that we werent going to stop until we had restored that basic American bargain that makes us the greatest country on Earth.
> 
> Our goal isnt just to put people back to work -- although thats priority number one -- it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded. Thats what this campaigns about, Roanoke. And thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States of America.
> 
> Now, let me say this. Its fashionable among some pundits -- and this happens every time America hits a rough patch -- its fashionable to be saying, well, this time its different, this time we really are in the soup; its going to be hard to solve our problems. Let me tell you something. Whats missing is not big ideas. Whats missing is not that weve got an absence of technical solutions to deal with issues like education or energy or our deficit.  The problem weve got right now is weve just got a stalemate in Washington.
> 
> And the outcome of this debate that were having is going to set the stage not just for the next year or five years, but for the next twenty. On the one side youve got my opponent in this presidential race and his Republican allies who --
> 
> AUDIENCE:  Booo --
> 
> THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, look -- I mean, were having a good, healthy, democratic debate. Thats how this works. And on their side, theyve got a basic theory about how you grow the economy. And the theory is very simple: They think that the economy grows from the top down. So their basic theory is, if wealthy investors are doing well then everybody does well. So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that thats somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job-training programs and gutting transportation projects, and maybe even seeing middle-class folks have a higher tax burden.
> 
> So thats part number one, right.  More tax cuts for those at the top.
> 
> Part number two is they believe if you tear down all the regulations that weve put in place -- for example, on Wall Street banks or on insurance companies or on credit card companies or on polluters -- that somehow the economy is going to do much, much better. So those are their two theories. Theyve got the tax cuts for the high end, and theyve got rollback regulation.
> 
> Now, heres the problem.  You may have guessed -- we tried this. We tried this in the last decade and it did not work.
> 
> But I just want to point out that we tried their theory for almost 10 years, and heres what it got us:  We got the slowest job growth in decades.  We got deficits as far as the eye can see.  Your incomes and your wages didnt go up.  And it culminated in a crisis because there werent enough regulations on Wall Street and they could make reckless bets with other peoples money that resulted in this financial crisis, and you had to foot the bill.  So thats where their theory turned out.
> 
> Now, we dont need more top-down economics.  Ive got a different view.  I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out.  (Applause.)  I believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up.  I believe that when working people are doing well, the country does well.  (Applause.)
> 
> I believe in fighting for the middle class because if theyre prospering, all of us will prosper.  (Applause.)  Thats what I'm fighting for, and thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.  (Applause.)
> 
> Now, this is what I've been focused on since I've been in office.  In 2008, I promised to make sure that middle-class taxes didnt go up.  And in fact, because of the recession, you needed some help, so we cut the typical family's income taxes by $3,600.  (Applause.)  So if you hear somebody say that I'm a big tax guy, just remember $3,600 for the typical family.  Thats the tax break you've gotten since I've been in office.  (Applause.)
> 
> Four years later, I'm running to keep middle-class taxes low.  So this week, I called on Congress to immediately extend income tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income.  Now, what that means is 98 percent of Americans make less than $250,000, so 98 percent of folks would have the certainty and security that your taxes, your income taxes would not go up a dime.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, this is not a hypothetical.  This wasn't some campaign promise.  The reason I called on Congress to act now is because if they dont do anything, on January 1st, almost everybody here, your taxes will go up an average of $1,600.
> 
> So we need to stop that tax hike from happening.
> 
> So you would think that this makes sense, right, because the Republicans say they're the party of no new taxes, right?  Thats what they always say.  Except so far, they've refused to act.  And this might confuse you.  You might say, why would they not want to give 98 percent of Americans the certainty of this income tax cut?
> 
> Well, it turns out they dont want you to get your tax break unless the other 2 percent, the top 2 percent, they get their tax break as well.
> 
> Now, understand, the top 2 percent, folks like me, we're the ones who most benefited over the last decade from not only tax breaks, but also a lot of the money from increased profits and productivity went up to that top 2 percent.  So the bottom line is, the top 2 percent doesnt need help.  They're doing just fine.
> 
> And I understand why they wouldnt want to pay more in taxes.  Nobody likes to pay more in taxes.  Here's the problem:  If you continue their tax breaks, that costs a trillion dollars.  And since we're trying to bring down our deficit and our debt, if we spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts for them, we're going to have to find that trillion dollars someplace else.  That means we're going to have to maybe make student loans more expensive for students.  Or we might have to cut back on the services we're providing our brave veterans when they come home.
> 
> Or we might have to stop investing in basic science and research that keeps us as a leading-edge economy.  Or, as they suggested, maybe you would have to turn Medicare into a voucher program.
> 
> I dont think those are good ideas.  So what I've said to the Republicans is, look, all right, let's have this debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest folks.  I dont mind having that debate.  But in the meantime, let's go ahead and do what we agree on, which is give 98 percent of Americans some certainty and some security.  (Applause.)  So far, they haven't taken me up on my offer.
> 
> Now, this gives you a sense of how Congress works these days -- you've got the possibility of your taxes going up in four months, five months, and instead of working on that, guess what they worked on this week?
> 
> They voted for the 33rd time to try to repeal a health care bill we passed two years ago, after the Supreme Court said it's constitutional and we are going to go ahead and implement that law. I dont know about you, Virginia, but I think they've got a better way to use their time. I think helping you make sure your taxes dont go up, that would be a good use of congressional time.
> 
> Now, this is just a small example of the difference between myself and Mr. Romney, between myself and some of the Republicans who are running Congress. And look, Virginia, I want to repeat -- this is a choice. If you think their way of doing things is a recipe for economic growth and helping the middle class, then you should vote for them.
> 
> You can send those folks to Washington. I promise you they will carry out what they promise to do.
> 
> But thats not why I went to Washington. I went to Washington to fight for the middle class. I went to Washington to fight for working people who are trying to get into the middle class, and have some sense of security in their lives. People like me and Mr. Romney dont need another tax cut. You need some help right now to make sure your kids are living the kind of life you want for them. And thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.
> 
> On almost every issue, you've got the same kind of choice. When the auto industry was about to go under, a million jobs lost, and my opponent said, "let's let Detroit go bankrupt," what did I say? I said I'm betting on America's workers. Im betting on American industry. And guess what? Three years later, GM is number one again and the American auto industry has come roaring back.
> 
> So I believe in American manufacturing. I believe in making stuff here in America. My opponent, he invested in companies who are called pioneers of outsourcing. I dont believe in outsourcing -- I believe in insourcing. I want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas; lets give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Roanoke, right here in the United States of America. Lets invest in American workers so they can make products and ship them around the world with those three proud words: Made in America.
> 
> Im running because our men and women in uniform have sacrificed so much. We could not be prouder of them and we could not be prouder of our veterans. And because of their efforts, I was able to keep my promise and end the war in Iraq. And I now intend to transition out of Afghanistan and bring our troops home. And what I said is, because of their outstanding work, weve been able to decimate al Qaeda and take out bin Laden. And so now its time for us to take half of the money we were saving on war and pay down our deficit, and use the other half to do some nation-building here at home.
> 
> Roanoke knows something about transportation -- this was a railroad hub for a long time.  So you know how important that is to growing an economy.  Lets take some of that money and rebuild our roads and our bridges and our rail systems, and lets build wireless networks into rural communities so everybody can tap into world markets.  Lets put construction workers back to work doing what they do best and that is rebuilding America.  Thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States.  Thats the choice you face.
> 
> Im running to make sure that our kids are getting the best education in the world.  When I came into office, we passed a tuition tax credit that has saved millions of families thousands of dollars, and now I want to extend it. But I dont want to stop there. We just won a fight thanks to some of the folks who are here, including students from VT that -- we just won a fight to make sure that student loan interest rates would not double.
> 
> But thats not enough. I want to lower tuition to make it more affordable for all young people. I want to help our elementary schools and our middle schools and our high schools hire more teachers, especially in math and science. I want 2 million more people to be able to go to community colleges to get trained in the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now -- because a higher education, a good education is not a luxury, it is an economic necessity. Thats how were going to win the race for the future. And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- to finish the job we started in 2008.
> 
> Weve got to deal with homeownership, and the fact of the matter is that my opponents philosophy when it comes to dealing with homeowners is, let the market bottom out and let as many foreclosures happen as it takes.  I dont think thats part of a solution -- thats part of the problem.
> 
> So what I want to do is, I want to let every single person refinance their homes and save about $3,000 a year because youll spend that $3,000 on some of these stores right here in downtown.  Youll help small businesses and large businesses grow because theyll have more customers.  It will be good for you and it will be good for the economy.  And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- because I want to help Americas homeowners.
> 
> I am running because I still believe that you shouldnt go bankrupt when you get sick.  We passed that health care law because it was the right thing to do. And because we did, 30 million people who dont have health insurance are going to get help getting health insurance. Six million young people who didnt have health insurance can now stay on their parents plan and get health insurance.
> 
> Seniors are seeing their prescription drug costs go down. And, by the way, if youve got health insurance, youre not getting hit by a tax. The only thing thats happening to you is that you now have more security because insurance companies cant drop you when you get sick. And they cant mess around with you because of some fine print in your policy. If youre paying your policy, you will get the deal that you paid for. Thats why we passed health care reform.
> 
> Now, one last thing -- one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romneys plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts.
> 
> Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if youre actually saying youre bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and youre still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut. Thats not a deficit reduction plan.  Thats a deficit expansion plan.
> 
> Ive got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut -- weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficiently. Not every government program works the way its supposed to. And frankly, government cant solve every problem. If somebody doesnt want to be helped, government cant always help them.  Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids dont want to learn its hard to teach them.
> 
> But you know what, Im not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who dont need them. So Im going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. And, by the way, weve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers -- how do we help them succeed? How do we make sure that their hard work pays off?  Thats what I've been thinking about the entire time I've been President."
> 
> more...MUCH more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you a fucking retard?
Click to expand...


A retard is only able to blurt out short sentences between drools...that would be YOU Frank...


----------



## saveliberty

Dr Grump said:


> So when he said "people like me can afford to pay more" he was referring to small business owners. So Obama earned $1.7 million in 2011 and $5.5 million in 2010. And this is what the average small business owner earns? Ooookaayy....Wow, small business owners must be at the end of the rainbow!



He referred to the American dream for all Americans before he launched into his attack on small business.  That is predominately small business owners, not the top 1%.  Trying SO hard to spin this into something it wasn't.  The desperation is thick.


----------



## Mac1958

Bfgrn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to look at yourself and the Ayn Rand conservatives who have espoused on this board, in the political arena and on the airwaves their firm belief in what conservatism has devolved into...social Darwinism. Survival of the richest and calling hard working American working class people 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers'. While those 'parasites', 'takers' and 'moochers' have sent their sons and daughters off to die on foreign soil to WHOSE financial benefit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a lovely diversionary effort, and it's nice to know that I'm now an Ayn Rand conservative.  At least until a right-winger calls me a "commie" next.
> 
> So, that's it?  May I assume that you agree with Obama's mockery?
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not diversionary...
Click to expand...




HOLY CRAP

Okay, I'll try this one more time.

President Obama, who knows absolutely nothing about conceiving, launching and running a business, nor what it is like to put everything on the line as you keep that business open and growing, did two things in the passage to which I have referred:

First, he claimed to know what business owners are thinking, tossing out an easy straw man.

Second, he mocked that straw man.

Agree or disagree?  And let's save some freaking bandwidth this time.  A direct answer to my direct question would be wonderful.

.


----------



## Goodoledays

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a lovely diversionary effort, and it's nice to know that I'm now an Ayn Rand conservative.  At least until a right-winger calls me a "commie" next.
> 
> So, that's it?  May I assume that you agree with Obama's mockery?
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not diversionary. It pleads for thinking things through to the end result. We have a revenue problem that has been the biggest cause of our debt. As the President said:
> 
> " What's at stake is a decision between two fundamentally different views about where we take the country right now.  And the choice is up to you."
> 
> ...at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if youre willing to work hard, if youre willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try. That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you wont go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love.  Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke. That your kids can get a great education, and if theyre willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldnt have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back.
> 
> Thats the idea of America. It doesnt matter what you look like. It doesnt matter where you come from. It doesnt matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. Thats what binds us all together.
> 
> Now, the reason that I think so many of us came together in 2008 was because we saw that for a decade that dream was fraying, that it was slipping away; that there were too many people who were working hard but not seeing their incomes or wages go up; that we had taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit -- we were running two wars on a credit card; that job growth was the most sluggish it had been in 50 years. There was a sense that those who were in charge didnt feel responsible.
> 
> And so we came together to say we are going to bring about the kinds of changes that allow us to get back to those basics, allow us to restore and live out those values. What we didnt realize was that some of that recklessness, some of that irresponsibility would lead to the worst financial crisis weve seen since the Great Depression.  And I dont need to tell you what weve been through over the last three and a half years because youve lived it. Too many folks lost jobs. Too many people saw their homes lose value. Too many folks saw their savings take a hit.
> 
> But you know whats given me confidence and faith is that fact that as Ive traveled around the country now, just like I used to travel around Illinois, that same decency, those same values -- theyre still alive, at least outside Washington. Times have been tough, but Americas character hasnt changed. The core decency of the American people is undiminished. Our willingness to fight through and work through the tough times and come together, thats still there.
> 
> And so, just as we came together in the last campaign -- not just Democrats, by the way, but Republicans and independents, because were not Democrats or Republicans first, were Americans first. Just like we came together in 2008, we know that weve got to keep working, we got to keep moving forward in 2012. And we knew back then that it wasnt going to be easy. These problems were facing, they didnt happen overnight, and theyre not going to be solved overnight. We understood it might take more than one year or one term or even one President. But what we also understood was that we werent going to stop until we had restored that basic American bargain that makes us the greatest country on Earth.
> 
> Our goal isnt just to put people back to work -- although thats priority number one -- it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded. Thats what this campaigns about, Roanoke. And thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States of America.
> 
> Now, let me say this. Its fashionable among some pundits -- and this happens every time America hits a rough patch -- its fashionable to be saying, well, this time its different, this time we really are in the soup; its going to be hard to solve our problems. Let me tell you something. Whats missing is not big ideas. Whats missing is not that weve got an absence of technical solutions to deal with issues like education or energy or our deficit.  The problem weve got right now is weve just got a stalemate in Washington.
> 
> And the outcome of this debate that were having is going to set the stage not just for the next year or five years, but for the next twenty. On the one side youve got my opponent in this presidential race and his Republican allies who --
> 
> AUDIENCE:  Booo --
> 
> THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, look -- I mean, were having a good, healthy, democratic debate. Thats how this works. And on their side, theyve got a basic theory about how you grow the economy. And the theory is very simple: They think that the economy grows from the top down. So their basic theory is, if wealthy investors are doing well then everybody does well. So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that thats somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job-training programs and gutting transportation projects, and maybe even seeing middle-class folks have a higher tax burden.
> 
> So thats part number one, right.  More tax cuts for those at the top.
> 
> Part number two is they believe if you tear down all the regulations that weve put in place -- for example, on Wall Street banks or on insurance companies or on credit card companies or on polluters -- that somehow the economy is going to do much, much better. So those are their two theories. Theyve got the tax cuts for the high end, and theyve got rollback regulation.
> 
> Now, heres the problem.  You may have guessed -- we tried this. We tried this in the last decade and it did not work.
> 
> But I just want to point out that we tried their theory for almost 10 years, and heres what it got us:  We got the slowest job growth in decades.  We got deficits as far as the eye can see.  Your incomes and your wages didnt go up.  And it culminated in a crisis because there werent enough regulations on Wall Street and they could make reckless bets with other peoples money that resulted in this financial crisis, and you had to foot the bill.  So thats where their theory turned out.
> 
> Now, we dont need more top-down economics.  Ive got a different view.  I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out.  (Applause.)  I believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up.  I believe that when working people are doing well, the country does well.  (Applause.)
> 
> I believe in fighting for the middle class because if theyre prospering, all of us will prosper.  (Applause.)  Thats what I'm fighting for, and thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.  (Applause.)
> 
> Now, this is what I've been focused on since I've been in office.  In 2008, I promised to make sure that middle-class taxes didnt go up.  And in fact, because of the recession, you needed some help, so we cut the typical family's income taxes by $3,600.  (Applause.)  So if you hear somebody say that I'm a big tax guy, just remember $3,600 for the typical family.  Thats the tax break you've gotten since I've been in office.  (Applause.)
> 
> Four years later, I'm running to keep middle-class taxes low.  So this week, I called on Congress to immediately extend income tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income.  Now, what that means is 98 percent of Americans make less than $250,000, so 98 percent of folks would have the certainty and security that your taxes, your income taxes would not go up a dime.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, this is not a hypothetical.  This wasn't some campaign promise.  The reason I called on Congress to act now is because if they dont do anything, on January 1st, almost everybody here, your taxes will go up an average of $1,600.
> 
> So we need to stop that tax hike from happening.
> 
> So you would think that this makes sense, right, because the Republicans say they're the party of no new taxes, right?  Thats what they always say.  Except so far, they've refused to act.  And this might confuse you.  You might say, why would they not want to give 98 percent of Americans the certainty of this income tax cut?
> 
> Well, it turns out they dont want you to get your tax break unless the other 2 percent, the top 2 percent, they get their tax break as well.
> 
> Now, understand, the top 2 percent, folks like me, we're the ones who most benefited over the last decade from not only tax breaks, but also a lot of the money from increased profits and productivity went up to that top 2 percent.  So the bottom line is, the top 2 percent doesnt need help.  They're doing just fine.
> 
> And I understand why they wouldnt want to pay more in taxes.  Nobody likes to pay more in taxes.  Here's the problem:  If you continue their tax breaks, that costs a trillion dollars.  And since we're trying to bring down our deficit and our debt, if we spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts for them, we're going to have to find that trillion dollars someplace else.  That means we're going to have to maybe make student loans more expensive for students.  Or we might have to cut back on the services we're providing our brave veterans when they come home.
> 
> Or we might have to stop investing in basic science and research that keeps us as a leading-edge economy.  Or, as they suggested, maybe you would have to turn Medicare into a voucher program.
> 
> I dont think those are good ideas.  So what I've said to the Republicans is, look, all right, let's have this debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest folks.  I dont mind having that debate.  But in the meantime, let's go ahead and do what we agree on, which is give 98 percent of Americans some certainty and some security.  (Applause.)  So far, they haven't taken me up on my offer.
> 
> Now, this gives you a sense of how Congress works these days -- you've got the possibility of your taxes going up in four months, five months, and instead of working on that, guess what they worked on this week?
> 
> They voted for the 33rd time to try to repeal a health care bill we passed two years ago, after the Supreme Court said it's constitutional and we are going to go ahead and implement that law. I dont know about you, Virginia, but I think they've got a better way to use their time. I think helping you make sure your taxes dont go up, that would be a good use of congressional time.
> 
> Now, this is just a small example of the difference between myself and Mr. Romney, between myself and some of the Republicans who are running Congress. And look, Virginia, I want to repeat -- this is a choice. If you think their way of doing things is a recipe for economic growth and helping the middle class, then you should vote for them.
> 
> You can send those folks to Washington. I promise you they will carry out what they promise to do.
> 
> But thats not why I went to Washington. I went to Washington to fight for the middle class. I went to Washington to fight for working people who are trying to get into the middle class, and have some sense of security in their lives. People like me and Mr. Romney dont need another tax cut. You need some help right now to make sure your kids are living the kind of life you want for them. And thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.
> 
> On almost every issue, you've got the same kind of choice. When the auto industry was about to go under, a million jobs lost, and my opponent said, "let's let Detroit go bankrupt," what did I say? I said I'm betting on America's workers. Im betting on American industry. And guess what? Three years later, GM is number one again and the American auto industry has come roaring back.
> 
> So I believe in American manufacturing. I believe in making stuff here in America. My opponent, he invested in companies who are called pioneers of outsourcing. I dont believe in outsourcing -- I believe in insourcing. I want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas; lets give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Roanoke, right here in the United States of America. Lets invest in American workers so they can make products and ship them around the world with those three proud words: Made in America.
> 
> Im running because our men and women in uniform have sacrificed so much. We could not be prouder of them and we could not be prouder of our veterans. And because of their efforts, I was able to keep my promise and end the war in Iraq. And I now intend to transition out of Afghanistan and bring our troops home. And what I said is, because of their outstanding work, weve been able to decimate al Qaeda and take out bin Laden. And so now its time for us to take half of the money we were saving on war and pay down our deficit, and use the other half to do some nation-building here at home.
> 
> Roanoke knows something about transportation -- this was a railroad hub for a long time.  So you know how important that is to growing an economy.  Lets take some of that money and rebuild our roads and our bridges and our rail systems, and lets build wireless networks into rural communities so everybody can tap into world markets.  Lets put construction workers back to work doing what they do best and that is rebuilding America.  Thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States.  Thats the choice you face.
> 
> Im running to make sure that our kids are getting the best education in the world.  When I came into office, we passed a tuition tax credit that has saved millions of families thousands of dollars, and now I want to extend it. But I dont want to stop there. We just won a fight thanks to some of the folks who are here, including students from VT that -- we just won a fight to make sure that student loan interest rates would not double.
> 
> But thats not enough. I want to lower tuition to make it more affordable for all young people. I want to help our elementary schools and our middle schools and our high schools hire more teachers, especially in math and science. I want 2 million more people to be able to go to community colleges to get trained in the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now -- because a higher education, a good education is not a luxury, it is an economic necessity. Thats how were going to win the race for the future. And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- to finish the job we started in 2008.
> 
> Weve got to deal with homeownership, and the fact of the matter is that my opponents philosophy when it comes to dealing with homeowners is, let the market bottom out and let as many foreclosures happen as it takes.  I dont think thats part of a solution -- thats part of the problem.
> 
> So what I want to do is, I want to let every single person refinance their homes and save about $3,000 a year because youll spend that $3,000 on some of these stores right here in downtown.  Youll help small businesses and large businesses grow because theyll have more customers.  It will be good for you and it will be good for the economy.  And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- because I want to help Americas homeowners.
> 
> I am running because I still believe that you shouldnt go bankrupt when you get sick.  We passed that health care law because it was the right thing to do. And because we did, 30 million people who dont have health insurance are going to get help getting health insurance. Six million young people who didnt have health insurance can now stay on their parents plan and get health insurance.
> 
> Seniors are seeing their prescription drug costs go down. And, by the way, if youve got health insurance, youre not getting hit by a tax. The only thing thats happening to you is that you now have more security because insurance companies cant drop you when you get sick. And they cant mess around with you because of some fine print in your policy. If youre paying your policy, you will get the deal that you paid for. Thats why we passed health care reform.
> 
> Now, one last thing -- one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romneys plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts.
> 
> Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if youre actually saying youre bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and youre still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut. Thats not a deficit reduction plan.  Thats a deficit expansion plan.
> 
> Ive got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut -- weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficiently. Not every government program works the way its supposed to. And frankly, government cant solve every problem. If somebody doesnt want to be helped, government cant always help them.  Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids dont want to learn its hard to teach them.
> 
> But you know what, Im not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who dont need them. So Im going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. And, by the way, weve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers -- how do we help them succeed? How do we make sure that their hard work pays off?  Thats what I've been thinking about the entire time I've been President."
> 
> more...MUCH more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you a fucking retard?
Click to expand...


I bet anything he took it to a publisher. Even he probably got tired.


----------



## Goodoledays

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not diversionary. It pleads for thinking things through to the end result. We have a revenue problem that has been the biggest cause of our debt. As the President said:
> 
> " What's at stake is a decision between two fundamentally different views about where we take the country right now.  And the choice is up to you."
> 
> ...at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if youre willing to work hard, if youre willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try. That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you wont go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love.  Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke. That your kids can get a great education, and if theyre willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldnt have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back.
> 
> Thats the idea of America. It doesnt matter what you look like. It doesnt matter where you come from. It doesnt matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. Thats what binds us all together.
> 
> Now, the reason that I think so many of us came together in 2008 was because we saw that for a decade that dream was fraying, that it was slipping away; that there were too many people who were working hard but not seeing their incomes or wages go up; that we had taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit -- we were running two wars on a credit card; that job growth was the most sluggish it had been in 50 years. There was a sense that those who were in charge didnt feel responsible.
> 
> And so we came together to say we are going to bring about the kinds of changes that allow us to get back to those basics, allow us to restore and live out those values. What we didnt realize was that some of that recklessness, some of that irresponsibility would lead to the worst financial crisis weve seen since the Great Depression.  And I dont need to tell you what weve been through over the last three and a half years because youve lived it. Too many folks lost jobs. Too many people saw their homes lose value. Too many folks saw their savings take a hit.
> 
> But you know whats given me confidence and faith is that fact that as Ive traveled around the country now, just like I used to travel around Illinois, that same decency, those same values -- theyre still alive, at least outside Washington. Times have been tough, but Americas character hasnt changed. The core decency of the American people is undiminished. Our willingness to fight through and work through the tough times and come together, thats still there.
> 
> And so, just as we came together in the last campaign -- not just Democrats, by the way, but Republicans and independents, because were not Democrats or Republicans first, were Americans first. Just like we came together in 2008, we know that weve got to keep working, we got to keep moving forward in 2012. And we knew back then that it wasnt going to be easy. These problems were facing, they didnt happen overnight, and theyre not going to be solved overnight. We understood it might take more than one year or one term or even one President. But what we also understood was that we werent going to stop until we had restored that basic American bargain that makes us the greatest country on Earth.
> 
> Our goal isnt just to put people back to work -- although thats priority number one -- it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded. Thats what this campaigns about, Roanoke. And thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States of America.
> 
> Now, let me say this. Its fashionable among some pundits -- and this happens every time America hits a rough patch -- its fashionable to be saying, well, this time its different, this time we really are in the soup; its going to be hard to solve our problems. Let me tell you something. Whats missing is not big ideas. Whats missing is not that weve got an absence of technical solutions to deal with issues like education or energy or our deficit.  The problem weve got right now is weve just got a stalemate in Washington.
> 
> And the outcome of this debate that were having is going to set the stage not just for the next year or five years, but for the next twenty. On the one side youve got my opponent in this presidential race and his Republican allies who --
> 
> AUDIENCE:  Booo --
> 
> THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, look -- I mean, were having a good, healthy, democratic debate. Thats how this works. And on their side, theyve got a basic theory about how you grow the economy. And the theory is very simple: They think that the economy grows from the top down. So their basic theory is, if wealthy investors are doing well then everybody does well. So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that thats somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job-training programs and gutting transportation projects, and maybe even seeing middle-class folks have a higher tax burden.
> 
> So thats part number one, right.  More tax cuts for those at the top.
> 
> Part number two is they believe if you tear down all the regulations that weve put in place -- for example, on Wall Street banks or on insurance companies or on credit card companies or on polluters -- that somehow the economy is going to do much, much better. So those are their two theories. Theyve got the tax cuts for the high end, and theyve got rollback regulation.
> 
> Now, heres the problem.  You may have guessed -- we tried this. We tried this in the last decade and it did not work.
> 
> But I just want to point out that we tried their theory for almost 10 years, and heres what it got us:  We got the slowest job growth in decades.  We got deficits as far as the eye can see.  Your incomes and your wages didnt go up.  And it culminated in a crisis because there werent enough regulations on Wall Street and they could make reckless bets with other peoples money that resulted in this financial crisis, and you had to foot the bill.  So thats where their theory turned out.
> 
> Now, we dont need more top-down economics.  Ive got a different view.  I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out.  (Applause.)  I believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up.  I believe that when working people are doing well, the country does well.  (Applause.)
> 
> I believe in fighting for the middle class because if theyre prospering, all of us will prosper.  (Applause.)  Thats what I'm fighting for, and thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.  (Applause.)
> 
> Now, this is what I've been focused on since I've been in office.  In 2008, I promised to make sure that middle-class taxes didnt go up.  And in fact, because of the recession, you needed some help, so we cut the typical family's income taxes by $3,600.  (Applause.)  So if you hear somebody say that I'm a big tax guy, just remember $3,600 for the typical family.  Thats the tax break you've gotten since I've been in office.  (Applause.)
> 
> Four years later, I'm running to keep middle-class taxes low.  So this week, I called on Congress to immediately extend income tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income.  Now, what that means is 98 percent of Americans make less than $250,000, so 98 percent of folks would have the certainty and security that your taxes, your income taxes would not go up a dime.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, this is not a hypothetical.  This wasn't some campaign promise.  The reason I called on Congress to act now is because if they dont do anything, on January 1st, almost everybody here, your taxes will go up an average of $1,600.
> 
> So we need to stop that tax hike from happening.
> 
> So you would think that this makes sense, right, because the Republicans say they're the party of no new taxes, right?  Thats what they always say.  Except so far, they've refused to act.  And this might confuse you.  You might say, why would they not want to give 98 percent of Americans the certainty of this income tax cut?
> 
> Well, it turns out they dont want you to get your tax break unless the other 2 percent, the top 2 percent, they get their tax break as well.
> 
> Now, understand, the top 2 percent, folks like me, we're the ones who most benefited over the last decade from not only tax breaks, but also a lot of the money from increased profits and productivity went up to that top 2 percent.  So the bottom line is, the top 2 percent doesnt need help.  They're doing just fine.
> 
> And I understand why they wouldnt want to pay more in taxes.  Nobody likes to pay more in taxes.  Here's the problem:  If you continue their tax breaks, that costs a trillion dollars.  And since we're trying to bring down our deficit and our debt, if we spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts for them, we're going to have to find that trillion dollars someplace else.  That means we're going to have to maybe make student loans more expensive for students.  Or we might have to cut back on the services we're providing our brave veterans when they come home.
> 
> Or we might have to stop investing in basic science and research that keeps us as a leading-edge economy.  Or, as they suggested, maybe you would have to turn Medicare into a voucher program.
> 
> I dont think those are good ideas.  So what I've said to the Republicans is, look, all right, let's have this debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest folks.  I dont mind having that debate.  But in the meantime, let's go ahead and do what we agree on, which is give 98 percent of Americans some certainty and some security.  (Applause.)  So far, they haven't taken me up on my offer.
> 
> Now, this gives you a sense of how Congress works these days -- you've got the possibility of your taxes going up in four months, five months, and instead of working on that, guess what they worked on this week?
> 
> They voted for the 33rd time to try to repeal a health care bill we passed two years ago, after the Supreme Court said it's constitutional and we are going to go ahead and implement that law. I dont know about you, Virginia, but I think they've got a better way to use their time. I think helping you make sure your taxes dont go up, that would be a good use of congressional time.
> 
> Now, this is just a small example of the difference between myself and Mr. Romney, between myself and some of the Republicans who are running Congress. And look, Virginia, I want to repeat -- this is a choice. If you think their way of doing things is a recipe for economic growth and helping the middle class, then you should vote for them.
> 
> You can send those folks to Washington. I promise you they will carry out what they promise to do.
> 
> But thats not why I went to Washington. I went to Washington to fight for the middle class. I went to Washington to fight for working people who are trying to get into the middle class, and have some sense of security in their lives. People like me and Mr. Romney dont need another tax cut. You need some help right now to make sure your kids are living the kind of life you want for them. And thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.
> 
> On almost every issue, you've got the same kind of choice. When the auto industry was about to go under, a million jobs lost, and my opponent said, "let's let Detroit go bankrupt," what did I say? I said I'm betting on America's workers. Im betting on American industry. And guess what? Three years later, GM is number one again and the American auto industry has come roaring back.
> 
> So I believe in American manufacturing. I believe in making stuff here in America. My opponent, he invested in companies who are called pioneers of outsourcing. I dont believe in outsourcing -- I believe in insourcing. I want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas; lets give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Roanoke, right here in the United States of America. Lets invest in American workers so they can make products and ship them around the world with those three proud words: Made in America.
> 
> Im running because our men and women in uniform have sacrificed so much. We could not be prouder of them and we could not be prouder of our veterans. And because of their efforts, I was able to keep my promise and end the war in Iraq. And I now intend to transition out of Afghanistan and bring our troops home. And what I said is, because of their outstanding work, weve been able to decimate al Qaeda and take out bin Laden. And so now its time for us to take half of the money we were saving on war and pay down our deficit, and use the other half to do some nation-building here at home.
> 
> Roanoke knows something about transportation -- this was a railroad hub for a long time.  So you know how important that is to growing an economy.  Lets take some of that money and rebuild our roads and our bridges and our rail systems, and lets build wireless networks into rural communities so everybody can tap into world markets.  Lets put construction workers back to work doing what they do best and that is rebuilding America.  Thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States.  Thats the choice you face.
> 
> Im running to make sure that our kids are getting the best education in the world.  When I came into office, we passed a tuition tax credit that has saved millions of families thousands of dollars, and now I want to extend it. But I dont want to stop there. We just won a fight thanks to some of the folks who are here, including students from VT that -- we just won a fight to make sure that student loan interest rates would not double.
> 
> But thats not enough. I want to lower tuition to make it more affordable for all young people. I want to help our elementary schools and our middle schools and our high schools hire more teachers, especially in math and science. I want 2 million more people to be able to go to community colleges to get trained in the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now -- because a higher education, a good education is not a luxury, it is an economic necessity. Thats how were going to win the race for the future. And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- to finish the job we started in 2008.
> 
> Weve got to deal with homeownership, and the fact of the matter is that my opponents philosophy when it comes to dealing with homeowners is, let the market bottom out and let as many foreclosures happen as it takes.  I dont think thats part of a solution -- thats part of the problem.
> 
> So what I want to do is, I want to let every single person refinance their homes and save about $3,000 a year because youll spend that $3,000 on some of these stores right here in downtown.  Youll help small businesses and large businesses grow because theyll have more customers.  It will be good for you and it will be good for the economy.  And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- because I want to help Americas homeowners.
> 
> I am running because I still believe that you shouldnt go bankrupt when you get sick.  We passed that health care law because it was the right thing to do. And because we did, 30 million people who dont have health insurance are going to get help getting health insurance. Six million young people who didnt have health insurance can now stay on their parents plan and get health insurance.
> 
> Seniors are seeing their prescription drug costs go down. And, by the way, if youve got health insurance, youre not getting hit by a tax. The only thing thats happening to you is that you now have more security because insurance companies cant drop you when you get sick. And they cant mess around with you because of some fine print in your policy. If youre paying your policy, you will get the deal that you paid for. Thats why we passed health care reform.
> 
> Now, one last thing -- one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romneys plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts.
> 
> Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if youre actually saying youre bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and youre still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut. Thats not a deficit reduction plan.  Thats a deficit expansion plan.
> 
> Ive got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut -- weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficiently. Not every government program works the way its supposed to. And frankly, government cant solve every problem. If somebody doesnt want to be helped, government cant always help them.  Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids dont want to learn its hard to teach them.
> 
> But you know what, Im not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who dont need them. So Im going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. And, by the way, weve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers -- how do we help them succeed? How do we make sure that their hard work pays off?  Thats what I've been thinking about the entire time I've been President."
> 
> more...MUCH more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you a fucking retard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A retard is only able to blurt out short sentences between drools...that would be YOU Frank...
Click to expand...


At least he makes sence.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not diversionary. It pleads for thinking things through to the end result. We have a revenue problem that has been the biggest cause of our debt. As the President said:
> 
> " What's at stake is a decision between two fundamentally different views about where we take the country right now.  And the choice is up to you."
> 
> ...at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if youre willing to work hard, if youre willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try. That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you wont go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while -- nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love.  Maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke. That your kids can get a great education, and if theyre willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldnt have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back.
> 
> Thats the idea of America. It doesnt matter what you look like. It doesnt matter where you come from. It doesnt matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. Thats what binds us all together.
> 
> Now, the reason that I think so many of us came together in 2008 was because we saw that for a decade that dream was fraying, that it was slipping away; that there were too many people who were working hard but not seeing their incomes or wages go up; that we had taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit -- we were running two wars on a credit card; that job growth was the most sluggish it had been in 50 years. There was a sense that those who were in charge didnt feel responsible.
> 
> And so we came together to say we are going to bring about the kinds of changes that allow us to get back to those basics, allow us to restore and live out those values. What we didnt realize was that some of that recklessness, some of that irresponsibility would lead to the worst financial crisis weve seen since the Great Depression.  And I dont need to tell you what weve been through over the last three and a half years because youve lived it. Too many folks lost jobs. Too many people saw their homes lose value. Too many folks saw their savings take a hit.
> 
> But you know whats given me confidence and faith is that fact that as Ive traveled around the country now, just like I used to travel around Illinois, that same decency, those same values -- theyre still alive, at least outside Washington. Times have been tough, but Americas character hasnt changed. The core decency of the American people is undiminished. Our willingness to fight through and work through the tough times and come together, thats still there.
> 
> And so, just as we came together in the last campaign -- not just Democrats, by the way, but Republicans and independents, because were not Democrats or Republicans first, were Americans first. Just like we came together in 2008, we know that weve got to keep working, we got to keep moving forward in 2012. And we knew back then that it wasnt going to be easy. These problems were facing, they didnt happen overnight, and theyre not going to be solved overnight. We understood it might take more than one year or one term or even one President. But what we also understood was that we werent going to stop until we had restored that basic American bargain that makes us the greatest country on Earth.
> 
> Our goal isnt just to put people back to work -- although thats priority number one -- it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded. Thats what this campaigns about, Roanoke. And thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States of America.
> 
> Now, let me say this. Its fashionable among some pundits -- and this happens every time America hits a rough patch -- its fashionable to be saying, well, this time its different, this time we really are in the soup; its going to be hard to solve our problems. Let me tell you something. Whats missing is not big ideas. Whats missing is not that weve got an absence of technical solutions to deal with issues like education or energy or our deficit.  The problem weve got right now is weve just got a stalemate in Washington.
> 
> And the outcome of this debate that were having is going to set the stage not just for the next year or five years, but for the next twenty. On the one side youve got my opponent in this presidential race and his Republican allies who --
> 
> AUDIENCE:  Booo --
> 
> THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, look -- I mean, were having a good, healthy, democratic debate. Thats how this works. And on their side, theyve got a basic theory about how you grow the economy. And the theory is very simple: They think that the economy grows from the top down. So their basic theory is, if wealthy investors are doing well then everybody does well. So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that thats somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job-training programs and gutting transportation projects, and maybe even seeing middle-class folks have a higher tax burden.
> 
> So thats part number one, right.  More tax cuts for those at the top.
> 
> Part number two is they believe if you tear down all the regulations that weve put in place -- for example, on Wall Street banks or on insurance companies or on credit card companies or on polluters -- that somehow the economy is going to do much, much better. So those are their two theories. Theyve got the tax cuts for the high end, and theyve got rollback regulation.
> 
> Now, heres the problem.  You may have guessed -- we tried this. We tried this in the last decade and it did not work.
> 
> But I just want to point out that we tried their theory for almost 10 years, and heres what it got us:  We got the slowest job growth in decades.  We got deficits as far as the eye can see.  Your incomes and your wages didnt go up.  And it culminated in a crisis because there werent enough regulations on Wall Street and they could make reckless bets with other peoples money that resulted in this financial crisis, and you had to foot the bill.  So thats where their theory turned out.
> 
> Now, we dont need more top-down economics.  Ive got a different view.  I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out.  (Applause.)  I believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up.  I believe that when working people are doing well, the country does well.  (Applause.)
> 
> I believe in fighting for the middle class because if theyre prospering, all of us will prosper.  (Applause.)  Thats what I'm fighting for, and thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.  (Applause.)
> 
> Now, this is what I've been focused on since I've been in office.  In 2008, I promised to make sure that middle-class taxes didnt go up.  And in fact, because of the recession, you needed some help, so we cut the typical family's income taxes by $3,600.  (Applause.)  So if you hear somebody say that I'm a big tax guy, just remember $3,600 for the typical family.  Thats the tax break you've gotten since I've been in office.  (Applause.)
> 
> Four years later, I'm running to keep middle-class taxes low.  So this week, I called on Congress to immediately extend income tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income.  Now, what that means is 98 percent of Americans make less than $250,000, so 98 percent of folks would have the certainty and security that your taxes, your income taxes would not go up a dime.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, this is not a hypothetical.  This wasn't some campaign promise.  The reason I called on Congress to act now is because if they dont do anything, on January 1st, almost everybody here, your taxes will go up an average of $1,600.
> 
> So we need to stop that tax hike from happening.
> 
> So you would think that this makes sense, right, because the Republicans say they're the party of no new taxes, right?  Thats what they always say.  Except so far, they've refused to act.  And this might confuse you.  You might say, why would they not want to give 98 percent of Americans the certainty of this income tax cut?
> 
> Well, it turns out they dont want you to get your tax break unless the other 2 percent, the top 2 percent, they get their tax break as well.
> 
> Now, understand, the top 2 percent, folks like me, we're the ones who most benefited over the last decade from not only tax breaks, but also a lot of the money from increased profits and productivity went up to that top 2 percent.  So the bottom line is, the top 2 percent doesnt need help.  They're doing just fine.
> 
> And I understand why they wouldnt want to pay more in taxes.  Nobody likes to pay more in taxes.  Here's the problem:  If you continue their tax breaks, that costs a trillion dollars.  And since we're trying to bring down our deficit and our debt, if we spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts for them, we're going to have to find that trillion dollars someplace else.  That means we're going to have to maybe make student loans more expensive for students.  Or we might have to cut back on the services we're providing our brave veterans when they come home.
> 
> Or we might have to stop investing in basic science and research that keeps us as a leading-edge economy.  Or, as they suggested, maybe you would have to turn Medicare into a voucher program.
> 
> I dont think those are good ideas.  So what I've said to the Republicans is, look, all right, let's have this debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest folks.  I dont mind having that debate.  But in the meantime, let's go ahead and do what we agree on, which is give 98 percent of Americans some certainty and some security.  (Applause.)  So far, they haven't taken me up on my offer.
> 
> Now, this gives you a sense of how Congress works these days -- you've got the possibility of your taxes going up in four months, five months, and instead of working on that, guess what they worked on this week?
> 
> They voted for the 33rd time to try to repeal a health care bill we passed two years ago, after the Supreme Court said it's constitutional and we are going to go ahead and implement that law. I dont know about you, Virginia, but I think they've got a better way to use their time. I think helping you make sure your taxes dont go up, that would be a good use of congressional time.
> 
> Now, this is just a small example of the difference between myself and Mr. Romney, between myself and some of the Republicans who are running Congress. And look, Virginia, I want to repeat -- this is a choice. If you think their way of doing things is a recipe for economic growth and helping the middle class, then you should vote for them.
> 
> You can send those folks to Washington. I promise you they will carry out what they promise to do.
> 
> But thats not why I went to Washington. I went to Washington to fight for the middle class. I went to Washington to fight for working people who are trying to get into the middle class, and have some sense of security in their lives. People like me and Mr. Romney dont need another tax cut. You need some help right now to make sure your kids are living the kind of life you want for them. And thats why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.
> 
> On almost every issue, you've got the same kind of choice. When the auto industry was about to go under, a million jobs lost, and my opponent said, "let's let Detroit go bankrupt," what did I say? I said I'm betting on America's workers. Im betting on American industry. And guess what? Three years later, GM is number one again and the American auto industry has come roaring back.
> 
> So I believe in American manufacturing. I believe in making stuff here in America. My opponent, he invested in companies who are called pioneers of outsourcing. I dont believe in outsourcing -- I believe in insourcing. I want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas; lets give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in Roanoke, right here in the United States of America. Lets invest in American workers so they can make products and ship them around the world with those three proud words: Made in America.
> 
> Im running because our men and women in uniform have sacrificed so much. We could not be prouder of them and we could not be prouder of our veterans. And because of their efforts, I was able to keep my promise and end the war in Iraq. And I now intend to transition out of Afghanistan and bring our troops home. And what I said is, because of their outstanding work, weve been able to decimate al Qaeda and take out bin Laden. And so now its time for us to take half of the money we were saving on war and pay down our deficit, and use the other half to do some nation-building here at home.
> 
> Roanoke knows something about transportation -- this was a railroad hub for a long time.  So you know how important that is to growing an economy.  Lets take some of that money and rebuild our roads and our bridges and our rail systems, and lets build wireless networks into rural communities so everybody can tap into world markets.  Lets put construction workers back to work doing what they do best and that is rebuilding America.  Thats why Im running for a second term as President of the United States.  Thats the choice you face.
> 
> Im running to make sure that our kids are getting the best education in the world.  When I came into office, we passed a tuition tax credit that has saved millions of families thousands of dollars, and now I want to extend it. But I dont want to stop there. We just won a fight thanks to some of the folks who are here, including students from VT that -- we just won a fight to make sure that student loan interest rates would not double.
> 
> But thats not enough. I want to lower tuition to make it more affordable for all young people. I want to help our elementary schools and our middle schools and our high schools hire more teachers, especially in math and science. I want 2 million more people to be able to go to community colleges to get trained in the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now -- because a higher education, a good education is not a luxury, it is an economic necessity. Thats how were going to win the race for the future. And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- to finish the job we started in 2008.
> 
> Weve got to deal with homeownership, and the fact of the matter is that my opponents philosophy when it comes to dealing with homeowners is, let the market bottom out and let as many foreclosures happen as it takes.  I dont think thats part of a solution -- thats part of the problem.
> 
> So what I want to do is, I want to let every single person refinance their homes and save about $3,000 a year because youll spend that $3,000 on some of these stores right here in downtown.  Youll help small businesses and large businesses grow because theyll have more customers.  It will be good for you and it will be good for the economy.  And thats why Im running for a second term as President -- because I want to help Americas homeowners.
> 
> I am running because I still believe that you shouldnt go bankrupt when you get sick.  We passed that health care law because it was the right thing to do. And because we did, 30 million people who dont have health insurance are going to get help getting health insurance. Six million young people who didnt have health insurance can now stay on their parents plan and get health insurance.
> 
> Seniors are seeing their prescription drug costs go down. And, by the way, if youve got health insurance, youre not getting hit by a tax. The only thing thats happening to you is that you now have more security because insurance companies cant drop you when you get sick. And they cant mess around with you because of some fine print in your policy. If youre paying your policy, you will get the deal that you paid for. Thats why we passed health care reform.
> 
> Now, one last thing -- one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romneys plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts.
> 
> Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that -- if youre actually saying youre bringing down the deficit -- is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and youre still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut. Thats not a deficit reduction plan.  Thats a deficit expansion plan.
> 
> Ive got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut -- weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that dont work, and make government work more efficiently. Not every government program works the way its supposed to. And frankly, government cant solve every problem. If somebody doesnt want to be helped, government cant always help them.  Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids dont want to learn its hard to teach them.
> 
> But you know what, Im not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who dont need them. So Im going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. Weve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. And, by the way, weve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. Thats how we funded the GI Bill. Thats how we created the middle class. Thats how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  Thats how we invented the Internet. Thats how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and thats the reason Im running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. Youre not on your own, were in this together.
> 
> So all these issues go back to that first campaign that I talked about, because everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, strivers, doers -- how do we help them succeed? How do we make sure that their hard work pays off?  Thats what I've been thinking about the entire time I've been President."
> 
> more...MUCH more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you a fucking retard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A retard is only able to blurt out short sentences between drools...that would be YOU Frank...
Click to expand...


Posting every word Obama ever uttered won't change this:

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

It's Obama's Hymietown remark, it's reminder that the only thing we have to fear, is Progressives with political power and you posting everything that he ever said before or after won't change this:

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Obama is not just unAmerican, but anti-American he hates everything this country stands for

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

I guess your Context Filter malfunctioned


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> A retard is only able to blurt out short sentences between drools...that would be YOU Frank...



I mostly ignore you because you are a cut & paste monkey. But honestly, do you think anyone actually reads the idiocy you post here?  Don't you figure that if I wanted to know what Alternet or ThinkProgress had to say, I would log on to those hate sites and read their shit directly?

Look, you're a leftist, a drone, original thought is discouraged in you, but perhaps if you posted your own ideas once in a great while, others would read your posts.


----------



## saveliberty

Stuff you and others already paid for should be paid for again.  Such logic from a president.


----------



## Goodoledays

Dr Grump said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberals*: Obama didn't say what he said (even though we have video, and transcripts), well he said what he said but he meant something completely different than what he said and how dare Conservatives misinterpret what he said even though he said it, because it wasn't meant to be interpreted exactly how Obama said it, it was meant to mean something different than how Conservatives interpreted it.... *Phew... I think I got it now.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er, not even close.
> 
> Here I'll help you. This is what you meant: "Obama said some shit that dissed busineses. Even though he didn't say that at all, if I repeat it enough, I'm hoping some people will believe it. And even if they don't believe it, and he didn't say it, I don't care. I'm a partisan hack and I will be heard!"
> 
> Now say thank you...
Click to expand...


Kind of sounds like your volume control is broke on your TV. Try and get it fixed.


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retard is only able to blurt out short sentences between drools...that would be YOU Frank...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly ignore you because you are a cut & paste monkey. But honestly, do you think anyone actually reads the idiocy you post here? Don't you figure that if I wanted to know what Alternet or ThinkProgress had to say, I would log on to those hate sites and read their shit directly?
> 
> Look, you're a leftist, a drone, original thought is discouraged in you, but perhaps if you posted your own ideas once in a great while, others would read your posts.
Click to expand...

 
And not to mention long, dull, quite frankly _boring_ posts. He hasn't learned the old Shakespearean Axiom that tells us that _brevity is the sould of wit._


----------



## Listening

The T said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you're a leftist, a drone, original thought is discouraged in you, but perhaps if you posted your own ideas once in a great while, others would read your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not to mention long, dull, quite frankly _boring_ posts. He hasn't learned the old Shakespearean Axiom that tells us that _brevity is the sould of wit._
Click to expand...


I read the posts, but find them difficult to respond to.  There is so much B.S. in one place.

I'd prefer to handle them more part by part.  But then Bf gets all bent out of shape.  Seems he can't index to anything that does not look like his manual.


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you're a leftist, a drone, original thought is discouraged in you, but perhaps if you posted your own ideas once in a great while, others would read your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not to mention long, dull, quite frankly _boring_ posts. He hasn't learned the old Shakespearean Axiom that tells us that _brevity is the sould of wit._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the posts, but find them difficult to respond to. There is so much B.S. in one place.
> 
> I'd prefer to handle them more part by part. But then Bf gets all bent out of shape. Seems he can't index to anything that does not look like his manual.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly, and why I tend to ignore his tripe.


----------



## Uncensored2008

saveliberty said:


> Stuff you and others already paid for should be paid for again.  Such logic from a president.



I wrote an application the other day, it interfaced with the company ERP and a counting scale to ensure kitting of parts to a BOM.

I used Microsoft Visual Studio and C#, so I didn't make that, Microsoft did - at least according to leftists. Still, I spent an awful lot of time writing code to accomplish a purpose per my design, but in the Obama world, I didn't write that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Uncensored2008 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stuff you and others already paid for should be paid for again.  Such logic from a president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote an application the other day, it interfaced with the company ERP and a counting scale to ensure kitting of parts to a BOM.
> 
> I used Microsoft Visual Studio and C#, so I didn't make that, Microsoft did - at least according to leftists. Still, I spent an awful lot of time writing code to accomplish a purpose per my design, but in the Obama world, I didn't write that.
Click to expand...


nope, anyone who has accomplished anything didn't do that, they had help!! So, we should all give all our money to Barry and let him distribute it based on his formula about who helped who and how much .

I'm praying for November to get this subversive out of there!


----------



## Dr Grump

Listening said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when he said "people like me can afford to pay more" he was referring to small business owners. So Obama earned $1.7 million in 2011 and $5.5 million in 2010. And this is what the average small business owner earns? Ooookaayy....Wow, small business owners must be at the end of the rainbow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama can pay more, great.
> 
> Who is he to speak for others on this subject ?
> 
> What data does he have, or is this another one his comments that just shows he has this as a basic fabric of his approach to the rich ?
> 
> Also, where does he talk about real spending cuts ?
> 
> I'll vote for raising taxes on the rich.  1 dollar of tax increase for every 4 dollars of cuts (including SS. and Medicare).
Click to expand...


Yep, and that is what he was saying. It's there. You can even hear him say it yourself if you have a mind.

Um, he is the President. Just in case you don't know he is the one who sets policy and takes on board what others in Congress want to do. That includes the issue of taxes. That is who he is to speak on the subject.


----------



## Dr Grump

tjvh said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberals*: Obama didn't say what he said (even though we have video, and transcripts), well he said what he said but he meant something completely different than what he said and how dare Conservatives misinterpret what he said even though he said it, because it wasn't meant to be interpreted exactly how Obama said it, it was meant to mean something different than how Conservatives interpreted it.... *Phew... I think I got it now.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er, not even close.
> 
> Here I'll help you. This is what you meant: "Obama said some shit that dissed busineses. Even though he didn't say that at all, if I repeat it enough, I'm hoping some people will believe it. And even if they don't believe it, and he didn't say it, I don't care. I'm a partisan hack and I will be heard!"
> 
> Now say thank you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only people that *don't get* exactly what Obama said either have no grasp for the English language at all, or are simply partisan hacks spinning away on damage control duty in a vain attempt to hide the person who revealed to the public exactly who he was... Obama the socialist.
Click to expand...


And you are a vacuous Moron who seems to mangle the English language like a Chihuahua with a toilet roll. Anybody who puts the words &#8220;Obama&#8221; and &#8220;socialist&#8221; in the same sentence is just begging not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people that *don't get* exactly what Obama said either have no grasp for the English language at all, or are simply partisan hacks spinning away on damage control duty in a vain attempt to hide the person who revealed to the public exactly who he was... Obama the socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gump is a Chicago socialist pretending to be a Sheep Shagger because leftists like him hate America and it's really cool to not be American...
Click to expand...


Visited the Clean Zone yet No Sense? I know the standard of debate is a little high brow for you, but you might actually learn something...

...meh, too much to ask...


----------



## Dr Grump

Listening said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er, not even close.
> 
> Here I'll help you. This is what you meant: "Obama said some shit that dissed busineses. Even though he didn't say that at all, if I repeat it enough, I'm hoping some people will believe it. And even if they don't believe it, and he didn't say it, I don't care. I'm a partisan hack and I will be heard!"
> 
> Now say thank you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O.K.
> 
> F**k you.
> 
> Spin all you want asswipe.  It's out there.
Click to expand...


No, what is out there is what he actually said. Not what you neocon whackjobs hope he said. Two different things...;o)


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> O.K.
> 
> F**k you.
> 
> Spin all you want asswipe.  It's out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gump is in a panic. Obama blurted out what he believes, which was simply meant to foster hatred with his core constituents against business owners. All part of the class warfare and general demagoguery that define this shameful administration.
> 
> The only issue was that the business owners didn't appreciate Obama scapegoating them. Obama and his team don't grasp why they should object to being scapegoats."
Click to expand...


The Obama Derangement Syndrome is strong in this one....


----------



## Dr Grump

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberals*: Obama didn't say what he said (even though we have video, and transcripts), well he said what he said but he meant something completely different than what he said and how dare Conservatives misinterpret what he said even though he said it, because it wasn't meant to be interpreted exactly how Obama said it, it was meant to mean something different than how Conservatives interpreted it.... *Phew... I think I got it now.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er, not even close.
> 
> Here I'll help you. This is what you meant: "Obama said some shit that dissed busineses. Even though he didn't say that at all, if I repeat it enough, I'm hoping some people will believe it. And even if they don't believe it, and he didn't say it, I don't care. I'm a partisan hack and I will be heard!"
> 
> Now say thank you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's Obama without the Context Filter
> 
> "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."  -  Barack "You didn't build that" Obama
> 
> Now here's the same statement through the Obama Context Filter
> 
> "Yo! Mitten Robmoney! Where's da damn tax returns?"
> 
> See how easy that is?
Click to expand...


Wow! In my world it's called "Cherrypicking words out of context". Interesting game to play, but it doesn't advance your POV one iota, and makes you look like a partisan hack.

Hold on a sec...Oh, it's you CF. Now it makes sense...carry on...


----------



## Dr Grump

Goodoledays said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberals*: Obama didn't say what he said (even though we have video, and transcripts), well he said what he said but he meant something completely different than what he said and how dare Conservatives misinterpret what he said even though he said it, because it wasn't meant to be interpreted exactly how Obama said it, it was meant to mean something different than how Conservatives interpreted it.... *Phew... I think I got it now.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er, not even close.
> 
> Here I'll help you. This is what you meant: "Obama said some shit that dissed busineses. Even though he didn't say that at all, if I repeat it enough, I'm hoping some people will believe it. And even if they don't believe it, and he didn't say it, I don't care. I'm a partisan hack and I will be heard!"
> 
> Now say thank you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of sounds like your volume control is broke on your TV. Try and get it fixed.
Click to expand...


More like a lot of white noise from ODS patients....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Visited the Clean Zone yet No Sense? I know the standard of debate is a little high brow for you, but you might actually learn something...
> 
> ...meh, too much to ask...



I didn't think I'd like it, Gump. But actually, it's not bad. Leftists don't do well because of the need to post facts and support them, you know, tasks beyond your abilities.


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Visited the Clean Zone yet No Sense? I know the standard of debate is a little high brow for you, but you might actually learn something...
> 
> ...meh, too much to ask...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think I'd like it, Gump. But actually, it's not bad. Leftists don't do well because of the need to post facts and support them, you know, tasks beyond your abilities.
Click to expand...


You must be biting down on a stick every time you post there.....

You wouldn't know a fact if it sat down next to you, had a beer and told you its life story....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> The Obama Derangement Syndrome is strong in this one....



Hey Gump;

I wrote an application the other day, it interfaced with the company ERP and a counting scale to ensure kitting of parts to a BOM.

I used Microsoft Visual Studio and C#, so I didn't make that, Microsoft did - at least according to leftists. Still, I spent an awful lot of time writing code to accomplish a purpose per my design.

So, did I write the program? Did Microsoft? I mean, I used Microsoft development tools. Did Dennis Ritchie? I used a derivative of the C language.

Or did Obama write it?


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama Derangement Syndrome is strong in this one....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Gump;
> 
> I wrote an application the other day, it interfaced with the company ERP and a counting scale to ensure kitting of parts to a BOM.
> 
> I used Microsoft Visual Studio and C#, so I didn't make that, Microsoft did - at least according to leftists. Still, I spent an awful lot of time writing code to accomplish a purpose per my design.
> 
> So, did I write the program? Did Microsoft? I mean, I used Microsoft development tools. Did Dennis Ritchie? I used a derivative of the C language.
> 
> Or did Obama write it?
Click to expand...

 
The ROADS and Infrastruture did with Obama as the overseer.


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama Derangement Syndrome is strong in this one....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Gump;
> 
> I wrote an application the other day, it interfaced with the company ERP and a counting scale to ensure kitting of parts to a BOM.
> 
> I used Microsoft Visual Studio and C#, so I didn't make that, Microsoft did - at least according to leftists. Still, I spent an awful lot of time writing code to accomplish a purpose per my design.
> 
> So, did I write the program? Did Microsoft? I mean, I used Microsoft development tools. Did Dennis Ritchie? I used a derivative of the C language.
> 
> Or did Obama write it?
Click to expand...


This is the second time you've mentioned this. Are you looking for a pat on the head and a biscuit?

Let me ask you this: Without Microsoft Visual Studio and C# could you have accomplished your goal?

If the answer is "yes" then you have your answer. If it is "no", you still have your answer...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> This is the second time you've mentioned this. Are you looking for a pat on the head and a biscuit?



No, an answer will do. I'd ask for a rational answer, but I must consider my audience.



> Let me ask you this: Without Microsoft Visual Studio and C# could you have accomplished your goal?



Of course, but it would have taken a lot longer and probably returned inferior results - just as small business could achieve goals without roads, but with inferior resulst.



> If the answer is "yes" then you have your answer. If it is "no", you still have your answer...



So, then you would have to agree that Obama is a blow hard who was talking shit?


----------



## The T

Dr Grump said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama Derangement Syndrome is strong in this one....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Gump;
> 
> I wrote an application the other day, it interfaced with the company ERP and a counting scale to ensure kitting of parts to a BOM.
> 
> I used Microsoft Visual Studio and C#, so I didn't make that, Microsoft did - at least according to leftists. Still, I spent an awful lot of time writing code to accomplish a purpose per my design.
> 
> So, did I write the program? Did Microsoft? I mean, I used Microsoft development tools. Did Dennis Ritchie? I used a derivative of the C language.
> 
> Or did Obama write it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the second time you've mentioned this. Are you looking for a pat on the head and a biscuit?
> 
> Let me ask you this: Without Microsoft Visual Studio and C# could you have accomplished your goal?
> 
> If the answer is "yes" then you have your answer. If it is "no", you still have your answer...
Click to expand...

 
Grump? You're OUT of your league. YOU have been caught...and are writing nonsense. UTTER..._nonsense._

_I think you have some jealous sheep that need tending_ [That IS if you are where you SAY YOU are]?

Personally? *I* Think you're a LIAR.

YOU are no where near where you say you are. YOU are a PLANT...and paid to be here.


----------



## Dr Grump

The T said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Gump;
> 
> I wrote an application the other day, it interfaced with the company ERP and a counting scale to ensure kitting of parts to a BOM.
> 
> I used Microsoft Visual Studio and C#, so I didn't make that, Microsoft did - at least according to leftists. Still, I spent an awful lot of time writing code to accomplish a purpose per my design.
> 
> So, did I write the program? Did Microsoft? I mean, I used Microsoft development tools. Did Dennis Ritchie? I used a derivative of the C language.
> 
> Or did Obama write it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the second time you've mentioned this. Are you looking for a pat on the head and a biscuit?
> 
> Let me ask you this: Without Microsoft Visual Studio and C# could you have accomplished your goal?
> 
> If the answer is "yes" then you have your answer. If it is "no", you still have your answer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grump? You're OUT of your league. YOU have been caught...and are writing nonsense. UTTER..._nonsense._
> 
> _I think you have some jealous sheep that need tending_ [That IS if you are where you SAY YOU are]?
> 
> Personally? *I* Think you're a LIAR.
> 
> YOU are no where near where you say you are. YOU are a PLANT...and paid to be here.
Click to expand...


And I think you're drunk.

T, you could go to college for the next four years, study your arse off, and you still wouldn't be in my league....


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the second time you've mentioned this. Are you looking for a pat on the head and a biscuit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, an answer will do. I'd ask for a rational answer, but I must consider my audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you this: Without Microsoft Visual Studio and C# could you have accomplished your goal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, but it would have taken a lot longer and probably returned inferior results - just as small business could achieve goals without roads, but with inferior resulst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the answer is "yes" then you have your answer. If it is "no", you still have your answer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, then you would have to agree that Obama is a blow hard who was talking shit?
Click to expand...


So Microsoft helped you get your intended result. IOW, you agree with Obama's analogy. Good, now we're getting somewhere....


----------



## The T

Dr Grump said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the second time you've mentioned this. Are you looking for a pat on the head and a biscuit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, an answer will do. I'd ask for a rational answer, but I must consider my audience.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but it would have taken a lot longer and probably returned inferior results - just as small business could achieve goals without roads, but with inferior resulst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the answer is "yes" then you have your answer. If it is "no", you still have your answer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, then you would have to agree that Obama is a blow hard who was talking shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Microsoft helped you get your intended result. IOW, you agree with Obama's analogy. Good, now we're getting somewhere....
Click to expand...

 
NO, Uncensored took the TIME to write it WITH the program provided...ON HIS TIME.

Obama had ZERO to do with it, NOR did GOVERNMENT.


----------



## The T

Dr Grump said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the second time you've mentioned this. Are you looking for a pat on the head and a biscuit?
> 
> Let me ask you this: Without Microsoft Visual Studio and C# could you have accomplished your goal?
> 
> If the answer is "yes" then you have your answer. If it is "no", you still have your answer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grump? You're OUT of your league. YOU have been caught...and are writing nonsense. UTTER..._nonsense._
> 
> _I think you have some jealous sheep that need tending_ [That IS if you are where you SAY YOU are]?
> 
> Personally? *I* Think you're a LIAR.
> 
> YOU are no where near where you say you are. YOU are a PLANT...and paid to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I think you're drunk.
> 
> T, you could go to college for the next four years, study your arse off, and you still wouldn't be in my league....
Click to expand...

 
i don't give a tinkers DAMN what YOU think. And *I* am So far fucking above YOU you couldn't handle it.

And precisely WHY YOU answer what you do...YOU  ASSUME.

I could run rings around you before YOu ever knew what happened...and I did just that.


----------



## Dr Grump

The T said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, an answer will do. I'd ask for a rational answer, but I must consider my audience.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but it would have taken a lot longer and probably returned inferior results - just as small business could achieve goals without roads, but with inferior resulst.
> 
> 
> 
> So, then you would have to agree that Obama is a blow hard who was talking shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Microsoft helped you get your intended result. IOW, you agree with Obama's analogy. Good, now we're getting somewhere....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, Uncensored took the TIME to write it WITH the program provided...ON HIS TIME.
> 
> Obama had ZERO to do with it, NOR did GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...


Um, that last part. You'll get no argument from me.

How about you actually bone up on what is being discussed before putting your oar in? Otherwise you look sillier than usual....


----------



## Dr Grump

The T said:


> i don't give a tinkers DAMN what YOU think. And *I* am So far fucking above YOU you couldn't handle it.
> 
> And precisely WHY YOU answer what you do...YOU  ASSUME.
> 
> I could run rings around you before YOu ever knew what happened...and I did just that.



Sure you did...<wink>...


----------



## Neotrotsky

*"You didn't get there on your own" *


----------



## The T

Dr Grump said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't give a tinkers DAMN what YOU think. And *I* am So far fucking above YOU you couldn't handle it.
> 
> And precisely WHY YOU answer what you do...YOU ASSUME.
> 
> I could run rings around you before YOu ever knew what happened...and I did just that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did...<wink>...
Click to expand...

 
Did you WINK at me? Really?

Again? I restate.

IDIOT


----------



## thereisnospoon

Dr Grump said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> 
> It's NOT about "the commons" -- it's about the "collective".. Again -- he set the tone by trying to make the Collectivist argument that ALL Labor and ALL contributions are equal "because a lot of folks work hard".. It's not what he said about roads and bridges. It was his attempt to measure contributions in equal Buckets O' Sweat.. That anyone that sweats and has a brain gets equal credit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said no such thing....
> Did you actually listen to the whole vid, or just cherry pick? Seriously?
Click to expand...


Ahh yes. The old "you cherry pick" argument. Horseradish.
Your side cannot stand it when one of yours gets caught in a web of their own words.


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can listen to his remarks for themselves, so it's stupid for you to claim we didn't hear what we plainly heard.
> 
> Obama revealed his cloven hoof and accidentally told the world that he's a Marxist to the core.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cloven hoof? Now hes the anti christ?
> 
> and you expect ANYONE to take you seriously, nutjob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called a rhetorical flourish, nimrod.  It isn't meant to be taken literally.
Click to expand...


Hey based on the rest of your posts, nutjob, its not even a little stretch.  

Now go back to fingerpainting with your own feces, the nurse will be along in a minute with your meds.


----------



## Vidi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Obama wasn't speaking for "society".  He was speaking for GOVERNMENT.  And no, they aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> another idiot in desperate need of a civics class....sigh
> 
> 
> do you have any concept of what self governance means? at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of a republic, like this one, it means that we elect a bunch of people, who then hire a bunch of other people, and they run the government for us so that we don't have to devote our entire lives to casting ballots on every little fucking thing that comes along.
> 
> Sadly, in our case, it also means that we have allowed those elected people, and the bureaucrats they hired, to set themselves up as essentially a separate entity from the people governed, with a monstrous appetite for our money in order to shore up their power bases.
> 
> None of this has fuck-all to do with the self-evident fact that government is not society.  If YOU had ever taken a civics class, rather than assuming your dipshit leftist opinion constituted civics, you would know that government is, at best, a tool of society, and at worst, a burden upon it.  It IS NOT society.
Click to expand...


Wow, all I read is blah blah blah you live in fear of everything.

sad.


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Obama wasn't speaking for "society".  He was speaking for GOVERNMENT.  And no, they aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> another idiot in desperate need of a civics class....sigh
> 
> 
> do you have any concept of what self governance means? at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Self governance" is a euphemism for mob rule.
Click to expand...


Why do you hate America?


----------



## Vidi

bripat9643 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Now we get to the nut of the issue.  As we all knew from the beginning, this whole tirade is just a ploy to justify raising taxes.  What is the "this" we need to pay for?  Most of our taxes go to provide sustenance for parasites.  Very little goes to building roads and bridges.  What we really need to do is cut off the parasites.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off.
> 
> I'll never agree to turning over more of my paycheck to parasites.  You can go stick your head on the chopping block if you like, but you aren't taking me with you if I can do anything about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical selfish America hating response.
> 
> Keep up the good work, Kingsman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no facts or logic to support your case.
Click to expand...


No it means I cannot argue with crazy...( hint:thats you )


----------



## Vidi

Mac1958 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's off-the-cuff remarks are consistent with his theme of more government and Joe Biden's statement that "paying taxes is patriotic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a point that's being overlooked (gee, I wonder why).  Obama's comments were questionable if taken in a vacuum, but they fit right into the theme that Obama and the Democrats are anti-business.   It's a little tougher to believe the spin when taken in the larger context.
> 
> And then there is the passage that pissed me off, personally - "*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."
> 
> That's the President of the United States first putting words (bolded, to make it simple) into the mouths of business owners, and then mocking them for those words.  Does anyone else recall such a statement from a President?
> 
> You say you know what we think?  You don't.  You couldn't.
> 
> And business owners don't talk about what you claim.  I'm with them every day.  They're too busy trying to keep the doors open.
> 
> You can't spin an insult.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know, I've brought this up at least a couple of times now, and I can't get any of the spinners to provide a response.
> 
> I realize it can't be spun with the diversionary "roads and bridges" schtick, but can't you come up with something else here?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Im going to give you some credit there Mac.

Thats an interesting point. I will try to answer it.


Look at the arguments on this forum. Not just this thread but this forum.

"They WORKED for it" is a big one. "They EARNED it!" is another one along the same lines. Its said repeatedly by those that would defend the top 1% gaining 90+% ( I believe the stat is 93% but Im unsure ) of all new wealth created in this country. 

With so MANY on the right making that statement, is the President REALLY putting words in their mouths or is he simply answering the argument we've all heard so many times?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldnt agree with you more. Which is WHY I support a MAJOR raise in taxes. WE need to pay for this. Not our children or our grandchildren...US!
> 
> Look, since the Reagan years ( back in high school ) all I heard was how my generation was going to be the first to do worse than our parents because of the rising debt. And its only gotten worse. The Baby Boomers really fucked us, lets just be honest about that. They put everything on a credit card and pushed the bill onto the next generation...talk about taxation without representation huh?...well, that next generation is US.
> 
> It wont be easy. Hell, after world war 2 the top tax rate was 91%!!!!!!! Thats crazy, but thats what was required to get the country on track and turn it into the superpower that it became.
> 
> Now Im not saying we should go back to 91% by any means, but the difference is the "greatest generation" were willing to make the sacrifices neccessary to provide for the future of this great nation.
> 
> Are we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need "a MAJOR raise in taxes".  We don't need ANY raise in taxes.  What we need is disingenous, greedy assholes like you to stop hiding behind "roads and bridges" to justify trillions of dollars in spending on shit that has NOTHING to do with infrastructure, or ANY proper function of government.
> 
> Show us a MAJOR cut in frivolous spending, and then we'll talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> go back in my posts and find a single statement I made about being in favor of RAISING spending. ANYWHERE. ANY THREAD.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> Until you can find one, stop making assinine assumptions about who you think I am and what my political leanings may or may not be.
> 
> Go on. Find ONE statement I have made EVER in favor of raising spending!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Straw man.  Go find ONE statement where I EVER said you wanted to RAISE spending.  S'matter, dickbreath?  You don't understand English?


----------



## Cecilie1200

CrusaderFrank said:


> The "American" Left is going to cut and paste every speech Obama ever made.....yikes!



I already did that, and I can't imagine why Bfgrn thinks it makes his argument more valid.  The entire speech makes what Obama said sound WORSE, not better.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The T said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, an answer will do. I'd ask for a rational answer, but I must consider my audience.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but it would have taken a lot longer and probably returned inferior results - just as small business could achieve goals without roads, but with inferior resulst.
> 
> 
> 
> So, then you would have to agree that Obama is a blow hard who was talking shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Microsoft helped you get your intended result. IOW, you agree with Obama's analogy. Good, now we're getting somewhere....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, Uncensored took the TIME to write it WITH the program provided...ON HIS TIME.
> 
> Obama had ZERO to do with it, NOR did GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...


And he's not obligated to be overwhelmed with gratitude to Microsoft, either, since I am quite sure he legally bought and paid for the programs he used.

Only people who have never accomplished or achieved anything feel the need to give the credit to the tools, rather than the craftsman who wields them.

Of course, these are also people who think guns kill people, rather than the person pulling the trigger, so at least they're consistent.


----------



## Dr.House

Article 15 said:


> If they are neutral then by all means, please, go to an island without them and the rest of a civilized society, start a business and report back how well you have done without them.



Others have already done it...

Here's a few:

Turks and Caicos Meridian Club Caribbean Island Resort

Guana Island | Private Island Resort | British Virgin Islands | BVI

Palm Island St Vincent & The Grenadines Resort - Caribbean Island Vacation Resort


All private roads...  Amazing....


----------



## Cecilie1200

Vidi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> another idiot in desperate need of a civics class....sigh
> 
> 
> do you have any concept of what self governance means? at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of a republic, like this one, it means that we elect a bunch of people, who then hire a bunch of other people, and they run the government for us so that we don't have to devote our entire lives to casting ballots on every little fucking thing that comes along.
> 
> Sadly, in our case, it also means that we have allowed those elected people, and the bureaucrats they hired, to set themselves up as essentially a separate entity from the people governed, with a monstrous appetite for our money in order to shore up their power bases.
> 
> None of this has fuck-all to do with the self-evident fact that government is not society.  If YOU had ever taken a civics class, rather than assuming your dipshit leftist opinion constituted civics, you would know that government is, at best, a tool of society, and at worst, a burden upon it.  It IS NOT society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, all I read is blah blah blah you live in fear of everything.
> 
> sad.
Click to expand...


Spoken like someone with nothing to say, and no balls to admit it.  Your surrender is duly noted.  You may go.


----------



## Neotrotsky

*"You didn't get there on your own"*

Solyndra


----------



## GuyPinestra

I just finished building an 8'X16' garden shed.

In Obama's world all the credit should go to Dewalt for making my tools, right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

GuyPinestra said:


> I just finished building an 8'X16' garden shed.
> 
> In Obama's world all the credit should go to Dewalt for making my tools, right?



And whoever grew the trees that became your lumber, yeah.  Oh, and OF COURSE, the government officials who issued you a building permit.


----------



## Dr Grump

GuyPinestra said:


> I just finished building an 8'X16' garden shed.
> 
> In Obama's world all the credit should go to Dewalt for making my tools, right?



Yeah, that's what he meant


----------



## Dr Grump

Cecilie1200 said:


> Only people who have never accomplished or achieved anything feel the need to give the credit to the tools, rather than the craftsman who wields them.



Oh really? So when those athletes thank their parents and coaches for getting them to training, then training them, feeding them, making sacrifices for them, then those parents and coaches have had no input? And they have accomplished nothing? Is that what you are saying? Really??


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dr Grump said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only people who have never accomplished or achieved anything feel the need to give the credit to the tools, rather than the craftsman who wields them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? So when those athletes thank their parents and coaches for getting them to training, then training them, feeding them, making sacrifices for them, then those parents and coaches have had no input? And they have accomplished nothing? Is that what you are saying? Really??
Click to expand...


The athletes appreciate the SACRIFICE made for them, can you tell me where the government has SACRIFICED for business owners? 

Well, other than the taxpayers they TAKE from, that is??


----------



## bripat9643

Vidi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm
> 
> another idiot in desperate need of a civics class....sigh
> 
> 
> do you have any concept of what self governance means? at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Self governance" is a euphemism for mob rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hate America?
Click to expand...


I don't.  I just hate our government and all the prehensile vermin that populate it.


----------



## thereisnospoon

GuyPinestra said:


> I just finished building an 8'X16' garden shed.
> 
> In Obama's world all the credit should go to Dewalt for making my tools, right?



Nope..To the politicians that run the local government that issued the building and other permits....THEY get the credit for your shed.


----------



## francoHFW

ALL Pure Pubcrappe, dupes.

"This great American system, these roads and bridges- you didn't do that." is what he said, MORONS.


----------



## Mac1958

Vidi said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a point that's being overlooked (gee, I wonder why).  Obama's comments were questionable if taken in a vacuum, but they fit right into the theme that Obama and the Democrats are anti-business.   It's a little tougher to believe the spin when taken in the larger context.
> 
> And then there is the passage that pissed me off, personally - "*I&#8217;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 &#8212; there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."
> 
> That's the President of the United States first putting words (bolded, to make it simple) into the mouths of business owners, and then mocking them for those words.  Does anyone else recall such a statement from a President?
> 
> You say you know what we think?  You don't.  You couldn't.
> 
> And business owners don't talk about what you claim.  I'm with them every day.  They're too busy trying to keep the doors open.
> 
> You can't spin an insult.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know, I've brought this up at least a couple of times now, and I can't get any of the spinners to provide a response.
> 
> I realize it can't be spun with the diversionary "roads and bridges" schtick, but can't you come up with something else here?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im going to give you some credit there Mac.
> 
> Thats an interesting point. I will try to answer it.
> 
> 
> Look at the arguments on this forum. Not just this thread but this forum.
> 
> "They WORKED for it" is a big one. "They EARNED it!" is another one along the same lines. Its said repeatedly by those that would defend the top 1% gaining 90+% ( I believe the stat is 93% but Im unsure ) of all new wealth created in this country.
> 
> With so MANY on the right making that statement, is the President REALLY putting words in their mouths or is he simply answering the argument we've all heard so many times?
Click to expand...



Thanks for the response, Vidi.  I was beginning to think this was just going to avoided permanently.  The avoidance already tells me quite a bit.

Certainly not all business owners are on the Right, though.  I don't have any polls or figures, but I've never noticed a preponderance in that direction.  Along those lines, by the way, I think the right-wingers overdo claims of the damage that would be done to job creators by returning to the 39.6% top marginal tax rate, by the way.  Significantly.  But that's for another thread.

Now that you mention it, if Obama thinks that most business owners are conservative, that just seems weird .  The passage really sticks out to me - he clearly infers that business owners (party affiliation irrelevant) have a bloated and undeserved view of their importance to their business.  This makes it easy to knock down that straw man.

Y'know, in a way, conceiving and nurturing and growing a business has many similarities to being a parent, both good and bad.  I've worked pretty hard to raise my children, and I wouldn't appreciate it if some politician made some sweeping mockery of parenthood to make political points.  It's like a politician saying, "well, parents have too high an opinion of their importance in their children's lives."  Well, wait a minute.  Yes, society plays a big role, but I changed her diapers and walked with her all night when she was sick and sacrificed my wants so she could have stuff and suffered with her when someone broke her heart.  All happily, she's my kid.  Cripes, there are other influences in her life, obviously, but you don't need to mock my efforts.  That's how this feels.

I'm sure as hell not a right-winger, I just really hate straw man arguments like this, especially from (ugh) politicians.  I'm neck-deep in that stuff every day, and as I've said, business owners aren't asking for sympathy or thanks or a crutch, but we'd definitely appreciate it if the President didn't mock us.

Anyway, thanks again.

.


----------



## Dr Grump

GuyPinestra said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only people who have never accomplished or achieved anything feel the need to give the credit to the tools, rather than the craftsman who wields them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? So when those athletes thank their parents and coaches for getting them to training, then training them, feeding them, making sacrifices for them, then those parents and coaches have had no input? And they have accomplished nothing? Is that what you are saying? Really??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The athletes appreciate the SACRIFICE made for them, can you tell me where the government has SACRIFICED for business owners?
> 
> Well, other than the taxpayers they TAKE from, that is??
Click to expand...


Take it up with Cesspit...


----------



## Listening

Why doesn't Obama quit building roads and bridges.;

Let's see what happens ?

My guess is that people will figure out how to survive without him.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that they do whatever they do better and cheaper than he thinks he can do it.


----------



## Listening

Mac1958 said:


> Along those lines, by the way, I think the right-wingers overdo claims of the damage that would be done to job creators by returning to the 39.6% top marginal tax rate, by the way.  Significantly.



Damage ?

The damage isn't in the numbers, but then neither is the impact.  Increasing taxes on the rich hardly makes a dent in our debt.

I'll vote to raise taxes on the rich, the day Harry Ried can produce 4 dollars of real spending cuts for ever 1 dollar of increased revenue.

My guess is that the wealthy will have less problem paying more to a government they see responsible as opposed to one that seems quite willing to freely give out money to people so they can buy alcohol on the government dime.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> ALL Pure Pubcrappe, dupes.
> 
> "This great American system, these roads and bridges- you didn't do that." is what he said, MORONS.



Even if that were true (and you know damn well it is not) - that is equally insulting. Since we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, how exactly does Obama figure that he and his Marxist commrades built all of this but business owners and hard working Capitalists didn't?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> So Microsoft helped you get your intended result.



No Gump, they didn't. Microsoft created a toolkit that offers a foundational infrastructure that anyone can use to aid the development of programs. 

Just as societies form and create common infrastructure that offers a foundation that anyone in that society can use to build a business. Only a drooling fool would claim that Microsoft built the end program, or that Government created the business. Obama's idiotic class warfare is absurd in every regard. Obama formulates his speeches for the stupid, which are his core constituency.



> IOW, you agree with Obama's analogy. Good, now we're getting somewhere....



Gump, stick to shagging sheep, you have no aptitude for debate.


----------



## Foxfyre

All you need to do to refute the President's argument on this issue is to look at Americans and American businesses.

EVERY American born into the same neighborhood in the same year as the businessman enjoyed at least some of the same parenting, the same education, the same occasional 'help along the way', the same infrastructure, and the same public services as everybody else.  But a relatively small percentage of those Americans who 'were all in it together had the incentive, drive, creativity, or capacity for risk taking to start and build a business.

This group of Americans probably represent many different races and religions and political ideologies.  As Mac pointed out, one's political dispensation is not really a factor into whether he or she takes the risks to go into business.

But if the businessman's success is purely because 'we're all working together', then why doesn't everybody have a business?  If the businessman can't take credit for the business he built, what was the incentive of everybody else who built it for him and not themselves?

The more you think about it, the more absurd it becomes.


----------



## Some Guy

Foxfyre said:


> All you need to do to refute the President's argument on this issue is to look at Americans and American businesses.
> 
> EVERY American born into the same neighborhood in the same year as the businessman enjoyed at least some of the same parenting, the same education, the same occasional 'help along the way', the same infrastructure, and the same public services as everybody else.  But a relatively small percentage of those Americans who 'were all in it together had the incentive, drive, creativity, or capacity for risk taking to start and build a business.
> 
> This group of Americans probably represent many different races and religions and political ideologies.  As Mac pointed out, one's political dispensation is not really a factor into whether he or she takes the risks to go into business.
> 
> But if the businessman's success is purely because 'we're all working together', then why doesn't everybody have a business?  If the businessman can't take credit for the business he built, what was the incentive of everybody else who built it for him and not themselves?
> 
> The more you think about it, the more absurd it becomes.



Good point.  So simple and common sense but well articulated. I have to remind myself sometimes that some people either don't know or don't comprehend even the simplest of things such as this.


----------



## flacaltenn

THat section of the speech was pure Collectivist primer.. 

You could take it out of the WH wrapper and it would sound exactly like Noah Chomsky or Michael Moore...


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Microsoft helped you get your intended result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Gump, they didn't. Microsoft created a toolkit that offers a foundational infrastructure that anyone can use to aid the development of programs.
> 
> Just as societies form and create common infrastructure that offers a foundation that anyone in that society can use to build a business. Only a drooling fool would claim that Microsoft built the end program, or that Government created the business. Obama's idiotic class warfare is absurd in every regard. Obama formulates his speeches for the stupid, which are his core constituency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you agree with Obama's analogy. Good, now we're getting somewhere....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gump, stick to shagging sheep, you have no aptitude for debate.
Click to expand...


I didn't see Obama saying anything about the infrastructure helping you people build anything, but it helped them along the way. The US govt invested heavily in, and supported, the building of the internet. Without that your apps would be useless. Without Microsoft you wouldn't have been able to build that app. Does Microsoft deserve credit for you building your app? No. That's on you. Does it deserve credit for giving you the tools to create the app? Abosutely. That is what I see..

Oh the irony...the guy who supports anybody but Obama and therefore the Republican party that gave us such brain surgeons as Dumbya, Palin and Quayle - three of the dumbest politicians to ever be anywhere in the world - says that Obama's speeches are for the dumb...

You telling me I have no apptitude for debate is like Eric The Eel telling Michael Phelps he can't swim.


----------



## oreo

francoHFW said:


> ALL Pure Pubcrappe, dupes.
> 
> "This great American system, these roads and bridges- you didn't do that." is what he said, MORONS.



The White House is in full PANIC mode over this:



> In his regular weekly address Saturday, President Barack Obama asserted that &#8220;we&#8217;re still paying&#8221; for the Bush tax cuts. It was a not-so-subtle jab aimed at blaming tax reductions enacted a decade ago for today&#8217;s bad economy. But desperate times require desperate measures, and the White House is desperate to divert the voters&#8217; attention from Obama&#8217;s failed policies and his infamous &#8220;you didn&#8217;t build that&#8221; remarks disparaging Americans entrepreneurs, successful business owners and job creators.
> 
> The White House has been in damage control mode ever since those remarks, and Friday&#8217;s report showing the economy grew at an anemic 1.5 percent in the last quarter only added to the urgency of Obama&#8217;s re-election campaign to find a way to change the subject. The main thrust of Obama&#8217;s defenders is that his comments were taken out of context. Here&#8217;s what he said:
> 
> &#8220;[L]ook, if you&#8217;ve been successful, you didn&#8217;t get there on your own. You didn&#8217;t get there on your own. I&#8217;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 &#8212; there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
> 
> *&#8220;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&#8217;ve got a business &#8212; you didn&#8217;t build that. Somebody else made that happen.&#8221;*
> 
> In context, it&#8217;s devastating. Obama is indicted by his own words, condescending to small-business owners and elevating government as the wellspring of all success. If that&#8217;s so, why can&#8217;t government help all the smart and hardworking among us pull down 1 percent incomes? After all, any of us smart, hardworking individuals could have come up with the iPhone, right?
> 
> It takes more than smarts and long hours. Sometimes it begins with a simple ambition: I want to be my own boss. Or it&#8217;s an idea: a computer in every home. Starting a business involves a daunting risk &#8212; sinking every penny you have in your dream, abandoning the safety net of a 9-to-5 job, focusing to the exclusion of all else on what it takes to realize that dream. It&#8217;s a lonely quest. No, government does not make that happen.
> 
> What does make it possible is good governance &#8212; a society committed to the rule of law, property rights, reasonable taxes and dependable fiscal policy. Yet, Obama displays a cavalier attitude to those principles.
> 
> For political purposes, he refuses to enforce an immigration law and packs the NLRB to get around Congress to rewrite union election rules. In the auto industry bailout, he elevated the interests of his union allies over the bondholders in these corporations, an affront to property rights. He rejected the reasonable tax reform proposed by his own deficit reduction commission to pursue redistributive tax policies inimical to job growth. The uncertainties generated by his massive expansion of government with laws such as ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank have frozen all sorts of business investment.
> 
> Either Obama doesn&#8217;t understand the free-market system or he has disdain for it because it doesn&#8217;t meet his standard for &#8220;fairness.&#8221; *Either way, it translates into policies that have turned this recovery into the weakest in modern history, keeping millions of Americans jobless.* Voters have a fateful decision to make in November.


Obama insults small-business owners - Chicago Sun-Times






"If you have no record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Uncensored2008 said:


> Obama formulates his speeches for the stupid, which are his core constituency.



well, there is some dispute about that. Some feel the core is more mentally ill than stupid. According to Dr. Rossiter they are like children who as grown ups seek to replace their parents with a government that will provide for them much like their parents once did. 

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness [Paperback] 
Jr. M.D., Lyle H. Rossiter (Author), George Foster (Cover Design), Bob Spear (Designer


----------



## Bfgrn

The T said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And not to mention long, dull, quite frankly _boring_ posts. He hasn't learned the old Shakespearean Axiom that tells us that _brevity is the sould of wit._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the posts, but find them difficult to respond to. There is so much B.S. in one place.
> 
> I'd prefer to handle them more part by part. But then Bf gets all bent out of shape. Seems he can't index to anything that does not look like his manual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, and why I tend to ignore his tripe.
Click to expand...


Yea, you folks wouldn't want any facts or truth to disturb your dogma, doctrinaire or parroting script...


----------



## OODA_Loop

Bfgrn said:


> Yea, you folks wouldn't want any facts or truth to disturb your dogma, doctrinaire or parroting script...



My truth is getting up and working hard to feed my family.

It has been harder and harder to do that under Obama.

Out of the two choices there really is nothing to lose with Romeny.

It can only get better.


----------



## Neotrotsky

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you folks wouldn't want any facts or truth to disturb your dogma, doctrinaire or parroting script...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My truth is getting up and working hard to feed my family.
> 
> It has been harder and harder to do that under Obama.
> 
> Out of the two choices there really is nothing to lose with Romeny.
> 
> It can only get better.
Click to expand...


Under Papa Obama's policies for the middle class

Work two jobs 
so someone else does not have to work


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
> John Kenneth Galbraith



1) capitalism is really selfish in that it makes you serve others with the best price and quality in the entire world or go bankrupt. 

2) "On praising communism (or, "socialism with tears"), Galbraith was without peer among intellectuals. For example, who can forget his infamous 1984 quote that the communist system in the former Soviet Union was superior to capitalism because, according to Galbraith, the communists somehow made better and more efficient use of its "manpower" than did the West? Indeed, to the very end, Galbraith was a socialist impersonating an economist."


See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, very slow!!! Is any other conclusion possible???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Yea, you folks wouldn't want any facts or truth to disturb your dogma, doctrinaire or parroting script...




if its merely dogma it ought to be easy to refute; why not defeat its central principle right now or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.


----------



## Bfgrn

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you folks wouldn't want any facts or truth to disturb your dogma, doctrinaire or parroting script...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My truth is getting up and working hard to feed my family.
> 
> It has been harder and harder to do that under Obama.
> 
> Out of the two choices there really is nothing to lose with Romeny.
> 
> It can only get better.
Click to expand...


You have a lot to lose. But the people I am most concerned about are the people in this nation who can't get up and work hard anymore or not yet. It is something I just can't understand about conservatives. As a liberal, I do not support lazy people collecting government checks. I have never heard a liberal support laziness. But THOSE people are a minority and they are are not the ones who will be hurt the most by cutting, eliminating or privatizing social programs.


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you folks wouldn't want any facts or truth to disturb your dogma, doctrinaire or parroting script...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if its merely dogma it ought to be easy to refute; why not defeat its central principle right now or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.
Click to expand...


That's what I've been doing ed, and you continue your ignorant drone.


----------



## Neotrotsky

*"You didn't get there on your own"*

Solyndra


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
> John Kenneth Galbraith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) capitalism is really selfish in that it makes you serve others with the best price and quality in the entire world or go bankrupt.
> 
> 2) "On praising communism (or, "socialism with tears"), Galbraith was without peer among intellectuals. For example, who can forget his infamous 1984 quote that the communist system in the former Soviet Union was superior to capitalism because, according to Galbraith, the communists somehow made better and more efficient use of its "manpower" than did the West? Indeed, to the very end, Galbraith was a socialist impersonating an economist."
> 
> 
> See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, very slow!!! Is any other conclusion possible???
Click to expand...


Where is a link there ed, or is plagiarism part of your lack of honesty?

John Kenneth Galbraith was a brilliant man, and had President Kennedy lived, Galbraith would have been the driving force behind withdrawal from Vietnam in 1965 (as JFK planned) instead of LBJ's Americanization of the war, escalation that led to the deaths of 60,000 American soldiers.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> I am most concerned about are the people in this nation



you're a morality bigot!! You think you are morally superior but have no reason




Bfgrn said:


> I have never heard a liberal support laziness.



too stupid!!!! When Newt forced Clinton to "end welfare as we know it" by making folks work a little for their money 86% suddenly disappeared!!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> John Kenneth Galbraith was a brilliant man, and had President Kennedy lived, Galbraith would have been the driving force behind withdrawal from Vietnam in 1965 (as JFK planned) instead of LBJ's Americanization of the war, escalation that led to the deaths of 60,000 American soldiers.



so???? a lot got killed fighting Hitler too? Does the liberal embrace all of America's enemies? Is that why the liberal spied for Stalin?


----------



## Neotrotsky

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Kenneth Galbraith was a brilliant man, and had President Kennedy lived, Galbraith would have been the driving force behind withdrawal from Vietnam in 1965 (as JFK planned) instead of LBJ's Americanization of the war, escalation that led to the deaths of 60,000 American soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so???? a lot got killed fighting Hitler too? Does the liberal embrace all of America's enemies? Is that why the liberal spied for Stalin?
Click to expand...


Using the Left's "logic"
it must have been "conservative liberals" who spied for the communists



More bad attempts by the left to cover for the horrific failures of the Left


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> John Kenneth Galbraith was a brilliant man,




"On praising communism (or, "socialism with tears"), Galbraith was without peer among intellectuals. For example, who can forget his infamous 1984 quote that the communist system in the former Soviet Union was superior to capitalism because, according to Galbraith, the communists somehow made better and more efficient use of its "manpower" than did the West? Indeed, to the very end, Galbraith was a socialist impersonating an economist."

"the goal of socialism is communism"- Lenin


See why we are positive a liberal will be just plain slow!!!! Do you ever say anything that doesn't immediately make you look very very slow?? FYI the Soviet Union fell long ago having never achieved more than 30% of our per capita GDP, and that was after stealing everything from the west to copy. How old are you??


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Kenneth Galbraith was a brilliant man, and had President Kennedy lived, Galbraith would have been the driving force behind withdrawal from Vietnam in 1965 (as JFK planned) instead of LBJ's Americanization of the war, escalation that led to the deaths of 60,000 American soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so???? a lot got killed fighting Hitler too? Does the liberal embrace all of America's enemies? Is that why the liberal spied for Stalin?
Click to expand...


How low can you go there ed. Galbraith was not a spy for Stalin. 

If you want to get to know Stalin's comrades, take a close look at the biggest backers of the tea party.

 A Peoples History of Koch Industries: How Stalin Funded the Tea Party Movement

Everyone knows that Tea Party revolutionaries fear and hate socialism about as much as the Antichrist. Which is funny, because the Tea Party movements dirty little secret is that it owes its existence to the grandaddy of all Antichrists: the godless empire of the USSR.

What few realize is that the secretive oil billionaires of the Koch family, the main supporters of the right-wing groups that orchestrated the Tea Party movement, would not have the means to bankroll their favorite causes had it not been for the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.

The comrades were good to the Kochs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> [
> How low can you go there ed. Galbraith was not a spy for Stalin.



If I said he was I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??? or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs. Bet??? Feel foolish??


----------



## Neotrotsky

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Kenneth Galbraith was a brilliant man, and had President Kennedy lived, Galbraith would have been the driving force behind withdrawal from Vietnam in 1965 (as JFK planned) instead of LBJ's Americanization of the war, escalation that led to the deaths of 60,000 American soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so???? a lot got killed fighting Hitler too? Does the liberal embrace all of America's enemies? Is that why the liberal spied for Stalin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How low can you go there ed. Galbraith was not a spy for Stalin.
> 
> If you want to get to know Stalin's comrades, take a close look at the biggest backers of the tea party.
> 
> A Peoples History of Koch Industries: How Stalin Funded the Tea Party Movement
> 
> Everyone knows that Tea Party revolutionaries fear and hate socialism about as much as the Antichrist. Which is funny, because the Tea Party movements dirty little secret is that it owes its existence to the grandaddy of all Antichrists: the godless empire of the USSR.
> 
> What few realize is that the secretive oil billionaires of the Koch family, the main supporters of the right-wing groups that orchestrated the Tea Party movement, would not have the means to bankroll their favorite causes had it not been for the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.
> 
> The comrades were good to the Kochs.
Click to expand...



Soros Jewish family was good to the Nazis


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> the Tea Party movements dirty little secret is that it owes its existence to the grandaddy of all Antichrists: the godless empire of the USSR.



1) its not true

2) if it was so what??? Modern Germany owes its existence to Nazi Germany


see why we say, slow???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> if its merely dogma it ought to be easy to refute; why not defeat its central principle right now or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.



That's what I've been doing ed, and you continue your ignorant drone.[/QUOTE]

Why be so afraid to give us your best example of defeating our founders central principle??? What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character.


----------



## Foxfyre

Neotrotsky said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you folks wouldn't want any facts or truth to disturb your dogma, doctrinaire or parroting script...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My truth is getting up and working hard to feed my family.
> 
> It has been harder and harder to do that under Obama.
> 
> Out of the two choices there really is nothing to lose with Romeny.
> 
> It can only get better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under Papa Obama's policies for the middle class
> 
> Work two jobs
> so someone else does not have to work
Click to expand...


After all it isn't you working those jobs.  We're all in this together to make it possible for you to work those two jobs so someone else doesn't have to work.


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> if its merely dogma it ought to be easy to refute; why not defeat its central principle right now or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been doing ed, and you continue your ignorant drone.
Click to expand...


Why be so afraid to give us your best example of defeating our founders central principle??? What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character.[/QUOTE]

Our founder's seminal achievement on this planet can be expressed in one word. It is not corporation, it is not privatization, and it is not marketism...

It is government. 

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> if its merely dogma it ought to be easy to refute; why not defeat its central principle right now or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been doing ed, and you continue your ignorant drone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why be so afraid to give us your best example of defeating our founders central principle??? What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character.
Click to expand...


Our founder's seminal achievement on this planet can be expressed in one word. It is not corporation, it is not privatization, and it is not marketism...

It is government. 

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482[/QUOTE]

A Republic.

A limited or restricted federal government.

That is what they gave us.

The only issue is that you bastards don't seem to understand what restricted means.

You'd have Uncle Sam changing your depends if you could.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been doing ed, and you continue your ignorant drone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why be so afraid to give us your best example of defeating our founders central principle??? What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our founder's seminal achievement on this planet can be expressed in one word. It is not corporation, it is not privatization, and it is not marketism...
> 
> It is government.
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
Click to expand...


A Republic.

A limited or restricted federal government.

That is what they gave us.

The only issue is that you bastards don't seem to understand what restricted means.

You'd have Uncle Sam changing your depends if you could.[/QUOTE]

 I completely understand what restricted means. And I understand everything our founders were fearful of. It wasn't just too much government they were fearful of, it was malefactors of private wealth they were equally fearful of. That is something conservatives are completely oblivious to.

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an EXAMPLE of how those same men APPLIED all those principles in ACTUAL governance, it serves as the BEST example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

*Early laws regulating corporations in America*

    *Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

    *Corporations licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

    *The state legislature could revoke a corporations charter if it misbehaved.

    *The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

    *As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldnt break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were just doing their job when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

    *Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

    *Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

    *Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted in perpetuity, as is now the practice).

    *Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

    *Corporations real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

    *Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

    *Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

    *State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

    *All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was BIPARTISAN opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me


----------



## Listening

A limited government.

A restricted government.

No General Welfare.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> A limited government.
> 
> A restricted government.
> 
> No General Welfare.



Epic fail. Dogma alert...dogma alert....

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America." 
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." 
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## Listening

Listening said:


> A limited government.
> 
> A restricted government.
> 
> No General Welfare.



The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

From Federalist 45

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Seems Dwight was wrong....

The GOP is not only still around....it kicked ass in 2010.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> A limited government.
> 
> A restricted government.
> 
> No General Welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
> 
> The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.
> 
> From Federalist 45
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Seems Dwight was wrong....
> 
> The GOP is not only still around....it kicked ass in 2010.
Click to expand...


Try it asshole, it will be the end of the Republican party. I guarantee it.

Let me ask you a question. What would happen to elderly Americans if Medicare and Social Security were ended, or if benefits were cut drastically? Do those Americans have the ability to generate additional income?

Your story about friends wanting to open a travel agency and that Obama must go because of their problems...WHAT did the federal government have to do with it? It was STATE, LOCAL and COUNTY governments that caused their problems.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Seems Dwight was wrong....
> 
> The GOP is not only still around....it kicked ass in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try it asshole, it will be the end of the Republican party. I guarantee it.
Click to expand...


Sorry dickweed....

We are here and 2012 is looking pretty good.



Bfgrn said:


> Let me ask you a question. What would happen to elderly Americans if Medicare and Social Security were ended, or if benefits were cut drastically? Do those Americans have the ability to generate additional income?



Hey piss-for-brains,

Why can't you climb out of your small box.  There are many ways to end this travesty that would have no impact on today's seniors.

You are 100% TOOL.



Bfgrn said:


> Your story about friends wanting to open a travel agency and that Obama must go because of their problems...WHAT did the federal government have to do with it? It was STATE, LOCAL and COUNTY governments that caused their problems.



That is right.

Not only didn't they not build that...they got in the way.

Obama fail.

What was your argument ?  That the federal government is any different.  Sorry, skidmark, there are all kinds of examples of that...and even reaching into a small travel agency in small town, U.S.A., the federal government did cause issues.


----------



## flacaltenn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Tea Party movement&#8217;s dirty little secret is that it owes its existence to the grandaddy of all Antichrists: the godless empire of the USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) its not true
> 
> 2) if it was so what??? Modern Germany owes its existence to Nazi Germany
> 
> 
> see why we say, slow???
Click to expand...


BFgrn has gone off the deep end.. He's now competing with Glenn Beck for putting the most arrows on a chalkboard. Calling the Koch Grandpa a Commie hater, giving him credit for starting the John Birchers AND THEN (without any shame, embarrassment or dislocated elbows) he ties the Tea Party, Reason Magazine and the addition that the Koch Bros built onto Lincoln Center to STALIN thru the same guy... 

Excuse me a minute... 

    

This reminds of folks who tried to tie Averil Harriman (former Gov of NY, prominent Democrat ) to the Nazis because his bank was assigned WWI German Assets to manage. *ACTUALLY it was DEMS tying GW Bush to the Nazis thru his FATHER who merely WORKED for Averill Harriman at the bank.. *

C'mon --- You did THAT ONE TOO --- didn''t you? Admit it.... 

OMG --- You can't think beyond partisian and conspiracy theories. Not only are you locked in the past with no way out -- you have no common sense or sense of proportion in making ABSURB conspiratorial Tin Foil Hat allegations. 

Don't bother replying to this because I'm not gonna waste any time debating this nonsense.
Especially for the sake of the Tea Party. They will kick your ass well themselves.

The Koch Bros have saved and enriched MORE lives than you have ever talked to. 

And just because you hate their hate their politics, you'd overlook that wouldn't you slimeball?


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Tea Party movement&#8217;s dirty little secret is that it owes its existence to the grandaddy of all Antichrists: the godless empire of the USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) its not true
> 
> 2) if it was so what??? Modern Germany owes its existence to Nazi Germany
> 
> 
> see why we say, slow???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BFgrn has gone off the deep end.. He's now competing with Glenn Beck for putting the most arrows on a chalkboard. Calling the Koch Grandpa a Commie hater, giving him credit for starting the John Birchers AND THEN (without any shame, embarrassment or dislocated elbows) he ties the Tea Party, Reason Magazine and the addition that the Koch Bros built onto Lincoln Center to STALIN thru the same guy...
> 
> Excuse me a minute...
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds of folks who tried to tie Averil Harriman (former Gov of NY, prominent Democrat ) to the Nazis because his bank was assigned WWI German Assets to manage. *ACTUALLY it was DEMS tying GW Bush to the Nazis thru his FATHER who merely WORKED for Averill Harriman at the bank.. *
> 
> C'mon --- You did THAT ONE TOO --- didn''t you? Admit it....
> 
> OMG --- You can't think beyond partisian and conspiracy theories. Not only are you locked in the past with no way out -- you have no common sense or sense of proportion in making ABSURB conspiratorial Tin Foil Hat allegations.
> 
> Don't bother replying to this because I'm not gonna waste any time debating this nonsense.
> Especially for the sake of the Tea Party. They will kick your ass well themselves.
> 
> The Koch Bros have saved and enriched MORE lives than you have ever talked to.
> 
> And just because you hate their hate their politics, you'd overlook that wouldn't you slimeball?
Click to expand...



It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

The fact remains that Grandpa Koch took Stalin's money and made piles of cash laying the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure in the 1920s and early 1930s. He designed and built refineries, hosted Soviet engineers for training in Wichita, Kansas, and made an invaluable contribution to the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin&#8217;s first Five-Year Plan. This is a touchy issue for the Koch family: without the Commie Reds providing his future seed capital, Koch Industries would not exist today.

Your heroes are the slimeballs. They are one of the worst polluters on the planet. But I guess human life means little to the modern day Pharisee.

Koch Industries&#8217; history of bypassing, breaking rules includes sales to Iran


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) its not true
> 
> 2) if it was so what??? Modern Germany owes its existence to Nazi Germany
> 
> 
> see why we say, slow???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BFgrn has gone off the deep end.. He's now competing with Glenn Beck for putting the most arrows on a chalkboard. Calling the Koch Grandpa a Commie hater, giving him credit for starting the John Birchers AND THEN (without any shame, embarrassment or dislocated elbows) he ties the Tea Party, Reason Magazine and the addition that the Koch Bros built onto Lincoln Center to STALIN thru the same guy...
> 
> Excuse me a minute...
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds of folks who tried to tie Averil Harriman (former Gov of NY, prominent Democrat ) to the Nazis because his bank was assigned WWI German Assets to manage. *ACTUALLY it was DEMS tying GW Bush to the Nazis thru his FATHER who merely WORKED for Averill Harriman at the bank.. *
> 
> C'mon --- You did THAT ONE TOO --- didn''t you? Admit it....
> 
> OMG --- You can't think beyond partisian and conspiracy theories. Not only are you locked in the past with no way out -- you have no common sense or sense of proportion in making ABSURB conspiratorial Tin Foil Hat allegations.
> 
> Don't bother replying to this because I'm not gonna waste any time debating this nonsense.
> Especially for the sake of the Tea Party. They will kick your ass well themselves.
> 
> The Koch Bros have saved and enriched MORE lives than you have ever talked to.
> 
> And just because you hate their hate their politics, you'd overlook that wouldn't you slimeball?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
> Albert Camus
> 
> The fact remains that Grandpa Koch took Stalin's money and made piles of cash laying the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure in the 1920s and early 1930s. He designed and built refineries, hosted Soviet engineers for training in Wichita, Kansas, and made an invaluable contribution to the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalins first Five-Year Plan. This is a touchy issue for the Koch family: without the Commie Reds providing his future seed capital, Koch Industries would not exist today.
> 
> Your heroes are the slimeballs. They are one of the worst polluters on the planet. But I guess human life means little to the modern day Pharisee.
> 
> Koch Industries history of bypassing, breaking rules includes sales to Iran
Click to expand...


Koch didn't do that....somebody else did.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
> Albert Camus
> 
> The fact remains that Grandpa Koch took Stalin's money and made piles of cash laying the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure in the 1920s and early 1930s. He designed and built refineries, hosted Soviet engineers for training in Wichita, Kansas, and made an invaluable contribution to the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalins first Five-Year Plan. This is a touchy issue for the Koch family: without the Commie Reds providing his future seed capital, Koch Industries would not exist today.
> 
> Your heroes are the slimeballs. They are one of the worst polluters on the planet. But I guess human life means little to the modern day Pharisee.



The Koch brothers are not their grandfather.  Furthermore, unlike Joe kennedy, Grandpa Koch made his money legally.  The Soviet Union was not our enemy in the 1920s and 1930s, and it was only one of the customers of Koch's firm.  Many other U.S. firms sold their products and services to the Soviet Union.  All the people you idolize who lived during the that period supported the Soviet Union.  They did everything they could to help the Soviet Union.  You look quite idiotic attacking the Kochs for doing business with a company that all your liberal heroes from the 1930s idolized.

Oil is only a small party of Koch industries, but nevertheless it's a product that's necessary for our civilization to function.  Human life depends on the product Koch industries produces.  Only environmental nutburgers like you think refining it makes you a "slimeball."


----------



## Foxfyre

I'm pretty sure that if one or two of our friends here didn't have a couple of hate sites favorited and didn't know how to cut and paste, they wouldn't be able to participate at all.  

Unfortunately such people don't read what they cut and paste well enough to address the topic or make a coherant response to the challenges other offer them.  Sigh.

Oh well.  Once again dragging the train back onto the track.   We don't want to lose focus of the very real advantage the President has handed us, folks.  In that now infamous speech, he uncharacteristically lowered his shields and let us see what he really is and what his goals really are.

He gave us some of the best ammunition yet to use in electing far less authoritarian and far less dangerous leaders this coming November.

Let's don't lose sight of that prize.


----------



## saveliberty

I had the opportunity to visit a liberal board yesterday.  I was dumbfounded at the lack of understanding concerning economics and how a business operates.  In particular, they seemed absolutely convinced a business could just absorb costs and not pass them to consumers.  Also firmly believed most businesses were "gouging" consumers.

Drawing from that experience, Obama is really speaking directly to these liberals in the socialist language they not only understand but believe completely.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> I had the opportunity to visit a liberal board yesterday.  I was dumbfounded at the lack of understanding concerning economics and how a business operates.  In particular, they seemed absolutely convinced a business could just absorb costs and not pass them to consumers.  Also firmly believed most businesses were "gouging" consumers.
> 
> Drawing from that experience, Obama is really speaking directly to these liberals in the socialist language they not only understand but believe completely.



No doubt.  It's like some folks are short circuited somewhere in their thinking and are incapable of following a concept all the way from beginning to end.  They honestly are incapable of seeing the whole big picture of what goes into making a business successful.  I think the President is one of those 'short circuited' people.  It's that or else we have to see a much more ominous and sinister motive behind his game plan.

It is the disingenousness of it that become so frustrating.  Like in the recent 2-minute ad he put out begging for contributions to his campaign.  You can see it here at this site, but note the comments below the link to the video that illustrate the disconnect between the reality and the rhetoric.

Obama begs supporters for money in new campaign video


----------



## Newby

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the opportunity to visit a liberal board yesterday.  I was dumbfounded at the lack of understanding concerning economics and how a business operates.  In particular, they seemed absolutely convinced a business could just absorb costs and not pass them to consumers.  Also firmly believed most businesses were "gouging" consumers.
> 
> Drawing from that experience, Obama is really speaking directly to these liberals in the socialist language they not only understand but believe completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt.  It's like some folks are short circuited somewhere in their thinking and are incapable of following a concept all the way from beginning to end.  They honestly are incapable of seeing the whole big picture of what goes into making a business successful.  I think the President is one of those 'short circuited' people.  *It's that or else we have to see a much more ominous and sinister motive behind his game plan*.
> 
> It is the disingenousness of it that become so frustrating.  Like in the recent 2-minute ad he put out begging for contributions to his campaign.  You can see it here at this site, but note the comments below the link to the video that illustrate the disconnect between the reality and the rhetoric.
> 
> Obama begs supporters for money in new campaign video
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, I believe it's the second, I wish I could say otherwise.  But, when looking at how he was raised, his background, I believe what he wants for this country has nothing in common with what it was founded for.


----------



## Barb

Newby said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the opportunity to visit a liberal board yesterday.  I was dumbfounded at the lack of understanding concerning economics and how a business operates.  In particular, they seemed absolutely convinced a business could just absorb costs and not pass them to consumers.  Also firmly believed most businesses were "gouging" consumers.
> 
> Drawing from that experience, Obama is really speaking directly to these liberals in the socialist language they not only understand but believe completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt.  It's like some folks are short circuited somewhere in their thinking and are incapable of following a concept all the way from beginning to end.  They honestly are incapable of seeing the whole big picture of what goes into making a business successful.  I think the President is one of those 'short circuited' people.  *It's that or else we have to see a much more ominous and sinister motive behind his game plan*.
> 
> It is the disingenousness of it that become so frustrating.  Like in the recent 2-minute ad he put out begging for contributions to his campaign.  You can see it here at this site, but note the comments below the link to the video that illustrate the disconnect between the reality and the rhetoric.
> 
> Obama begs supporters for money in new campaign video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe it's the second, I wish I could say otherwise.  But, *when looking at how he was raised, his background, I believe what he wants for this country has nothing in common with what it was founded for.*
Click to expand...


You ass. Was it founded of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? That said, I guess our differences stem from who or WHAT people ARE. 

If you believe that people aren't people, but legal constructs that neither bleed like people, die like people, nor are bound by any other biological restriction HUMAN people are, then I'd say you are a whore, and considering your stance on this subject, we've already settled on your PRICE.


----------



## Listening

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
> Albert Camus
> 
> The fact remains that Grandpa Koch took Stalin's money and made piles of cash laying the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure in the 1920s and early 1930s. He designed and built refineries, hosted Soviet engineers for training in Wichita, Kansas, and made an invaluable contribution to the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalins first Five-Year Plan. This is a touchy issue for the Koch family: without the Commie Reds providing his future seed capital, Koch Industries would not exist today.
> 
> Your heroes are the slimeballs. They are one of the worst polluters on the planet. But I guess human life means little to the modern day Pharisee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Koch brothers are not their grandfather.  Furthermore, unlike Joe kennedy, Grandpa Koch made his money legally.  The Soviet Union was not our enemy in the 1920s and 1930s, and it was only one of the customers of Koch's firm.  Many other U.S. firms sold their products and services to the Soviet Union.  All the people you idolize who lived during the that period supported the Soviet Union.  They did everything they could to help the Soviet Union.  You look quite idiotic attacking the Kochs for doing business with a company that all your liberal heroes from the 1930s idolized.
> 
> Oil is only a small party of Koch industries, but nevertheless it's a product that's necessary for our civilization to function.  Human life depends on the product Koch industries produces.  Only environmental nutburgers like you think refining it makes you a "slimeball."
Click to expand...


Why does the left take things out of context so much and lie ?


----------



## Foxfyre

Listening said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
> Albert Camus
> 
> The fact remains that Grandpa Koch took Stalin's money and made piles of cash laying the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure in the 1920s and early 1930s. He designed and built refineries, hosted Soviet engineers for training in Wichita, Kansas, and made an invaluable contribution to the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalins first Five-Year Plan. This is a touchy issue for the Koch family: without the Commie Reds providing his future seed capital, Koch Industries would not exist today.
> 
> Your heroes are the slimeballs. They are one of the worst polluters on the planet. But I guess human life means little to the modern day Pharisee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Koch brothers are not their grandfather.  Furthermore, unlike Joe kennedy, Grandpa Koch made his money legally.  The Soviet Union was not our enemy in the 1920s and 1930s, and it was only one of the customers of Koch's firm.  Many other U.S. firms sold their products and services to the Soviet Union.  All the people you idolize who lived during the that period supported the Soviet Union.  They did everything they could to help the Soviet Union.  You look quite idiotic attacking the Kochs for doing business with a company that all your liberal heroes from the 1930s idolized.
> 
> Oil is only a small party of Koch industries, but nevertheless it's a product that's necessary for our civilization to function.  Human life depends on the product Koch industries produces.  Only environmental nutburgers like you think refining it makes you a "slimeball."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does the left take things out of context so much and lie ?
Click to expand...


Because when an important issue is going badly for them, one of their strategies is to disrupt the conversation using any number of tactics to do that including changing the subject.

Let's don't let them do that.

President Obama has shown his full colors in his intent to marginalize, discredit, and diminish American business so that he can continue to transfer more resources and power to the federal government.

Let's don't allow anybody divert our attention away from that truth.


----------



## Newby

Barb said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt.  It's like some folks are short circuited somewhere in their thinking and are incapable of following a concept all the way from beginning to end.  They honestly are incapable of seeing the whole big picture of what goes into making a business successful.  I think the President is one of those 'short circuited' people.  *It's that or else we have to see a much more ominous and sinister motive behind his game plan*.
> 
> It is the disingenousness of it that become so frustrating.  Like in the recent 2-minute ad he put out begging for contributions to his campaign.  You can see it here at this site, but note the comments below the link to the video that illustrate the disconnect between the reality and the rhetoric.
> 
> Obama begs supporters for money in new campaign video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe it's the second, I wish I could say otherwise.  But, *when looking at how he was raised, his background, I believe what he wants for this country has nothing in common with what it was founded for.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ass. Was it founded of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? That said, I guess our differences stem from who or WHAT people ARE.
> 
> If you believe that people aren't people, but legal constructs that neither bleed like people, die like people, nor are bound by any other biological restriction HUMAN people are, then I'd say you are a whore, and considering your stance on this subject, we've already settled on your PRICE.
Click to expand...


I hope someone knows what the hell you're talking about, cause I sure as hell don't.  If you're implying that Obama is 'for the people', you're far more sold out than I am lady.  The only 'people' you're for are the ones that seem to justify in your mind the taking of property from one set and bestowing it on another that you 'deem' worthy.  That's not what freedom and liberty are about.   You just whore yourself out to a different idealogy, and it's not what this country was founded on.

Obama is 100% about the state, and the power of the state over the people you profess to care about.


----------



## Listening

Newby said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe it's the second, I wish I could say otherwise.  But, *when looking at how he was raised, his background, I believe what he wants for this country has nothing in common with what it was founded for.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ass. Was it founded of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? That said, I guess our differences stem from who or WHAT people ARE.
> 
> If you believe that people aren't people, but legal constructs that neither bleed like people, die like people, nor are bound by any other biological restriction HUMAN people are, then I'd say you are a whore, and considering your stance on this subject, we've already settled on your PRICE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope someone knows what the hell you're talking about, cause I sure as hell don't.  If you're implying that Obama is 'for the people', you're far more sold out than I am lady.  The only 'people' you're for are the ones that seem to justify in your mind the taking of property from one set and bestowing it on another that you 'deem' worthy.  That's not what freedom and liberty are about.   You just whore yourself out to a different idealogy, and it's not what this country was founded on.
> 
> Obama is 100% about the state, and the power of the state over the people you profess to care about.
Click to expand...


Sure.

Because people didn't build that...somebody else did.

Who ?

Obama sounds more and more like Al Gore whose main words were "We know better than you do what is good for you."

I often don't even let my doctor say that to me and I trust her.


----------



## Barb

Newby said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe it's the second, I wish I could say otherwise.  But, *when looking at how he was raised, his background, I believe what he wants for this country has nothing in common with what it was founded for.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ass. Was it founded of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? That said, I guess our differences stem from who or WHAT people ARE.
> 
> If you believe that people aren't people, but legal constructs that neither bleed like people, die like people, nor are bound by any other biological restriction HUMAN people are, then I'd say you are a whore, and considering your stance on this subject, we've already settled on your PRICE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope someone knows what the hell you're talking about, cause I sure as hell don't.  If you're implying that Obama is 'for the people', you're far more sold out than I am lady.  The only 'people' you're for are the ones that seem to justify in your mind the taking of property from one set and bestowing it on another that you 'deem' worthy.  That's not what freedom and liberty are about.   You just whore yourself out to a different idealogy, and it's not what this country was founded on.
> 
> Obama is 100% about the state, and the power of the state over the people you profess to care about.
Click to expand...


You know perfectly well who, and WHAT I'm talking about, and which is which. So does listening. It doesn't read well with what you're spewing, but it is what it is. 

Things are either going to get better for the majority of Americans WHO have taken hit after hit during the last 30 some years, or those like you are going to start claiming you was with us all along. I hope your nose grows, and it's mulched for the community garden.


----------



## saveliberty

Barb said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt.  It's like some folks are short circuited somewhere in their thinking and are incapable of following a concept all the way from beginning to end.  They honestly are incapable of seeing the whole big picture of what goes into making a business successful.  I think the President is one of those 'short circuited' people.  *It's that or else we have to see a much more ominous and sinister motive behind his game plan*.
> 
> It is the disingenousness of it that become so frustrating.  Like in the recent 2-minute ad he put out begging for contributions to his campaign.  You can see it here at this site, but note the comments below the link to the video that illustrate the disconnect between the reality and the rhetoric.
> 
> Obama begs supporters for money in new campaign video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe it's the second, I wish I could say otherwise.  But, *when looking at how he was raised, his background, I believe what he wants for this country has nothing in common with what it was founded for.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ass. Was it founded of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? That said, I guess our differences stem from who or WHAT people ARE.
> 
> If you believe that people aren't people, but legal constructs that neither bleed like people, die like people, nor are bound by any other biological restriction HUMAN people are, then I'd say you are a whore, and considering your stance on this subject, we've already settled on your PRICE.
Click to expand...


Your ignoring that this a republic Barb.  Even Obama ran on changing a government that had become out of touch with the people, did things in secret and had left us with little hope.


----------



## saveliberty

Barb said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ass. Was it founded of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? That said, I guess our differences stem from who or WHAT people ARE.
> 
> If you believe that people aren't people, but legal constructs that neither bleed like people, die like people, nor are bound by any other biological restriction HUMAN people are, then I'd say you are a whore, and considering your stance on this subject, we've already settled on your PRICE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope someone knows what the hell you're talking about, cause I sure as hell don't.  If you're implying that Obama is 'for the people', you're far more sold out than I am lady.  The only 'people' you're for are the ones that seem to justify in your mind the taking of property from one set and bestowing it on another that you 'deem' worthy.  That's not what freedom and liberty are about.   You just whore yourself out to a different idealogy, and it's not what this country was founded on.
> 
> Obama is 100% about the state, and the power of the state over the people you profess to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know perfectly well who, and WHAT I'm talking about, and which is which. So does listening. It doesn't read well with what you're spewing, but it is what it is.
> 
> Things are either going to get better for the majority of Americans WHO have taken hit after hit during the last 30 some years, or those like you are going to start claiming you was with us all along. I hope your nose grows, and it's mulched for the community garden.
Click to expand...


It reads exactly like what it is.  A socialist has infested the White House.  The entitlement crowd has cheered and wants al the more than what they have.  No price is too high in achieving their ends.


----------



## Listening

Barb said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ass. Was it founded of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? That said, I guess our differences stem from who or WHAT people ARE.
> 
> If you believe that people aren't people, but legal constructs that neither bleed like people, die like people, nor are bound by any other biological restriction HUMAN people are, then I'd say you are a whore, and considering your stance on this subject, we've already settled on your PRICE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope someone knows what the hell you're talking about, cause I sure as hell don't.  If you're implying that Obama is 'for the people', you're far more sold out than I am lady.  The only 'people' you're for are the ones that seem to justify in your mind the taking of property from one set and bestowing it on another that you 'deem' worthy.  That's not what freedom and liberty are about.   You just whore yourself out to a different idealogy, and it's not what this country was founded on.
> 
> Obama is 100% about the state, and the power of the state over the people you profess to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know perfectly well who, and WHAT I'm talking about, and which is which. So does listening. It doesn't read well with what you're spewing, but it is what it is.
> 
> Things are either going to get better for the majority of Americans WHO have taken hit after hit during the last 30 some years, or those like you are going to start claiming you was with us all along. I hope your nose grows, and it's mulched for the community garden.
Click to expand...


Suck on Barb.

The fact is that the left has tried to make up the rules as it goes along.  I'd live to see a football field after the left.

They'd measure the height and weight of each team and then deduct players from the bigger team.  They'd also set back the kickoff line and put the goal posts back 20 yards further....all in the name of fairness.

The USC was written with people like Obama in mind.  That it it is doing it's job is only a testament to it's brilliance.  The Tea Party is the vanguard right now.

The only thing we need is a pooper scooper to pick up your posts.

And, I keep waiting for this lot of successful people to step forward and agree with him.  The last I checked most small business owners are pissed at him.  Gee, you think they'd be grateful since "somebody else built that".  Hell, they didn't even have to show up for work.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPEphrqTpNs]SchnittShow.com: You Built That Business, But Barack Says No - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

I'm sort of with Newby on this one.  I can't figure out what the hell Barb is saying or trying to say.

I do know that I built my business.  Hundreds of thousands of other people who enjoy the same infrastructure and government services I enjoy could have started the same business, but didn't.   That inconvenient truth is what makes President Obama's speech so absurd.   And so dishonest.


----------



## Barb

saveliberty said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe it's the second, I wish I could say otherwise.  But, *when looking at how he was raised, his background, I believe what he wants for this country has nothing in common with what it was founded for.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ass. Was it founded of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? That said, I guess our differences stem from who or WHAT people ARE.
> 
> If you believe that people aren't people, but legal constructs that neither bleed like people, die like people, nor are bound by any other biological restriction HUMAN people are, then I'd say you are a whore, and considering your stance on this subject, we've already settled on your PRICE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignoring that this a republic Barb.  Even Obama ran on changing a government that had become out of touch with the people, did things in secret and had left us with little hope.
Click to expand...


He's not my favorite democrat, neither was Clinton, for reasons a stained dress had nothing to do with. I'm talking to birthers here, the tea party elite, SL, do you REALLY believe these people have the first fucking clue what values, as that pertains to corporate power, THIS nation was founded on?

After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.   
The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.


----------



## Listening

Barb said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ass. Was it founded of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? That said, I guess our differences stem from who or WHAT people ARE.
> 
> If you believe that people aren't people, but legal constructs that neither bleed like people, die like people, nor are bound by any other biological restriction HUMAN people are, then I'd say you are a whore, and considering your stance on this subject, we've already settled on your PRICE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignoring that this a republic Barb.  Even Obama ran on changing a government that had become out of touch with the people, did things in secret and had left us with little hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not my favorite democrat, neither was Clinton, for reasons a stained dress had nothing to do with. I'm talking to birthers here, the tea party elite, SL, do you REALLY believe these people have the first fucking clue what values, as that pertains to corporate power, THIS nation was founded on?
> 
> After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
> Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.
> The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.
Click to expand...


And just who is arguing with you on this ?????

I hate corporations.  You can't tell where they end and big government starts.  They are in bed with each other so tight they only use one pillow.


----------



## Foxfyre

It is also a red herring thrown into the discussion to deflect from the fact that it is the entreprenoural spirit and people with the freedom and courage to take risks that have built this nation, not the government.   And that is what we need to keep focusing on people.

Take the evils of corporate America to another thread because it doesn't apply to this one.


----------



## Newby

Listening said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignoring that this a republic Barb.  Even Obama ran on changing a government that had become out of touch with the people, did things in secret and had left us with little hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not my favorite democrat, neither was Clinton, for reasons a stained dress had nothing to do with. I'm talking to birthers here, the tea party elite, SL, do you REALLY believe these people have the first fucking clue what values, as that pertains to corporate power, THIS nation was founded on?
> 
> After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
> Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.
> The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And just who is arguing with you on this ?????*
> I hate corporations.  You can't tell where they end and big government starts.  They are in bed with each other so tight they only use one pillow.
Click to expand...


Exactly, she has a stereotype set in her head about the 'tea party', and she's arguing with herself.  I've never been to a tea party rally, so her predisposed notions about random posters and tea party people in general makes her look foolish.


----------



## Newby

Foxfyre said:


> It is also a red herring thrown into the discussion to deflect from the fact that it is the entreprenoural spirit and people with the freedom and courage to take risks that have built this nation, not the government.   And that is what we need to keep focusing on people.
> 
> Take the evils of corporate America to another thread because it doesn't apply to this one.



Amen Fox.


----------



## Barb

Foxfyre said:


> I'm sort of with Newby on this one.  I can't figure out what the hell Barb is saying or trying to say.
> 
> I do know that I built my business.  Hundreds of thousands of other people who enjoy the same infrastructure and government services I enjoy could have started the same business, but didn't.   That inconvenient truth is what makes President Obama's speech so absurd.   And so dishonest.



I really don't have time today, but do you REALLY think that everyone else had the same access to whatever tools you did, or to the up bringing that kept you healthy and whole, much less to your access to and ability to take advantage of the education, infrastructure, and government services you took advantage of? Really? That's the definition of hubris, kid. Pride goes before a fall. Watch that next step.


----------



## Foxfyre

Newby said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not my favorite democrat, neither was Clinton, for reasons a stained dress had nothing to do with. I'm talking to birthers here, the tea party elite, SL, do you REALLY believe these people have the first fucking clue what values, as that pertains to corporate power, THIS nation was founded on?
> 
> After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
> Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.
> The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And just who is arguing with you on this ?????*
> I hate corporations.  You can't tell where they end and big government starts.  They are in bed with each other so tight they only use one pillow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, she has a stereotype set in her head about the 'tea party', and she's arguing with herself.  I've never been to a tea party rally, so her predisposed notions about random posters and tea party people in general makes her look foolish.
Click to expand...


While I am an active Tea Partier and therefore in a position to know that almost all of the negative accusations being made about the Tea Party spirit is pure fabrication and horseshit.    What the Tea Party is about is the antithesis of what Obama was trying to accomplish with that speech.  The Tea Party is all about personal liberty, self governance, and limited government, everything the President is increasingly opposed to.


----------



## Newby

Barb said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ass. Was it founded of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? That said, I guess our differences stem from who or WHAT people ARE.
> 
> If you believe that people aren't people, but legal constructs that neither bleed like people, die like people, nor are bound by any other biological restriction HUMAN people are, then I'd say you are a whore, and considering your stance on this subject, we've already settled on your PRICE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope someone knows what the hell you're talking about, cause I sure as hell don't.  If you're implying that Obama is 'for the people', you're far more sold out than I am lady.  The only 'people' you're for are the ones that seem to justify in your mind the taking of property from one set and bestowing it on another that you 'deem' worthy.  That's not what freedom and liberty are about.   You just whore yourself out to a different idealogy, and it's not what this country was founded on.
> 
> Obama is 100% about the state, and the power of the state over the people you profess to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know perfectly well who, and WHAT I'm talking about, and which is which. So does listening. It doesn't read well with what you're spewing, but it is what it is.
> 
> Things are either going to get better for the majority of Americans WHO have taken hit after hit during the last 30 some years, or those like you are going to start claiming you was with us all along. I hope your nose grows, and it's mulched for the community garden.
Click to expand...


You're so full of hate and assumptions that you're doing a very good job of making yourself look like an idiot.


----------



## Listening

Barb said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sort of with Newby on this one.  I can't figure out what the hell Barb is saying or trying to say.
> 
> I do know that I built my business.  Hundreds of thousands of other people who enjoy the same infrastructure and government services I enjoy could have started the same business, but didn't.   That inconvenient truth is what makes President Obama's speech so absurd.   And so dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't have time today, but do you REALLY think that everyone else had the same access to whatever tools you did, or to the up bringing that kept you healthy and whole, much less to your access to and ability to take advantage of the education, infrastructure, and government services you took advantage of? Really? That's the definition of hubris, kid. Pride goes before a fall. Watch that next step.
Click to expand...


What is the argument here ?

That you want government to play referee ?

How is that any less prideful ?


----------



## Newby

Barb said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sort of with Newby on this one.  I can't figure out what the hell Barb is saying or trying to say.
> 
> I do know that I built my business.  Hundreds of thousands of other people who enjoy the same infrastructure and government services I enjoy could have started the same business, but didn't.   That inconvenient truth is what makes President Obama's speech so absurd.   And so dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't have time today, but do you REALLY think that everyone else had the same access to whatever tools you did, or to the up bringing that kept you healthy and whole, much less to your access to and ability to take advantage of the education, infrastructure, and government services you took advantage of? Really? That's the definition of hubris, kid. Pride goes before a fall. Watch that next step.
Click to expand...


Should we all have a pity party?  The guilt trip is starting to take a nose dive and people are waking up to the real agenda of the socialist left.  Take your whining elsewhere.


----------



## Newby

Foxfyre said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And just who is arguing with you on this ?????*
> I hate corporations.  You can't tell where they end and big government starts.  They are in bed with each other so tight they only use one pillow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, she has a stereotype set in her head about the 'tea party', and she's arguing with herself.  I've never been to a tea party rally, so her predisposed notions about random posters and tea party people in general makes her look foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I am an active Tea Partier and therefore in a position to know that almost all of the negative accusations being made about the Tea Party spirit is pure fabrication and horseshit.    What the Tea Party is about is the antithesis of what Obama was trying to accomplish with that speech.  The Tea Party is all about personal liberty, self governance, and limited government, everything the President is increasingly opposed to.
Click to expand...


I completely support it, I've just never attended, nor been active with it unfortunately.


----------



## Barb

Listening said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignoring that this a republic Barb.  Even Obama ran on changing a government that had become out of touch with the people, did things in secret and had left us with little hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not my favorite democrat, neither was Clinton, for reasons a stained dress had nothing to do with. I'm talking to birthers here, the tea party elite, SL, do you REALLY believe these people have the first fucking clue what values, as that pertains to corporate power, THIS nation was founded on?
> 
> After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
> Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.
> The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just who is arguing with you on this ?????
> 
> I hate corporations.  You can't tell where they end and big government starts.  They are in bed with each other so tight they only use one pillow.
Click to expand...

You either know goddamned good and well that "small business" is NOT what the politicians are talking about when they cry about "small business," or you're a goddamned liar. You choose.


----------



## saveliberty

Barb said:


> He's not my favorite democrat, neither was Clinton, for reasons a stained dress had nothing to do with. I'm talking to birthers here, the tea party elite, SL, do you REALLY believe these people have the first fucking clue what values, as that pertains to corporate power, THIS nation was founded on?
> 
> After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
> Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.
> The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.



I'm finding Clinton more presidential in his retirement.  My oldest stepson is very much into the Tea Party.  He frequently sends me articles concerning the Constitution.  He has done much more research than most people I know.  Unfortunately, some of the local leadership gets a little conspiracy based and ignores some of the Supreme Court rulings on the Constitution.  We discuss those issues and agree on some and not others.

He does his homework.  More than I can say for many on the left who make outlandish claims and a regualr basis.  You seem to be highlighting only one aspect of what was accomplished through our Constitution.  George Washington did a lot for me, but I'm not paying his estate dime one.


----------



## Barb

Newby said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sort of with Newby on this one.  I can't figure out what the hell Barb is saying or trying to say.
> 
> I do know that I built my business.  Hundreds of thousands of other people who enjoy the same infrastructure and government services I enjoy could have started the same business, but didn't.   That inconvenient truth is what makes President Obama's speech so absurd.   And so dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't have time today, but do you REALLY think that everyone else had the same access to whatever tools you did, or to the up bringing that kept you healthy and whole, much less to your access to and ability to take advantage of the education, infrastructure, and government services you took advantage of? Really? That's the definition of hubris, kid. Pride goes before a fall. Watch that next step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should we all have a pity party?  The guilt trip is starting to take a nose dive and people are waking up to the real agenda of the socialist left.  Take your whining elsewhere.
Click to expand...


FUCK YOU. I don't have anything to WHINE about. 

And kid, if you don't have a ton of wealth backed by a ton of income, YOU have nothing to CROW about.


----------



## Newby

Barb said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not my favorite democrat, neither was Clinton, for reasons a stained dress had nothing to do with. I'm talking to birthers here, the tea party elite, SL, do you REALLY believe these people have the first fucking clue what values, as that pertains to corporate power, THIS nation was founded on?
> 
> After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
> Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.
> The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who is arguing with you on this ?????
> 
> I hate corporations.  You can't tell where they end and big government starts.  They are in bed with each other so tight they only use one pillow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You either know goddamned good and well that "small business" is NOT what the politicians are talking about when they cry about "small business," or you're a goddamned liar. You choose.
Click to expand...


I think you've gone over the conspiracy theory edge and hit your head along the way.


----------



## Listening

Barb said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not my favorite democrat, neither was Clinton, for reasons a stained dress had nothing to do with. I'm talking to birthers here, the tea party elite, SL, do you REALLY believe these people have the first fucking clue what values, as that pertains to corporate power, THIS nation was founded on?
> 
> After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.  The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
> Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.
> The we want our county back folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who is arguing with you on this ?????
> 
> I hate corporations.  You can't tell where they end and big government starts.  They are in bed with each other so tight they only use one pillow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You either know goddamned good and well that "small business" is NOT what the politicians are talking about when they cry about "small business," or you're a goddamned liar. You choose.
Click to expand...


Oh, and how do you know what I know.

Make your case.

Do I know most politicians are liars....yes.

Do I know small business is important to the U.S. economy...yes.

Do I hate corporations...yes.

Are you feeling O.K. ?


----------



## Foxfyre

Barb said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sort of with Newby on this one.  I can't figure out what the hell Barb is saying or trying to say.
> 
> I do know that I built my business.  Hundreds of thousands of other people who enjoy the same infrastructure and government services I enjoy could have started the same business, but didn't.   That inconvenient truth is what makes President Obama's speech so absurd.   And so dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't have time today, but do you REALLY think that everyone else had the same access to whatever tools you did, or to the up bringing that kept you healthy and whole, much less to your access to and ability to take advantage of the education, infrastructure, and government services you took advantage of? Really? That's the definition of hubris, kid. Pride goes before a fall. Watch that next step.
Click to expand...


Did everybody have the same advantages I did?  No.  But many if not most had a hell of a lot more.  I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, and while I did not go hungry as a child, I did not grow up in a loving household or one that had much money.  Since my emancipation at my graduation from Highschool, before I was 18, I have been pretty well on my own.  I received no help from anybody to get my college education--there were no student loans then--and I did not receive a dime in assistance from anybody to start up my business.

Many people were willing to risk more and invest more than I was and have enjoyed far greater financial success than I have.  I don't begrudge them a penny and give every one of them kudos.   Others who started out with far more economic advantage had no inclination to go into business for themselves and are happy working for the other guy. 

And I chose to take the risk and invest all I had to start up my own business, I put the time, money, and effort into it to make it work for me, and by golly I am not about to give somebody like Obama any credit for what success I have enjoyed or willingly hand over more of my hard earned profits because he thinks I don't deserve to have them.


----------



## saveliberty

Barb said:


> I really don't have time today, but do you REALLY think that everyone else had the same access to whatever tools you did, or to the up bringing that kept you healthy and whole, much less to your access to and ability to take advantage of the education, infrastructure, and government services you took advantage of? Really? That's the definition of hubris, kid. Pride goes before a fall. Watch that next step.



Public schools, public university, roads, bridges, police, fire.  Please point out what was denied to anyone else in America.  I saw many people refuse to be educated.  Their choice.  I saw others unwilling to take risks in starting a business and take a lesser job.

What you are doing is making the rewards for behaviors we want in this country less.  To the point many are unwilling to accept more risk that would return jobs and prosperity to many.  This hubris you speak of is best demonstrated through Obama.


----------



## saveliberty

I guess you can just write us all off as heartless conservatives Barb.  Take a moment first though please.  Think about how we could have reacted when you called us an ass, flipped us off and called us liars.  Instead of returning the favor, we shared our personal experiences and tried to help you see the other side.  That takes heart.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) its not true
> 
> 2) if it was so what??? Modern Germany owes its existence to Nazi Germany
> 
> 
> see why we say, slow???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BFgrn has gone off the deep end.. He's now competing with Glenn Beck for putting the most arrows on a chalkboard. Calling the Koch Grandpa a Commie hater, giving him credit for starting the John Birchers AND THEN (without any shame, embarrassment or dislocated elbows) he ties the Tea Party, Reason Magazine and the addition that the Koch Bros built onto Lincoln Center to STALIN thru the same guy...
> 
> Excuse me a minute...
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds of folks who tried to tie Averil Harriman (former Gov of NY, prominent Democrat ) to the Nazis because his bank was assigned WWI German Assets to manage. *ACTUALLY it was DEMS tying GW Bush to the Nazis thru his FATHER who merely WORKED for Averill Harriman at the bank.. *
> 
> C'mon --- You did THAT ONE TOO --- didn''t you? Admit it....
> 
> OMG --- You can't think beyond partisian and conspiracy theories. Not only are you locked in the past with no way out -- you have no common sense or sense of proportion in making ABSURB conspiratorial Tin Foil Hat allegations.
> 
> Don't bother replying to this because I'm not gonna waste any time debating this nonsense.
> Especially for the sake of the Tea Party. They will kick your ass well themselves.
> 
> The Koch Bros have saved and enriched MORE lives than you have ever talked to.
> 
> And just because you hate their hate their politics, you'd overlook that wouldn't you slimeball?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
> Albert Camus
> 
> The fact remains that Grandpa Koch took Stalin's money and made piles of cash laying the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure in the 1920s and early 1930s. He designed and built refineries, hosted Soviet engineers for training in Wichita, Kansas, and made an invaluable contribution to the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalins first Five-Year Plan. This is a touchy issue for the Koch family: without the Commie Reds providing his future seed capital, Koch Industries would not exist today.
> 
> Your heroes are the slimeballs. They are one of the worst polluters on the planet. But I guess human life means little to the modern day Pharisee.
> 
> Koch Industries history of bypassing, breaking rules includes sales to Iran
Click to expand...


Damn -- swore I wasn't gonna fall for this rotten bait. BUT -- I just gotta ask ----

Are AL GORE and HIS PAPA slimeballs because Armand Hammer once bragged he "had a Senator in his Backpocket" and THAT was Al Gore's daddy. Didn't need tobacco after the Gores "suddenly" had a big CHAW of Hammers Oil Deal.. 

Who was ARMAND HAMMER you ask??? 



> Armand Hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In fact, according to multiple biographers, Hammer was named after the "Arm and Hammer" symbol of the Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP), in which his father, a committed socialist, had a leadership role at one time.[8] (After the Russian Revolution, a part of the SLP under Julius' leadership split off to become a founding element of the Communist Party USA.) Later in his life, Hammer would admit the communist tie himself.
> 
> *After graduating from medical school, Hammer extended earlier entrepreneurial ventures with a successful business importing many goods from and exporting pharmaceuticals to the newly-formed Soviet Union,* together with his younger brother Victor. According to Hammer, on his initial trip, he took $60,000 in medical supplies to aid in a typhus epidemic, and made a deal with Lenin for furs and caviars in exchange for a shipment of surplus American wheat. He moved to the USSR in the 1920s to oversee these operations, especially his large business manufacturing and exporting pens and pencils.
> 
> Occidental's coal interests were represented for many years by attorney and former U.S. Senator Albert Arnold Gore, Sr., among others. Gore, who had a long-time close friendship with Hammer, became the head of the subsidiary Island Creek Coal Company, upon his election loss in the Senate. Much of Occidental's coal and phosphate production was in Tennessee, the state Gore represented in the Senate, and Gore owned shares in the company. Former Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. received much criticism from environmentalists, when the shares passed to the estate after the death of Albert Gore Sr., and Albert Gore Jr. was a son and the executor of the estate.[28][29] Albert Gore Jr. did not exercise control over the shares, which were eventually sold when the estate closed.[30][31]
> 
> *Hammer was very fond of Albert Gore Jr*., and in 1984 under Hammer's guidance Gore Jr. sought Tennessee's senate office previously held by Howard Baker. Hammer supposedly promised Gore Sr. that he could make his son the president of the United States. It was under Hammer's encouragement and support that Gore Jr. sought the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 1988.[32][33]




YOU REALLY WANNA push this pin-headed conspiracy junky crap? Or do you have better stuff to do? And BTW -- you didn't comment on whether you were trying that peddle that "Bush is Nazi crap" about Averill Harriman.. Did I get that right?? 

Let's play -- but move it to "conspiracy forum" first...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

A better version

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hN_x5z34yY]Schnitt Show "we built this business" You Didn&#39;t Build That Business Obama Parody - YouTube[/ame]
obama trying to dumb down people to think things are not owned by them but the collective.


----------



## Foxfyre

bigrebnc1775 said:


> A better version
> 
> Schnitt Show "we built this business" You Didn't Build That Business Obama Parody - YouTube
> obama trying to dumb down people to think things are not owned by them but the collective.



Yes, the whole speech was an affirmation of the collective rather than individual effort. 

I will have to say though, in the interest of truth in advertising and all that, the Schmidt video was dishonest in one respect.  The 'you didn't build that' was referring to the infrastructure and not the business itself, and the video went out of its way to avoid acknowledging the correct interpretation.  And I think we have to be honest about that or we lose credibility.  The whole speech in context of course was to say that we who have businesses can't take any credit for them but rather we owe everybody for whatever success we have--you know, Marxism in its purest form.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Foxfyre said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better version
> 
> Schnitt Show "we built this business" You Didn't Build That Business Obama Parody - YouTube
> obama trying to dumb down people to think things are not owned by them but the collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the whole speech was an affirmation of the collective rather than individual effort.
> 
> I will have to say though, in the interest of truth in advertising and all that, the Schmidt video was dishonest in one respect.  The 'you didn't build that' was referring to the infrastructure and not the business itself, and the video went out of its way to avoid acknowledging the correct interpretation.  And I think we have to be honest about that or we lose credibility.  The whole speech in context of course was to say that we who have businesses can't take any credit for them but rather we owe everybody for whatever success we have--you know, Marxism in its purest form.
Click to expand...


It's even crazier to suggest that, only because of roads something  was built.


----------



## saveliberty

Hoover Dam, was envisioned before the road, concrete plant, railroad and housing were ever built.


----------



## Foxfyre

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better version
> 
> Schnitt Show "we built this business" You Didn't Build That Business Obama Parody - YouTube
> obama trying to dumb down people to think things are not owned by them but the collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the whole speech was an affirmation of the collective rather than individual effort.
> 
> I will have to say though, in the interest of truth in advertising and all that, the Schmidt video was dishonest in one respect.  The 'you didn't build that' was referring to the infrastructure and not the business itself, and the video went out of its way to avoid acknowledging the correct interpretation.  And I think we have to be honest about that or we lose credibility.  The whole speech in context of course was to say that we who have businesses can't take any credit for them but rather we owe everybody for whatever success we have--you know, Marxism in its purest form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's even crazier to suggest that, only because of roads something  was built.
Click to expand...


Yup.  In almost every case of responsible government that we can point to, infrastructure has been developed because of and has followed private economic development, not the other way around.

The only exceptions have been in cases like the Interstate System and the building of the railroads that did generate some economic activity along their various routes after the infrastructure went in. . . .BUT. . . even in those cases, they were built to connect already deveoped economic centers and not to generate economic activity.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the whole speech was an affirmation of the collective rather than individual effort.
> 
> I will have to say though, in the interest of truth in advertising and all that, the Schmidt video was dishonest in one respect.  The 'you didn't build that' was referring to the infrastructure and not the business itself, and the video went out of its way to avoid acknowledging the correct interpretation.  And I think we have to be honest about that or we lose credibility.  The whole speech in context of course was to say that we who have businesses can't take any credit for them but rather we owe everybody for whatever success we have--you know, Marxism in its purest form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's even crazier to suggest that, only because of roads something  was built.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  In almost every case of responsible government that we can point to, infrastructure has been developed because of and has followed private economic development, not the other way around.
> 
> The only exceptions have been in cases like the Interstate System and the building of the railroads that did generate some economic activity along their various routes after the infrastructure went in. . . .BUT. . . even in those cases, they were built to connect already deveoped economic centers and not to generate economic activity.
Click to expand...


Also, lets not forgoet the Japan has suffered through 2 lost decades now.  There economy has never recovered despite debt being 200% of GDP and despite 1000 bridges to nowhere all of which were expected to stimulate the economy.


----------



## Foxfyre

Those who have actually studied Keynesian Economics know that it does allow modest deficit SHORT TERM deficit spending to stimulate the economy, but the theories also require that the term of deficit spending to be short, specific, with the shortage returned to the Treasury right away.

Deficit spending to be repaid ten to twenty years down the road is NOT Keynesian economics or anything other than gross irresponsibility.


----------



## saveliberty

Those who have studied Huffo think differently.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Seems Dwight was wrong....
> 
> The GOP is not only still around....it kicked ass in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try it asshole, it will be the end of the Republican party. I guarantee it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry dickweed....
> 
> We are here and 2012 is looking pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question. What would happen to elderly Americans if Medicare and Social Security were ended, or if benefits were cut drastically? Do those Americans have the ability to generate additional income?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey piss-for-brains,
> 
> Why can't you climb out of your small box.  *There are many ways to end this travesty that would have no impact on today's seniors.*
Click to expand...


Please tell me how? This should be good...


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Those who have actually studied Keynesian Economics know that it does allow modest deficit SHORT TERM deficit spending to stimulate the economy, but the theories also require that the term of deficit spending to be short, specific, with the shortage returned to the Treasury right away.
> 
> Deficit spending to be repaid ten to twenty years down the road is NOT Keynesian economics or anything other than gross irresponsibility.



Thank you for the opening...

Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary - 60 Minutes


The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

*"Cheney*, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He *says*, *'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' *&#8230; O'Neill is speechless."

"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."


----------



## Foxfyre

My comment re Keynesian economics had absolutely nothing to do with tax cuts, Bfgn, but is pertinent to the President's desire to increase government spending.  But thanks for throwing another red herring into the debate.

Let's focus on the topic.


----------



## saveliberty

Bfgrn said:


> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."



This is a tax increase Obama wants without fundemental tax or Social Security reform.  Please put those on the table.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> My comment re Keynesian economics had absolutely nothing to do with tax cuts, Bfgn, but is pertinent to the President's desire to increase government spending. But thanks for throwing another red herring into the debate.
> 
> Let's focus on the topic.


 
He for whatever reason cannot stay focused. I stopped reading his yaksqueeze several pages ago, and deserves the same treatment from every member of the board here.

It's absolute garbage that deserves no quarter.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Jesus, you vile filthy lying bigot shitbag bagging morons are still at it I see.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> John Kenneth Galbraith was a very brilliant man.



John Kenneth Galbraith, an intellectual icon of the Old Left and New Left, said of the Soviets&#8217; overtaking of Poland after World War II: &#8220;Russia should be permitted to absorb Poland, the Balkans, and the whole of Eastern Europe in order to spread the benefits of Communism&#8221; (Emphasis added).

"The Russian system succeeds because in contrast with the western industrial democracies it makes full use of its manpower"- JK Galbraith


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> Those who have actually studied Keynesian Economics know that it does allow modest deficit SHORT TERM deficit spending to stimulate the economy, but the theories also require that the term of deficit spending to be short, specific, with the shortage returned to the Treasury right away.



I think you are giving Keynes way too much credit. He was firstly, a liberal of the worst sort. He was a monumental ego manic who literally saw himself as an apostle.

In The General Theory he said he could tweek  every little thing about the economy much like a race car mechanic to keep it performing optimally.

If Keynes meant anything specific other than, I'm the apostle so let me run the world,  we would all know exactly what Keynesian economics was.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better version
> 
> Schnitt Show "we built this business" You Didn't Build That Business Obama Parody - YouTube
> obama trying to dumb down people to think things are not owned by them but the collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the whole speech was an affirmation of the collective rather than individual effort.
> 
> I will have to say though, in the interest of truth in advertising and all that, the Schmidt video was dishonest in one respect.  The 'you didn't build that' was referring to the infrastructure and not the business itself, and the video went out of its way to avoid acknowledging the correct interpretation.  And I think we have to be honest about that or we lose credibility.  The whole speech in context of course was to say that we who have businesses can't take any credit for them but rather we owe everybody for whatever success we have--you know, Marxism in its purest form.
Click to expand...


Are you being disingenuous or just obtuse Foxfyre? The context of his speech is if Americans believe another round of tax cuts for the wealthy is going to benefit the middle class. Or if we need to go back to a tax structure that worked very well during the Clinton era.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> My comment re Keynesian economics had absolutely nothing to do with tax cuts, Bfgn, but is pertinent to the President's desire to increase government spending.  But thanks for throwing another red herring into the debate.
> 
> Let's focus on the topic.



Focus? HERE is what YOU said:



Foxfyre said:


> Those who have actually studied Keynesian Economics know that it does allow modest deficit SHORT TERM deficit spending to stimulate the economy, but the theories also require that the term of deficit spending to be short, specific, with the shortage returned to the Treasury right away.



HERE is what YOUR beloved conservative icon Vice President said:

'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.'


----------



## Neotrotsky

Foxfyre said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better version
> 
> Schnitt Show "we built this business" You Didn't Build That Business Obama Parody - YouTube
> obama trying to dumb down people to think things are not owned by them but the collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the whole speech was an affirmation of the collective rather than individual effort.
> 
> I will have to say though, in the interest of truth in advertising and all that, the Schmidt video was dishonest in one respect.  The 'you didn't build that' was referring to the infrastructure and not the business itself, and the video went out of its way to avoid acknowledging the correct interpretation.  And I think we have to be honest about that or we lose credibility.  The whole speech in context of course was to say that we who have businesses can't take any credit for them but rather we owe everybody for whatever success we have--you know, Marxism in its purest form.
Click to expand...




The left presents a false argument about Clinton's taxes

Notice how they don't want to go back to Clinton's lower spending levels
due to having a Republican congress


----------



## Mac1958

ConzHateUSA said:


> Jesus, you vile filthy lying bigot shitbag bagging morons are still at it I see.




Gotta be among the top 3 most hate-filled posters here.

.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Mac1958 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, you vile filthy lying bigot shitbag bagging morons are still at it I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta be among the top 3 most hate-filled posters here.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Top 3 most stupid, as well

No doubt they are part of the Papa Obama Truth Goon squad


----------



## saveliberty

An entire speech aimed at insulting small business owners and demonizing them for the case of taxing them more.  Obama considers it program cuts when it will happen years after he's out of office?  It was an entitlement expansion speech too.  Fill the coffers for more giveaways.


----------



## saveliberty

Mac1958 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, you vile filthy lying bigot shitbag bagging morons are still at it I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta be among the top 3 most hate-filled posters here.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't think he likes the other two guys on the list either.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have actually studied Keynesian Economics know that it does allow modest deficit SHORT TERM deficit spending to stimulate the economy, but the theories also require that the term of deficit spending to be short, specific, with the shortage returned to the Treasury right away.
> 
> Deficit spending to be repaid ten to twenty years down the road is NOT Keynesian economics or anything other than gross irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the opening...
> 
> Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary - 60 Minutes
> 
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> *"Cheney*, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He *says*, *'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' * O'Neill is speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
Click to expand...


So what ?

What is your point.

Cheney said it.  So what ?

That is an opening.  You needed someone to lead you to this ?

Your whole "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bulls**t" approach is all to worn out.

The first time I heard that, I knew Cheney was wrong.

You are a tool.  A locked up brain dead tool.


----------



## Mac1958

saveliberty said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, you vile filthy lying bigot shitbag bagging morons are still at it I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta be among the top 3 most hate-filled posters here.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he likes the other two guys on the list either.
Click to expand...





.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My comment re Keynesian economics had absolutely nothing to do with tax cuts, Bfgn, but is pertinent to the President's desire to increase government spending.  But thanks for throwing another red herring into the debate.
> 
> Let's focus on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Focus? HERE is what YOU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have actually studied Keynesian Economics know that it does allow modest deficit SHORT TERM deficit spending to stimulate the economy, but the theories also require that the term of deficit spending to be short, specific, with the shortage returned to the Treasury right away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HERE is what YOUR beloved conservative icon Vice President said:
> 
> 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.'
Click to expand...


Wow....

Rush said this....the whole right thinks like Rush.

Cheney said that .....everyone owns it.

Is everyone on the left so stupid ?


----------



## saveliberty

Interesting Bfgrn wants political figures held to their word, but we are obsessing about Obama's recent speech.


----------



## saveliberty

Listening said:


> Wow....
> 
> Rush said this....the whole right thinks like Rush.
> 
> Cheney said that .....everyone owns it.
> 
> Is everyone on the left so stupid ?



In my experience, you don't always want to know the answers to questions you ask.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been doing ed, and you continue your ignorant drone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why be so afraid to give us your best example of defeating our founders central principle??? What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our founder's seminal achievement on this planet can be expressed in one word. It is not corporation, it is not privatization, and it is not marketism...
> 
> It is government.
> 
> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
Click to expand...


A Republic.

A limited or restricted federal government.

That is what they gave us.

The only issue is that you bastards don't seem to understand what restricted means.

You'd have Uncle Sam changing your depends if you could.[/QUOTE]


You can go even further with the founders intent on a restrictive government:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Daniel Webster 

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
Thomas Jefferson 

"The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people *[not of the government]*; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson. 

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Benjamin Franklin 

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
Thomas Jefferson 

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington 


The Founders believed there ought to be LIMITS to what the Federal Government can do, they wrote the Constitution to set boundaries that they believed the individual branches of "government" *must* follow. If (as some on the left would have us believe) the Constitution "evolves" and more government restricts and regulations over its people are necessary, then this form of "government" becomes the very controlling tyrant over individual liberty that the colonists fought to escape from with England!


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have actually studied Keynesian Economics know that it does allow modest deficit SHORT TERM deficit spending to stimulate the economy, but the theories also require that the term of deficit spending to be short, specific, with the shortage returned to the Treasury right away.
> 
> Deficit spending to be repaid ten to twenty years down the road is NOT Keynesian economics or anything other than gross irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the opening...
> 
> Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary - 60 Minutes
> 
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> *"Cheney*, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He *says*, *'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' * O'Neill is speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what ?
> 
> What is your point.
> 
> Cheney said it.  So what ?
> 
> That is an opening.  You needed someone to lead you to this ?
> 
> Your whole "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bulls**t" approach is all to worn out.
> 
> The first time I heard that, I knew Cheney was wrong.
> 
> You are a tool.  A locked up brain dead tool.
Click to expand...


There was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers when Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times. 

What we heard from you tools was parroting of what Cheney said.

AGAIN...

Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!







And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.

And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern. He FIRED Paul O'Neill.


----------



## The T

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the opening...
> 
> Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary - 60 Minutes
> 
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> *"Cheney*, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He *says*, *'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' * O'Neill is speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what ?
> 
> What is your point.
> 
> Cheney said it. So what ?
> 
> That is an opening. You needed someone to lead you to this ?
> 
> Your whole "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bulls**t" approach is all to worn out.
> 
> The first time I heard that, I knew Cheney was wrong.
> 
> You are a tool. A locked up brain dead tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers when Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times.
> 
> What we heard from you tools was parroting of what Cheney said.
> 
> AGAIN...
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern. He FIRED Paul O'Neill.
Click to expand...

 

How many times are YOU gonna show that same chart BuFu?

And try to justify it wih Statist PAP?

ReallY?


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the opening...
> 
> Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary - 60 Minutes
> 
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> *"Cheney*, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He *says*, *'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' * O'Neill is speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what ?
> 
> What is your point.
> 
> Cheney said it.  So what ?
> 
> That is an opening.  You needed someone to lead you to this ?
> 
> Your whole "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bulls**t" approach is all to worn out.
> 
> The first time I heard that, I knew Cheney was wrong.
> 
> You are a tool.  A locked up brain dead tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers when Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times.
> 
> What we heard from you tools was parroting of what Cheney said.
> 
> AGAIN...
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern. He FIRED Paul O'Neill.
Click to expand...


And your bitterness is because of.....

Or should I ask you what makes you so special ?

I love it......you lump everyone in together.  There were plenty on the right who were not at all happy with Bush.

You are nothing but a left wing CD that plays in broken down machine.  Blah blah blah blah blah........

BTW: Bush only had a congress for six years.  The other time the GOP had congress was in conjuntion with Bill Clinton.   They ran the show and you seem very happy with their performance.

I can see you are conflicted.

But why don't you take your bitterness and tell it to someone who cares.  

I don't have to apologize for Bush.  He was a disaster and I want someone to apologize to me for the golden opportunities he threw away, for the wars, and for he way he spent money.

Dumbass.


----------



## healthmyths

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have actually studied Keynesian Economics know that it does allow modest deficit SHORT TERM deficit spending to stimulate the economy, but the theories also require that the term of deficit spending to be short, specific, with the shortage returned to the Treasury right away.
> 
> Deficit spending to be repaid ten to twenty years down the road is NOT Keynesian economics or anything other than gross irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the opening...
> 
> Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary - 60 Minutes
> 
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> *"Cheney*, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He *says*, *'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' *&#8230; O'Neill is speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
Click to expand...


I am at a loss for the absolute ignorance of so many people!!!
Do ANY of you know what happens when $8 TRILLION in market losses,destroyed buildings,businesses, 800,000 people put out of work and thousands of homes destroyed are WRITTEN OFF as TAX LOSSES against INCOME MEANS???
As of 2011 since 2002 over $2,533,333,333,333 ($2.5 trillion) has been written off against taxes AND NOT ONE of YOU have considered that has some affect on the ECONOMY!!!


----------



## healthmyths

OH in case YOU ALL don't remember..
Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion
9/11 cost $2 trillion.
WORST HURRICANE SEASONS (2003 to 2008) occurred  $1 trillion!

And then we had $600 billion added to expenditures for Homeland Security and because we had people that wanted the IRAQ Liberation to be PROLONGED for political benefits another $600 billion!
Nearly $1.2 trillion all due to events that occurred in 2001  remember... 9/11???


----------



## saveliberty

Except for Geithner, hasn't Obama's economic advisors been a conveyor belt?


----------



## healthmyths

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the opening...
> 
> Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary - 60 Minutes
> 
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> *"Cheney*, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He *says*, *'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' * O'Neill is speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what ?
> 
> What is your point.
> 
> Cheney said it.  So what ?
> 
> That is an opening.  You needed someone to lead you to this ?
> 
> Your whole "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bulls**t" approach is all to worn out.
> 
> The first time I heard that, I knew Cheney was wrong.
> 
> You are a tool.  A locked up brain dead tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers when Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times.
> 
> What we heard from you tools was parroting of what Cheney said.
> 
> AGAIN...
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern. He FIRED Paul O'Neill.
Click to expand...


Hey idiot!!!! What about subtracting nearly $2.5 trillion in TAX write offs due to:
1) $5 trillion Dot.com BUST??? These LOSSES are being written off for 30 years against
    tax liabilities!
2) $2 trillion in losses from 9/11... remember airlines didn't fly for 3 days.. wallstreet closed 10 days.. 400,000 jobs lost, 18,000 businesses destroyed.. another $66 billion a year!
3) You have NOT taken in account $1 trillion losses from the WORST Hurricane SEASONS 2002 to 2008 in history adding another $33 billion a year in lost tax revenue!

When you do that.. your graph is half what you show!
PLUS you idiots LOVED to prolong the deaths and costs of the IRAQ Liberation by encouraging the terrorists to continue killing and destroying.. I mean what do you think these statements did to the terrorists made them afraid OR ENcOURAGED???

  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) 
*"The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "*
          Great for our troops moral and especially the terrorists!!!)

        U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "*Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,*
        Senator Kerry (D)  "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the
        dead of night,* terrorizing kids and children.*"
         Kerry called our troops "*TERRORISTS".*.. 
         I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden had said:
        "brothers .. even an evil American Senator calls his OWN soldiers "terrorists"!
        Allah be praised!
       This evil Senator is so right!
       Your killing US-baby-killing-troops  is justified by Kerry!
You don't think the terrorists were HAPPY to read/hear these USA politicians encourage the killings???


----------



## Bfgrn

healthmyths said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what ?
> 
> What is your point.
> 
> Cheney said it.  So what ?
> 
> That is an opening.  You needed someone to lead you to this ?
> 
> Your whole "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bulls**t" approach is all to worn out.
> 
> The first time I heard that, I knew Cheney was wrong.
> 
> You are a tool.  A locked up brain dead tool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers when Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times.
> 
> What we heard from you tools was parroting of what Cheney said.
> 
> AGAIN...
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern. He FIRED Paul O'Neill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey idiot!!!! What about subtracting nearly $2.5 trillion in TAX write offs due to:
> 1) $5 trillion Dot.com BUST??? These LOSSES are being written off for 30 years against
> tax liabilities!
> 2) $2 trillion in losses from 9/11... remember airlines didn't fly for 3 days.. wallstreet closed 10 days.. 400,000 jobs lost, 18,000 businesses destroyed.. another $66 billion a year!
> 3) You have NOT taken in account $1 trillion losses from the WORST Hurricane SEASONS 2002 to 2008 in history adding another $33 billion a year in lost tax revenue!
> 
> When you do that.. your graph is half what you show!
> PLUS you idiots LOVED to prolong the deaths and costs of the IRAQ Liberation by encouraging the terrorists to continue killing and destroying.. I mean what do you think these statements did to the terrorists made them afraid OR ENcOURAGED???
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D)
> *"The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "*
> Great for our troops moral and especially the terrorists!!!)
> 
> U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "*Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,&#8221;*
> Senator Kerry (D)  "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the
> dead of night,* terrorizing kids and children.*"
> Kerry called our troops "*TERRORISTS".*..
> I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden had said:
> "brothers .. even an evil American Senator calls his OWN soldiers "terrorists"!
> Allah be praised!
> This evil Senator is so right!
> Your killing US-baby-killing-troops  is justified by Kerry!
> You don't think the terrorists were HAPPY to read/hear these USA politicians encourage the killings???
Click to expand...


The five main causes of the budget deficit are the economic downturn (tax revenues go down), the Bush tax cuts (which quickly become the largest part of the deficit), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the stimulus plan (which was necessary because of the Bush economic meltdown), though that becomes meaningless in less than two years, as it's being phased out.

So for the rest of this decade, the biggest single factor contributing to the deficit are the Bush era tax cuts that the Republicans say are off the table (meaning, they won't discuss getting rid of them). But just as importantly - guess what? - Obama isn't responsible for the deficit. The GOP is, along with whoever got us into those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (oh right, that would be the GOP), and whoever was in charge of the government when the economy tanked (right again, George Bush). Oh, and a little of the deficit was caused by TARP (Bush again).






---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS*
I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq
By Matthew Alexander

 Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: *Torture and abuse cost American lives.*

I learned in Iraq that the *No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.* The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. *It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse.* The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq
_
Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006 where he led the interrogations team that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, who was killed by Coalition Forces. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star for his achievements._


----------



## healthmyths

Bfgrn said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers when Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times.
> 
> What we heard from you tools was parroting of what Cheney said.
> 
> AGAIN...
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern. He FIRED Paul O'Neill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey idiot!!!! What about subtracting nearly $2.5 trillion in TAX write offs due to:
> 1) $5 trillion Dot.com BUST??? These LOSSES are being written off for 30 years against
> tax liabilities!
> 2) $2 trillion in losses from 9/11... remember airlines didn't fly for 3 days.. wallstreet closed 10 days.. 400,000 jobs lost, 18,000 businesses destroyed.. another $66 billion a year!
> 3) You have NOT taken in account $1 trillion losses from the WORST Hurricane SEASONS 2002 to 2008 in history adding another $33 billion a year in lost tax revenue!
> 
> When you do that.. your graph is half what you show!
> PLUS you idiots LOVED to prolong the deaths and costs of the IRAQ Liberation by encouraging the terrorists to continue killing and destroying.. I mean what do you think these statements did to the terrorists made them afraid OR ENcOURAGED???
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D)
> *"The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "*
> Great for our troops moral and especially the terrorists!!!)
> 
> U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "*Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,*
> Senator Kerry (D)  "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the
> dead of night,* terrorizing kids and children.*"
> Kerry called our troops "*TERRORISTS".*..
> I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden had said:
> "brothers .. even an evil American Senator calls his OWN soldiers "terrorists"!
> Allah be praised!
> This evil Senator is so right!
> Your killing US-baby-killing-troops  is justified by Kerry!
> You don't think the terrorists were HAPPY to read/hear these USA politicians encourage the killings???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The five main causes of the budget deficit are the economic downturn (tax revenues go down), the Bush tax cuts (which quickly become the largest part of the deficit), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the stimulus plan (which was necessary because of the Bush economic meltdown), though that becomes meaningless in less than two years, as it's being phased out.
> 
> So for the rest of this decade, the biggest single factor contributing to the deficit are the Bush era tax cuts that the Republicans say are off the table (meaning, they won't discuss getting rid of them). But just as importantly - guess what? - Obama isn't responsible for the deficit. The GOP is, along with whoever got us into those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (oh right, that would be the GOP), and whoever was in charge of the government when the economy tanked (right again, George Bush). Oh, and a little of the deficit was caused by TARP (Bush again).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS*
> I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq
> By Matthew Alexander
> 
> Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: *Torture and abuse cost American lives.*
> 
> I learned in Iraq that the *No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.* The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. *It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse.* The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.
> 
> I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq
> _
> Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006 where he led the interrogations team that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, who was killed by Coalition Forces. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star for his achievements._
Click to expand...



So NEARLY  $300 billion a year in TAX WRITE OFFS  due to $8 trillion in LOSSES
from dot.com bust/9/11/hurricanes....WHERE DID IT GO?

YOU NEVER MENTION IT yet that is the REALITY!!!


----------



## healthmyths

Bfgrn said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers when Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times.
> 
> What we heard from you tools was parroting of what Cheney said.
> 
> AGAIN...
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
> 
> And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern. He FIRED Paul O'Neill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey idiot!!!! What about subtracting nearly $2.5 trillion in TAX write offs due to:
> 1) $5 trillion Dot.com BUST??? These LOSSES are being written off for 30 years against
> tax liabilities!
> 2) $2 trillion in losses from 9/11... remember airlines didn't fly for 3 days.. wallstreet closed 10 days.. 400,000 jobs lost, 18,000 businesses destroyed.. another $66 billion a year!
> 3) You have NOT taken in account $1 trillion losses from the WORST Hurricane SEASONS 2002 to 2008 in history adding another $33 billion a year in lost tax revenue!
> 
> When you do that.. your graph is half what you show!
> PLUS you idiots LOVED to prolong the deaths and costs of the IRAQ Liberation by encouraging the terrorists to continue killing and destroying.. I mean what do you think these statements did to the terrorists made them afraid OR ENcOURAGED???
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D)
> *"The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "*
> Great for our troops moral and especially the terrorists!!!)
> 
> U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "*Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,*
> Senator Kerry (D)  "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the
> dead of night,* terrorizing kids and children.*"
> Kerry called our troops "*TERRORISTS".*..
> I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden had said:
> "brothers .. even an evil American Senator calls his OWN soldiers "terrorists"!
> Allah be praised!
> This evil Senator is so right!
> Your killing US-baby-killing-troops  is justified by Kerry!
> You don't think the terrorists were HAPPY to read/hear these USA politicians encourage the killings???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The five main causes of the budget deficit are the economic downturn (tax revenues go down), the Bush tax cuts (which quickly become the largest part of the deficit), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the stimulus plan (which was necessary because of the Bush economic meltdown), though that becomes meaningless in less than two years, as it's being phased out.
> 
> So for the rest of this decade, the biggest single factor contributing to the deficit are the Bush era tax cuts that the Republicans say are off the table (meaning, they won't discuss getting rid of them). But just as importantly - guess what? - Obama isn't responsible for the deficit. The GOP is, along with whoever got us into those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (oh right, that would be the GOP), and whoever was in charge of the government when the economy tanked (right again, George Bush). Oh, and a little of the deficit was caused by TARP (Bush again).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS*
> I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq
> By Matthew Alexander
> 
> Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: *Torture and abuse cost American lives.*
> 
> I learned in Iraq that the *No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.* The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. *It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse.* The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.
> 
> I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq
> _
> Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006 where he led the interrogations team that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, who was killed by Coalition Forces. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star for his achievements._
Click to expand...


ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!  


BUT THE actual war was over in less then 6 weeks!  WHAT do you think these same thugs that sent mentally challenged kids with bombs to blow up when our troops handed out candy thought when they heard Kerry call our troops terrorists, or Murtha our troops cold blooded kiillers, or Obama we air raid civilians!
GEEZ obviously Abu Grib scared the crap but words of encouragement from TRAITORS obviously LIKE YOU who like YOU wanted to see Iraq prolong because IT helped politically .. traitors LIKE YOU encouraging the thugs to murder our TROOPS and you LIKED IT!
YOU encouraged it!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

healthmyths said:


> The five main causes of the budget deficit are !




actually there is only one cause!! Liberals killed off all 30 Balanced Budget Amendments to the Constitution that were proposed by Republicans starting with Jefferson's.


----------



## Dr Grump

saveliberty said:


> It reads exactly like what it is.  A socialist has infested the White House.  The entitlement crowd has cheered and wants al the more than what they have.  No price is too high in achieving their ends.



Grow up. If you think he's a socialist you have no idea what the term means. Go live in Cuba, China or god forbid North Korea, then tell me Obama is a socialist. This is where the likes of you and your peanut gallery lose credibility. Dislike his policies, sure. Disagree with his stance on certain things. I get that. But a socialist? GTF outta here. You do realise you're put in the same category as lefties who would call a right-wing pollie like Romney a Nazi, right. IOW - cuckoo...


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> I do know that I built my business.  Hundreds of thousands of other people who enjoy the same infrastructure and government services I enjoy could have started the same business, but didn't.   That inconvenient truth is what makes President Obama's speech so absurd.   And so dishonest.



If that's what he was saying, you would be right. He wasn't. You can post on this thread 100 more times saying what you THINK he said. Doesn't mean he said it in the context you believe he did...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

ahh, you were doing so well right up till the last

while romney the person isnt naziish, he will cater to the naziish tea party so he might as well be

they hate everyone who isnt exactly like them, i dont know what to call that, if you dont like nazi then fine, give me another term


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> [quo
> While I am an active Tea Partier and therefore in a position to know that almost all of the negative accusations being made about the Tea Party spirit is pure fabrication and horseshit.



But all the negative accusations made about Obama are true? You guys can't even put in context one little speech he made, so the amount of other stuff you have gotten wrong just boggles the mind,,


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Foxfyre said:


> While I am an active Tea Partier and therefore in a position to know that almost all of the negative accusations being made about the Tea Party spirit is pure fabrication and horseshit.    What the Tea Party is about is the antithesis of what Obama was trying to accomplish with that speech.  The Tea Party is all about personal liberty, self governance, and limited government, everything the President is increasingly opposed to.





oh god...my god, stop, my side hurts

jesus...freedomworks, dick armey and the kochs invented your movement to keep billionaires billionaires...grow the fuck up


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dr Grump said:


> But all the negative accusations made about Obama are true?



he said "you didn't build that" !!! Exactly what his 2 communist parents raised him to say. There is no accusation, just obvious facts.

He has presided over the worst economy since the Great Depression after he said he'd fix it and was only worth one term if he didn't!!! Accusation or fact???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do know that I built my business.  Hundreds of thousands of other people who enjoy the same infrastructure and government services I enjoy could have started the same business, but didn't.   That inconvenient truth is what makes President Obama's speech so absurd.   And so dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what he was saying, you would be right. He wasn't. ..
Click to expand...


Barry said, you didn't built it and if I have my communist way I'll take it from you or tax the hell out of you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dr Grump said:


> Grow up. If you think he's a socialist you have no idea what the term means. Go live in Cuba, China or god forbid North Korea, then tell me Obama is a socialist. ..



Barry is a socialist, had 2 communist parents, and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders to prove it.

But, while Barry and Bernie are socialists they have not yet subverted the country into a socialist paradise because of Republican resistance  starting with the Constitution.

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow, very very slow.


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> ahh, you were doing so well right up till the last
> 
> while romney the person isnt naziish, he will cater to the naziish tea party so he might as well be
> 
> they hate everyone who isnt exactly like them, i dont know what to call that, if you dont like nazi then fine, give me another term



Hey look,

The board dickweed decided to jump in and show why he was voted most likely to step in front of a bus (on accident).


----------



## Vanquish

Anyone who really believes Obama meant that no one ever achieves anything alone, is retarded. Everyone has help. That's just the truth.


----------



## saveliberty

A tax increase speech isn't about raising taxes.  lol

The entitlement crowd he was addressing had no problem understanding that.  They were actually there.

The big kicker is, Obama did nothing to apologize for the insult.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dr Grump said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> It reads exactly like what it is.  A socialist has infested the White House.  The entitlement crowd has cheered and wants al the more than what they have.  No price is too high in achieving their ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up. If you think he's a socialist you have no idea what the term means. Go live in Cuba, China or god forbid North Korea, then tell me Obama is a socialist. This is where the likes of you and your peanut gallery lose credibility. Dislike his policies, sure. Disagree with his stance on certain things. I get that. But a socialist? GTF outta here. You do realise you're put in the same category as lefties who would call a right-wing pollie like Romney a Nazi, right. IOW - cuckoo...
Click to expand...


Do you think Cuba, China, or North Korea or the U.S.S.R. just became totalitarian states BAM overnight?  People went to bed under freedom one night and the next morning woke up to a communist country?  Do you think Hitler or Mussolini transformed their countries into facist states  without that requiring a developing process over some time?

No in all cases it required government propaganda to convince the people that government was the solution to their worst problems, and that a charismatic leader could lead them to a prosperous bright new existence beyond their wildest dreams.  In all cases people were encouraged to look to government as their savior rather than to their own industry.

And it was a focus on the 'collective' instead of individual freedom that allowed totalitarian governments to be installed in each and every one of those countries.


----------



## saveliberty

Dr Grump said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> It reads exactly like what it is.  A socialist has infested the White House.  The entitlement crowd has cheered and wants al the more than what they have.  No price is too high in achieving their ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up. If you think he's a socialist you have no idea what the term means. Go live in Cuba, China or god forbid North Korea, then tell me Obama is a socialist. This is where the likes of you and your peanut gallery lose credibility. Dislike his policies, sure. Disagree with his stance on certain things. I get that. But a socialist? GTF outta here. You do realise you're put in the same category as lefties who would call a right-wing pollie like Romney a Nazi, right. IOW - cuckoo...
Click to expand...


You are in no position to offer credibility to anyone.  lol


----------



## Uncensored2008

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 1) its not true
> 
> 2) if it was so what??? Modern Germany owes its existence to Nazi Germany
> 
> 
> see why we say, slow???



Bfgrn is a demagogue. Very little of what he cut's and paste's is factually correct. He spends his days on hate sites like ThinkProgress and pastes the inflammatory bullshit here.


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) its not true
> 
> 2) if it was so what??? Modern Germany owes its existence to Nazi Germany
> 
> 
> see why we say, slow???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn is a demagogue. Very little of what he cut's and paste's is factually correct. He spends his days on hate sites like ThinkProgress and pastes the inflammatory bullshit here.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading his boring diatribes long ago.


----------



## Listening

The T said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) its not true
> 
> 2) if it was so what??? Modern Germany owes its existence to Nazi Germany
> 
> 
> see why we say, slow???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn is a demagogue. Very little of what he cut's and paste's is factually correct. He spends his days on hate sites like ThinkProgress and pastes the inflammatory bullshit here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stopped reading his boring diatribes long ago.
Click to expand...


I sometimes print them and then wipe my ass with them.


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn is a demagogue. Very little of what he cut's and paste's is factually correct. He spends his days on hate sites like ThinkProgress and pastes the inflammatory bullshit here.
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading his boring diatribes long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sometimes print them and then wipe my ass with them.
Click to expand...

lol


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> It reads exactly like what it is. A socialist has infested the White House. The entitlement crowd has cheered and wants al the more than what they have. No price is too high in achieving their ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up. If you think he's a socialist you have no idea what the term means. Go live in Cuba, China or god forbid North Korea, then tell me Obama is a socialist. This is where the likes of you and your peanut gallery lose credibility. Dislike his policies, sure. Disagree with his stance on certain things. I get that. But a socialist? GTF outta here. You do realise you're put in the same category as lefties who would call a right-wing pollie like Romney a Nazi, right. IOW - cuckoo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think Cuba, China, or North Korea or the U.S.S.R. just became totalitarian states BAM overnight? People went to bed under freedom one night and the next morning woke up to a communist country? Do you think Hitler or Mussolini transformed their countries into facist states without that requiring a developing process over some time?
> 
> No in all cases it required government propaganda to convince the people that government was the solution to their worst problems, and that a charismatic leader could lead them to a prosperous bright new existence beyond their wildest dreams. In all cases people were encouraged to look to government as their savior rather than to their own industry.
> 
> And it was a focus on the 'collective' instead of individual freedom that allowed totalitarian governments to be installed in each and every one of those countries.
Click to expand...

 
And then when that 'Charismatic leader' fianally achieved what they wanted [power grab], They proceded to get rid of thier useful idiots that defended them.

Some of the people on here had better be careful of what they wish for, what they think they're defending. They may very well get what they wanted and more likely what they never expected. History is replete with examples as you have continually cited. History doesn't lie...it's only revised by those in power.


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up. If you think he's a socialist you have no idea what the term means. Go live in Cuba, China or god forbid North Korea, then tell me Obama is a socialist. This is where the likes of you and your peanut gallery lose credibility. Dislike his policies, sure. Disagree with his stance on certain things. I get that. But a socialist? GTF outta here. You do realise you're put in the same category as lefties who would call a right-wing pollie like Romney a Nazi, right. IOW - cuckoo...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Cuba, China, or North Korea or the U.S.S.R. just became totalitarian states BAM overnight? People went to bed under freedom one night and the next morning woke up to a communist country? Do you think Hitler or Mussolini transformed their countries into facist states without that requiring a developing process over some time?
> 
> No in all cases it required government propaganda to convince the people that government was the solution to their worst problems, and that a charismatic leader could lead them to a prosperous bright new existence beyond their wildest dreams. In all cases people were encouraged to look to government as their savior rather than to their own industry.
> 
> And it was a focus on the 'collective' instead of individual freedom that allowed totalitarian governments to be installed in each and every one of those countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then when that 'Charismatic leader' fianally achieved what they wanted [power grab], They proceded to get rid of thier useful idiots that defended them.
> 
> Some of the people on here had better be careful of what they wish for, what they think they're defending. They may very well get what they wanted and more likely what they never expected. History is replete with examples as you have continually cited. History doesn't lie...it's only revised by those in power.
Click to expand...


And again I am not ready to accuse our President of having designs of becoming a dictator.   But the mantra he is using, the rhetoric he is working into his speeches, the methods he is using continue to point to the collective rather than the industry of the individual as the means to a brighter future.

And I'm sorry folks.  To any serious student of history, that should scare you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> You either know goddamned good and well that "small business" is NOT what the politicians are talking about when they cry about "small business," or you're a goddamned liar. You choose.



Small business is EXACTLY what Obama is talking about.

Obama has no problem with corporations. Goldman-Sachs can depend on federal largess should they stumble. Blue Cross and Kaiser have the IRS to force people to buy their product, thanks to Obama. 

Obama and the corporations are part of the same cesspool of fascism.

The only group Obama seeks to crush are the small business owners, those usurpers seeking to climb the ladder. Obama seeks to protect the status of the elite, to pull the ladder up so that the lower classes never rise above their station.


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You either know goddamned good and well that "small business" is NOT what the politicians are talking about when they cry about "small business," or you're a goddamned liar. You choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Small business is EXACTLY what Obama is talking about.
> 
> Obama has no problem with corporations. Goldman-Sachs can depend on federal largess should they stumble. Blue Cross and Kaiser have the IRS to force people to buy their product, thanks to Obama.
> 
> Obama and the corporations are part of the same cesspool of fascism.
> 
> The only group Obama seeks to crush are the small business owners, those usurpers seeking to climb the ladder. Obama seeks to protect the status of the elite, to pull the ladder up so that the lower classes never rise above their station.
Click to expand...


I was on a plane home thursday night, and I sat next to a guy who's a salesman for some big trucking company.  He said business for his company was booming because all the little guys are bailing.  They just can't handle the cost of dealing with all of the new regulations the Obama administration has imposed on them.  He said a company needs a corporate sized financial department to deal with all the government red tape, even if they only have three trucks.

That's why this recovery is so anemic.  Obama is driving all the small business owners out of business.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> My comment re Keynesian economics had absolutely nothing to do with tax cuts, Bfgn, but is pertinent to the President's desire to increase government spending.  But thanks for throwing another red herring into the debate.
> 
> Let's focus on the topic.



It amazes me how little the left, though supposedly disciples of Keynes, actually know about Keynesian economics. I blame Krugman for this. Krugman is a fraud and misrepresents Keynes. Though I strongly disagree with and oppose Keynes ideas, they are miles ahead of the thin diarrhea of Marxism that Krugman promotes.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> Jesus, you vile filthy lying bigot shitbag bagging morons are still at it I see.



Fuck off, troll.


----------



## Newby

bripat9643 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You either know goddamned good and well that "small business" is NOT what the politicians are talking about when they cry about "small business," or you're a goddamned liar. You choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Small business is EXACTLY what Obama is talking about.
> 
> Obama has no problem with corporations. Goldman-Sachs can depend on federal largess should they stumble. Blue Cross and Kaiser have the IRS to force people to buy their product, thanks to Obama.
> 
> Obama and the corporations are part of the same cesspool of fascism.
> 
> The only group Obama seeks to crush are the small business owners, those usurpers seeking to climb the ladder. Obama seeks to protect the status of the elite, to pull the ladder up so that the lower classes never rise above their station.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was on a plane home thursday night, and I sat next to a guy who's a salesman for some big trucking company.  He said business for his company was booming because all the little guys are bailing.  They just can't handle the cost of dealing with all of the new regulations the Obama administration has imposed on them.  He said a company needs a corporate sized financial department to deal with all the government red tape, even if they only have three trucks.
> 
> That's why this recovery is so anemic.  Obama is driving all the small business owners out of business.
Click to expand...


And that's without ObamaCare having even kicked into full steam yet, just wait until that happens.


----------



## saveliberty

Regardless of whether I got where I am by myself, a bunch of liberals in DC want to tell me where to go.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> I was on a plane home thursday night, and I sat next to a guy who's a salesman for some big trucking company.  He said business for his company was booming because all the little guys are bailing.  They just can't handle the cost of dealing with all of the new regulations the Obama administration has imposed on them.  He said a company needs a corporate sized financial department to deal with all the government red tape, even if they only have three trucks.
> 
> That's why this recovery is so anemic.  Obama is driving all the small business owners out of business.



That's the goal. Encumber basic transactions to the point that it is impossible for entrapanuers to operate. Anyone thinking Obama opposes the mega-corporations is a fool, Obama is working to protect their interests.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Cuba, China, or North Korea or the U.S.S.R. just became totalitarian states BAM overnight? People went to bed under freedom one night and the next morning woke up to a communist country? Do you think Hitler or Mussolini transformed their countries into facist states without that requiring a developing process over some time?
> 
> No in all cases it required government propaganda to convince the people that government was the solution to their worst problems, and that a charismatic leader could lead them to a prosperous bright new existence beyond their wildest dreams. In all cases people were encouraged to look to government as their savior rather than to their own industry.
> 
> And it was a focus on the 'collective' instead of individual freedom that allowed totalitarian governments to be installed in each and every one of those countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then when that 'Charismatic leader' fianally achieved what they wanted [power grab], They proceded to get rid of thier useful idiots that defended them.
> 
> Some of the people on here had better be careful of what they wish for, what they think they're defending. They may very well get what they wanted and more likely what they never expected. History is replete with examples as you have continually cited. History doesn't lie...it's only revised by those in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again I am not ready to accuse our President of having designs of becoming a dictator. But the mantra he is using, the rhetoric he is working into his speeches, the methods he is using continue to point to the collective rather than the industry of the individual as the means to a brighter future.
> 
> And I'm sorry folks. To any serious student of history, that should scare you.
Click to expand...

 
Agreed. But bear in mind something? 'progressives knew they weren't going to get where they wanted this Republic to be overnight. We've had slow and steady whittling away for about 100 years now.

Indeed people should be scared, and they are. They are rising up as they see it. Look what happened across the nation just a couple days ago with a business and the people's support of it. WE are witnessing an awakening that hasn't happened dare I say since Pearl Harbour?


----------



## Listening

bripat9643 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You either know goddamned good and well that "small business" is NOT what the politicians are talking about when they cry about "small business," or you're a goddamned liar. You choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Small business is EXACTLY what Obama is talking about.
> 
> Obama has no problem with corporations. Goldman-Sachs can depend on federal largess should they stumble. Blue Cross and Kaiser have the IRS to force people to buy their product, thanks to Obama.
> 
> Obama and the corporations are part of the same cesspool of fascism.
> 
> The only group Obama seeks to crush are the small business owners, those usurpers seeking to climb the ladder. Obama seeks to protect the status of the elite, to pull the ladder up so that the lower classes never rise above their station.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was on a plane home thursday night, and I sat next to a guy who's a salesman for some big trucking company.  He said business for his company was booming because all the little guys are bailing.  They just can't handle the cost of dealing with all of the new regulations the Obama administration has imposed on them.  He said a company needs a corporate sized financial department to deal with all the government red tape, even if they only have three trucks.
> 
> That's why this recovery is so anemic.  Obama is driving all the small business owners out of business.
Click to expand...


And what would brainless leader say ?

".....If you are successful....you probably skirted the regulations...."


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was on a plane home thursday night, and I sat next to a guy who's a salesman for some big trucking company. He said business for his company was booming because all the little guys are bailing. They just can't handle the cost of dealing with all of the new regulations the Obama administration has imposed on them. He said a company needs a corporate sized financial department to deal with all the government red tape, even if they only have three trucks.
> 
> That's why this recovery is so anemic. Obama is driving all the small business owners out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the goal. Encumber basic transactions to the point that it is impossible for entrapanuers to operate. Anyone thinking Obama opposes the mega-corporations is a fool, Obama is working to protect their interests.
Click to expand...

 
And he [and his party] get paid handomely for it through campaign donations while pretending to be for the 'little guy'. it's all hogwash.
Too many that come here to protect him and thier side really are too afraid to admit the truth.


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Small business is EXACTLY what Obama is talking about.
> 
> Obama has no problem with corporations. Goldman-Sachs can depend on federal largess should they stumble. Blue Cross and Kaiser have the IRS to force people to buy their product, thanks to Obama.
> 
> Obama and the corporations are part of the same cesspool of fascism.
> 
> The only group Obama seeks to crush are the small business owners, those usurpers seeking to climb the ladder. Obama seeks to protect the status of the elite, to pull the ladder up so that the lower classes never rise above their station.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was on a plane home thursday night, and I sat next to a guy who's a salesman for some big trucking company. He said business for his company was booming because all the little guys are bailing. They just can't handle the cost of dealing with all of the new regulations the Obama administration has imposed on them. He said a company needs a corporate sized financial department to deal with all the government red tape, even if they only have three trucks.
> 
> That's why this recovery is so anemic. Obama is driving all the small business owners out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what would brainless leader say ?
> 
> ".....If you are successful....you probably skirted the regulations...."
Click to expand...

 
"...Cheated someone else...stole your wealth...or was just lucky in life's lottery..."


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, you vile filthy lying bigot shitbag bagging morons are still at it I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off, troll.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that thing is getting quite boring as well.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Listening said:


> And what would brainless leader say ?
> 
> ".....If you are successful....you probably skirted the regulations...."



That in itself is a sad indictment, that the only way to success is to find a way to skirt the myriad regulation imposed by government. IF that is truly the case, then it is clear that our government works only to protect established concerns from competition from upstarts.


----------



## Foxfyre

The T said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then when that 'Charismatic leader' fianally achieved what they wanted [power grab], They proceded to get rid of thier useful idiots that defended them.
> 
> Some of the people on here had better be careful of what they wish for, what they think they're defending. They may very well get what they wanted and more likely what they never expected. History is replete with examples as you have continually cited. History doesn't lie...it's only revised by those in power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again I am not ready to accuse our President of having designs of becoming a dictator. But the mantra he is using, the rhetoric he is working into his speeches, the methods he is using continue to point to the collective rather than the industry of the individual as the means to a brighter future.
> 
> And I'm sorry folks. To any serious student of history, that should scare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. But bear in mind something? 'progressives knew they weren't going to get where they wanted this Republic to be overnight. We've had slow and steady whittling away for about 100 years now.
> 
> Indeed people should be scared, and they are. They are rising up as they see it. Look what happened across the nation just a couple days ago with a business and the people's support of it. WE are witnessing an awakening that hasn't happened dare I say since Pearl Harbour?
Click to expand...


Agreed that the erosion began in the T. Roosevelt administration and has progressed ever since.  But not only are we seeing a resurgence of some core American values and sense of fair play, we are also seeing a stepping up of what appears to be a new Marxism and promises of a bright and glorious future if we just allow the government to do what it wants to do.

About 50% of Americans now receive some sort of government subsidy and its a safe bet all of them like those subsidies.

I think we're at the tipping point where we either start reversing things, or the die will be permanently cast.


----------



## Listening

You have to wonder if there is anything that Obama could do that would piss off the lefties on this board.

I'll bet that if he passed and executive order that says you have to register at the Post Office, they would all be there tomorow.


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> You have to wonder if there is anything that Obama could do that would piss off the lefties on this board.
> 
> I'll bet that if he passed and executive order that says you have to register at the Post Office, they would all be there tomorow.


 
I honestly belive some of these people would commit _Harakiri_ if asked to by Obama. They wouldn't second guess the demand, but execute it.


----------



## Big Fitz

You didn't found this.






Oops, oh wait... he did.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> Do you think Cuba, China, or North Korea or the U.S.S.R. just became totalitarian states BAM overnight?



"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."-Jefferson


----------



## Foxfyre

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Cuba, China, or North Korea or the U.S.S.R. just became totalitarian states BAM overnight?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."-Jefferson
Click to expand...


LOL. You should post that in the Revolution thread in the CDZ.  

Jefferson's point of course being that those who do not cherish their freedoms and guard them diligently will inevitably lose them.   There will always be those who covet power and will take them from us if we allow it.


----------



## The T

Foxfyre said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Cuba, China, or North Korea or the U.S.S.R. just became totalitarian states BAM overnight?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."-Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. You should post that in the Revolution thread in the CDZ.
> 
> Jefferson's point of course being that those who do not cherish their freedoms and guard them diligently will inevitably lose them. There will always be those who covet power and will take them from us if we allow it.
Click to expand...

 
Indeed. And WE have allowed it...been too tolerant for too long, and now pay the price of fighting to reclaim the birthright of liberty from those we trusted to safeguard it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Cuba, China, or North Korea or the U.S.S.R. just became totalitarian states BAM overnight?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."-Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. You should post that in the Revolution thread in the CDZ.
> 
> Jefferson's point of course being that those who do not cherish their freedoms and guard them diligently will inevitably lose them.   There will always be those who covet power and will take them from us if we allow it.
Click to expand...


what could possibly be the end game for our brain dead liberals now the Hitler Stalin Mao Tojo Castro Pot pot, and now Europe have failed???


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Cuba, China, or North Korea or the U.S.S.R. just became totalitarian states BAM overnight? People went to bed under freedom one night and the next morning woke up to a communist country? Do you think Hitler or Mussolini transformed their countries into facist states without that requiring a developing process over some time?
> 
> No in all cases it required government propaganda to convince the people that government was the solution to their worst problems, and that a charismatic leader could lead them to a prosperous bright new existence beyond their wildest dreams. In all cases people were encouraged to look to government as their savior rather than to their own industry.
> 
> And it was a focus on the 'collective' instead of individual freedom that allowed totalitarian governments to be installed in each and every one of those countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then when that 'Charismatic leader' fianally achieved what they wanted [power grab], They proceded to get rid of thier useful idiots that defended them.
> 
> Some of the people on here had better be careful of what they wish for, what they think they're defending. They may very well get what they wanted and more likely what they never expected. History is replete with examples as you have continually cited. History doesn't lie...it's only revised by those in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again I am not ready to accuse our President of having designs of becoming a dictator.   But the mantra he is using, the rhetoric he is working into his speeches, the methods he is using continue to point to the collective rather than the industry of the individual as the means to a brighter future.
> 
> And I'm sorry folks.  To any serious student of history, that should scare you.
Click to expand...


Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone


----------



## Foxfyre

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."-Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. You should post that in the Revolution thread in the CDZ.
> 
> Jefferson's point of course being that those who do not cherish their freedoms and guard them diligently will inevitably lose them.   There will always be those who covet power and will take them from us if we allow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what could possibly be the end game for our brain dead liberals now the Hitler Stalin Mao Tojo Castro Pot pot, and now Europe have failed???
Click to expand...


But none of those did it right  of course.   With their superior morality and being nicer people and having no motive other than compassion, equality, tolerance, and all that, our American progressives wouldn't screw it up like everybody else has if we would just give them the power to do what they want.


----------



## The T

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then when that 'Charismatic leader' fianally achieved what they wanted [power grab], They proceded to get rid of thier useful idiots that defended them.
> 
> Some of the people on here had better be careful of what they wish for, what they think they're defending. They may very well get what they wanted and more likely what they never expected. History is replete with examples as you have continually cited. History doesn't lie...it's only revised by those in power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again I am not ready to accuse our President of having designs of becoming a dictator. But the mantra he is using, the rhetoric he is working into his speeches, the methods he is using continue to point to the collective rather than the industry of the individual as the means to a brighter future.
> 
> And I'm sorry folks. To any serious student of history, that should scare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
Click to expand...

 

Do your pages speak? or are YOU reading it BuFu?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the opening...
> 
> Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary - 60 Minutes
> 
> 
> The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
> 
> But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
> 
> *"Cheney*, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He *says*, *'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' *&#8230; O'Neill is speechless."
> 
> "It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what ?
> 
> What is your point.
> 
> Cheney said it.  So what ?
> 
> That is an opening.  You needed someone to lead you to this ?
> 
> Your whole "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bulls**t" approach is all to worn out.
> 
> The first time I heard that, I knew Cheney was wrong.
> 
> You are a tool.  A locked up brain dead tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers when Reagan raised debt ceiling 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times.
> 
> What we heard from you tools was parroting of what Cheney said.
> 
> AGAIN...
> 
> Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?
> 
> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a &#8220;tax and spend&#8221; policy, to a &#8220;borrow and spend&#8221; policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'...
Click to expand...




Just wanted to clarify a bit of an error on your part before you start talking debt and spending. 
The Iraq war under George W. Bush during the duration of his *8 years *cost taxpayers *$820 Billion*, not the exaggerated $3 trillion. 

Take that in comparison to Barrack Obama with his *$787 Billion* stimulus plan (just *one spending bill*) and we see just who IS the big spender in the White House.

If you want to adjust for inflation or interest fine, but you have to do the same to Obama's Stimulus bill as well if you want to have an accurate apples to apples comparison.


----------



## CMike

OODA_Loop said:


> You had to drive on the road you previously and continuously paid for by being taxed to get to work in order to succeed therefore more government is the answer and the reason for your success?



Wow. And that really shows how the government led to a business mans success.

/sarcasm off


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone



From Federalist 10:

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. *Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.* Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

************************

And thus we see that distrust of the government is a good thing.

Liberalism does not trust people.  It trusts government.

Big difference.

Big mistake.

Your pontificating grows old.


----------



## Foxfyre

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Federalist 10:
> 
> It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. *Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.* Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
> 
> The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
> 
> ************************
> 
> And thus we see that distrust of the government is a good thing.
> 
> Liberalism does not trust people.  It trusts government.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Big mistake.
> 
> Your pontificating grows old.
Click to expand...


You have to understand that I don't believe Bfgn has ever had an original thought.  He has certain sites he goes to for the purpose of cutting and pasting a 'sound bite' that he presumes is a dig at whatever the rest of us have posted.

In the case of Gladstone's quotation however, in the 19th century, Gladstone's (and everybody else's) definition of conservative was very close to the definition of the modern day leftist/progressive/liberal.  And the definition of liberal at that time was very close to the definition of th modern day American conservative/rightwinger/classical liberal.

So he got it right.  He intended it to be a gig at our conservatism but in fact posted a quotation defending it.


----------



## Listening

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Federalist 10:
> 
> It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. *Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.* Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
> 
> The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
> 
> ************************
> 
> And thus we see that distrust of the government is a good thing.
> 
> Liberalism does not trust people.  It trusts government.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Big mistake.
> 
> Your pontificating grows old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand that I don't believe Bfgn has ever had an original thought.  He has certain sites he goes to for the purpose of cutting and pasting a 'sound bite' that he presumes is a dig at whatever the rest of us have posted.
> 
> In the case of Gladstone's quotation however, in the 19th century, Gladstone's (and everybody else's) definition of conservative was very close to the definition of the modern day leftist/progressive/liberal.  And the definition of liberal at that time was very close to the definition of th modern day American conservative/rightwinger/classical liberal.
> 
> So he got it right.  He intended it to be a gig at our conservatism but in fact posted a quotation defending it.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

But my point still stands.

Conservatives would not have their views if they didn't trust people to take care of themselves.  They believe that many will work hard to succeed.

Liberalism trusts government, not people.  It is the ultimate cowardice.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Federalist 10:
> 
> It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. *Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.* Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
> 
> The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
> 
> ************************
> 
> And thus we see that distrust of the government is a good thing.
> 
> Liberalism does not trust people.  It trusts government.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Big mistake.
> 
> Your pontificating grows old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand that I don't believe Bfgn has ever had an original thought.  He has certain sites he goes to for the purpose of cutting and pasting a 'sound bite' that he presumes is a dig at whatever the rest of us have posted.
> 
> In the case of Gladstone's quotation however, in the 19th century, Gladstone's (and everybody else's) definition of conservative was very close to the definition of the modern day leftist/progressive/liberal.  And the definition of liberal at that time was very close to the definition of th modern day American conservative/rightwinger/classical liberal.
> 
> So he got it right.  He intended it to be a gig at our conservatism but in fact posted a quotation defending it.
Click to expand...


We have gone over this before. You do not have a liberal bone in your body. You are a conservative to the core.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Buchanan is saying exactly what I have been saying about conservatives, you ARE the 'peasants for plutocracy' poster in the flesh.

There is one constant since man walked upright...human nature. Gladstone's truths applies even MORE today with the propaganda machine conservatives parrot.

As I read your posts, others like T and Listening, it is nothing but partisan bullshit. I was on numerous message boards when Bush was in office, there was not a PEEP of this paranoid tin foil crap...


----------



## OODA_Loop

Bfgrn said:


> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan



Natural law establishes hierarchy based on natural ability.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Liberalism is trust of the people,



right!!! Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Castro, King George, FDR, BO showed their trust of the people by taking all their power away and putting in a central government that they controlled.

See why we say a liberal will be slow, very very slow.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> We have gone over this before. You do not have a liberal bone in your body. You are a conservative to the core.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.



ROTFLMAO

When you read liberal authors through the ages, one thing they have in common is the concept of an intellectual elite who should be given charge for making decisions.

You are so full of s**t, your eyes are probably brown.

And we are still gonna whack Social Security.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Federalist 10:
> 
> It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. *Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.* Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
> 
> The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
> 
> ************************
> 
> And thus we see that distrust of the government is a good thing.
> 
> Liberalism does not trust people.  It trusts government.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Big mistake.
> 
> Your pontificating grows old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand that I don't believe Bfgn has ever had an original thought.  He has certain sites he goes to for the purpose of cutting and pasting a 'sound bite' that he presumes is a dig at whatever the rest of us have posted.
> 
> In the case of Gladstone's quotation however, in the 19th century, Gladstone's (and everybody else's) definition of conservative was very close to the definition of the modern day leftist/progressive/liberal.  And the definition of liberal at that time was very close to the definition of th modern day American conservative/rightwinger/classical liberal.
> 
> So he got it right.  He intended it to be a gig at our conservatism but in fact posted a quotation defending it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have gone over this before. You do not have a liberal bone in your body. You are a conservative to the core.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> Buchanan is saying exactly what I have been saying about conservatives, you ARE the 'peasants for plutocracy' poster in the flesh.
> 
> There is one constant since man walked upright...human nature. Gladstone's truths applies even MORE today with the propaganda machine conservatives parrot.
> 
> As I read your posts, others like T and Listening, it is nothing but partisan bullshit. I was on numerous message boards when Bush was in office, there was not a PEEP of this paranoid tin foil crap...
Click to expand...


Yeah we have been over this before.  And you still don't have a clue what classical liberalism is, what period of history it comes from, and you don't have a clue that the Gladstone quotation you cited,  for his time, meant the exact opposite of what you thought it said.

If you go with Buchanan or Gladstone to make your case, you are lifting up modern day conservatives as the true progressives and lover of liberty, and the modern day liberal as the authoritarian government  controlling the people by instilling fear.

But keep it up.  You're finally cutting and pasting some really good stuff even if you are shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural law establishes hierarchy based on natural ability.
Click to expand...


Yep evolution depends on being able to see differences. A society that homogenizes people is doomed.

If not for liberal perversions we could make heroes out of all our most successful people just as we do out of our star athletes and entertainers.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> Yeah we have been over this before.  And you still don't have a clue what classical liberalism is,



Classical liberals were those who wanted change toward freedom or limited government. Classical liberals=modern conservatives.

Liberal have to play stupid because the truth cuts them out of American History and makes their only real home, Cuba


----------



## saveliberty

Bfgrn said:


> Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, *tempered by prudence*; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone



Prudence?  Like fiscal conservatism?  Balanced budgets?  Liberalism also expected people to be educated and preserve liberty.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand that I don't believe Bfgn has ever had an original thought.  He has certain sites he goes to for the purpose of cutting and pasting a 'sound bite' that he presumes is a dig at whatever the rest of us have posted.
> 
> In the case of Gladstone's quotation however, in the 19th century, Gladstone's (and everybody else's) definition of conservative was very close to the definition of the modern day leftist/progressive/liberal.  And the definition of liberal at that time was very close to the definition of th modern day American conservative/rightwinger/classical liberal.
> 
> So he got it right.  He intended it to be a gig at our conservatism but in fact posted a quotation defending it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over this before. You do not have a liberal bone in your body. You are a conservative to the core.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> Buchanan is saying exactly what I have been saying about conservatives, you ARE the 'peasants for plutocracy' poster in the flesh.
> 
> There is one constant since man walked upright...human nature. Gladstone's truths applies even MORE today with the propaganda machine conservatives parrot.
> 
> As I read your posts, others like T and Listening, it is nothing but partisan bullshit. I was on numerous message boards when Bush was in office, there was not a PEEP of this paranoid tin foil crap...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we have been over this before.  And you still don't have a clue what classical liberalism is, what period of history it comes from, and you don't have a clue that the Gladstone quotation you cited,  for his time, meant the exact opposite of what you thought it said.
> 
> If you go with Buchanan or Gladstone to make your case, you are lifting up modern day conservatives as the true progressives and lover of liberty, and the modern day liberal as the authoritarian government  controlling the people by instilling fear.
> 
> But keep it up.  You're finally cutting and pasting some really good stuff even if you are shooting yourself in the foot.
Click to expand...


Yea, here is what F.A. Hayek said about conservatism, in Why I Am Not A Conservative. It reinforces what Buchanan said and expands on it. Hayek considered Gladstone one of the three greatest liberals.

"The conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people  he is not an egalitarian  but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others."

And Hayek addresses the questions you folks refuse to answer. WHERE was the angst and paranoia whan Bush was in office?

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> Yea, here is what F.A. Hayek said about conservatism, in Why I Am Not A Conservative




Dear, Milton Friedman was a liberal too. Why not read Freedom and Capitalism?? In the intro he explains that he is a classical liberal, i.e., for very very limited government!

You really are shaming yourself badly!!


----------



## Amazed

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Federalist 10:
> 
> It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. *Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.* Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
> 
> The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
> 
> ************************
> 
> And thus we see that distrust of the government is a good thing.
> 
> Liberalism does not trust people.  It trusts government.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Big mistake.
> 
> Your pontificating grows old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand that I don't believe Bfgn has ever had an original thought.  He has certain sites he goes to for the purpose of cutting and pasting a 'sound bite' that he presumes is a dig at whatever the rest of us have posted.
> 
> In the case of Gladstone's quotation however, in the 19th century, Gladstone's (and everybody else's) definition of conservative was very close to the definition of the modern day leftist/progressive/liberal.  And the definition of liberal at that time was very close to the definition of th modern day American conservative/rightwinger/classical liberal.
> 
> So he got it right.  He intended it to be a gig at our conservatism but in fact posted a quotation defending it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have gone over this before. You do not have a liberal bone in your body. You are a conservative to the core.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan
> 
> Buchanan is saying exactly what I have been saying about conservatives, you ARE the 'peasants for plutocracy' poster in the flesh.
> 
> There is one constant since man walked upright...human nature. Gladstone's truths applies even MORE today with the propaganda machine conservatives parrot.
> 
> As I read your posts, others like T and Listening, it is nothing but partisan bullshit. I was on numerous message boards when Bush was in office, there was not a PEEP of this paranoid tin foil crap...
Click to expand...


Good little commie central planner aren't you?


----------



## pwjohn

Sallow said:


> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over this before. You do not have a liberal bone in your body. You are a conservative to the core.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO
> 
> When you read liberal authors through the ages, one thing they have in common is the concept of an intellectual elite who should be given charge for making decisions.
> 
> You are so full of s**t, your eyes are probably brown.
> 
> *And we are still gonna whack Social Security.*
Click to expand...


Yea, THAT is what we need to do. Let's go after the weakest, most fragile and vulnerable people in our society. Let's take away any security and dignity in the final years of their life. A life that paved the way for the next generation.

Instead, when they finally retire (probably just work until they die) and keep younger people from taking over those jobs, we will hand them a CUP, so they can spend every day of their final years begging. Conservatives would LOVE that...

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over this before. You do not have a liberal bone in your body. You are a conservative to the core.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO
> 
> When you read liberal authors through the ages, one thing they have in common is the concept of an intellectual elite who should be given charge for making decisions.
> 
> You are so full of s**t, your eyes are probably brown.
> 
> *And we are still gonna whack Social Security.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, THAT is what we need to do. Let's go after the weakest, most fragile and vulnerable people in our society. Let's take away any security and dignity in the final years of their life. A life that paved the way for the next generation.
> 
> Instead, when they finally retire (probably just work until they die) and keep younger people from taking over those jobs, we will hand them a CUP, so they can spend every day of their final years begging. Conservatives would LOVE that...
> 
> You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
> Leviticus 19:32
Click to expand...


So if they have worked their entire life, *why* exactly would they need Social Security??? 

Oh that's right, the idiot liberal spends lavishly on vacations, iPad's, iPhones, and other gadgets, then expect hard working conservatives to provide for them for the rest of their lives. If you have worked your entire life, you have ZERO excuse for not having the money set aside for your own retirement.


----------



## ecinicola

stephanie said:


> i'm sure all the business people in the country love hearing this shit from obama
> 
> unfrikenbelievable
> 
> please vote this progressive idiot out




         well, his statement could go both ways, but it certainly put down the hard worker and person that achieves something on their own.    It was sorta a insult.
People do achieve things on their own without the help of others.   It is the person, their effort and their achievement.


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.



And here we see the ignorant communist ideology of Bfgrn on full display 

I don't know how to break this to you cupcake, but humans are not created equal.*

Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Bill Gates were born exponentially more intelligent than the rest of us.

Henry Ford, Warren Buffet, and Steve Jobs were born exponentially more driven than the rest of us.

George Washington, Pat Tillman, and Marcus Luttrell were born exponentially more courageous than the rest of us.

Dan Marino, Michael Jordan, and Babe Ruth were born exponentially more athletic than the rest of us.

I could go on forever, but anyone who is not a liberal gets the point by now. The liberal wants equal results for all (ie communism), but refuses to acknowledge that there is not an equality of effort, talent, etc.

The *only* thing that the framers intended to be *EQUAL* for *all* citizens was our *RIGHTS*!


----------



## Amazed

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over this before. You do not have a liberal bone in your body. You are a conservative to the core.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO
> 
> When you read liberal authors through the ages, one thing they have in common is the concept of an intellectual elite who should be given charge for making decisions.
> 
> You are so full of s**t, your eyes are probably brown.
> 
> *And we are still gonna whack Social Security.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, THAT is what we need to do. Let's go after the weakest, most fragile and vulnerable people in our society. Let's take away any security and dignity in the final years of their life. A life that paved the way for the next generation.
> 
> Instead, when they finally retire (probably just work until they die) and keep younger people from taking over those jobs, we will hand them a CUP, so they can spend every day of their final years begging. Conservatives would LOVE that...
> 
> You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
> Leviticus 19:32
Click to expand...


BJ...you a communist?


----------



## P@triot

pwjohn said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mocking anything.
> 
> That's the truth.
Click to expand...


Mostly because they believe (due to their extreme ignorance and lack of education) that Marxism and Communism are radical "new" ideas that have never been tried before and which hold the key to a utopian society.

Liberals reject facts and history, which is why they lack rational thought. In addition, what little history they do know, is completely false history (like George Washington and the cherry tree bullshit taught in schools ) because that's what centralized planning ideology does - warps history and controls the flow of information to further the agenda of the centralized planner.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> It reads exactly like what it is.  A socialist has infested the White House.  The entitlement crowd has cheered and wants al the more than what they have.  No price is too high in achieving their ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up. If you think he's a socialist you have no idea what the term means. Go live in Cuba, China or god forbid North Korea, then tell me Obama is a socialist. This is where the likes of you and your peanut gallery lose credibility. Dislike his policies, sure. Disagree with his stance on certain things. I get that. But a socialist? GTF outta here. You do realise you're put in the same category as lefties who would call a right-wing pollie like Romney a Nazi, right. IOW - cuckoo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think Cuba, China, or North Korea or the U.S.S.R. just became totalitarian states BAM overnight?  People went to bed under freedom one night and the next morning woke up to a communist country?  Do you think Hitler or Mussolini transformed their countries into facist states  without that requiring a developing process over some time?
> 
> No in all cases it required government propaganda to convince the people that government was the solution to their worst problems, and that a charismatic leader could lead them to a prosperous bright new existence beyond their wildest dreams.  In all cases people were encouraged to look to government as their savior rather than to their own industry.
> 
> And it was a focus on the 'collective' instead of individual freedom that allowed totalitarian governments to be installed in each and every one of those countries.
Click to expand...


Um, yes they more or less did become Communist 'overnight'...especially in the case of Cuba and North Korea. And you think Cubans, under Batista, were free? Really? Under the Tsars of Russia? Really? Do you read history books?

And yeah, Obama's philisophy is sooooo linked with Kim Il Jong, Mao, Castro and Lenin...Give me a break. If you even think his philosophy even touches on what they did/do, then you don't have a clue...

C'mon Foxy, I expect this kind of horseshit from the rabid right....but you?


----------



## Dr Grump

bripat9643 said:


> I was on a plane home thursday night, and I sat next to a guy who's a salesman for some big trucking company.  He said business for his company was booming because all the little guys are bailing.  They just can't handle the cost of dealing with all of the new regulations the Obama administration has imposed on them.  He said a company needs a corporate sized financial department to deal with all the government red tape, even if they only have three trucks.
> 
> That's why this recovery is so anemic.  Obama is driving all the small business owners out of business.



b-b-but that's capitalism right? You like Walmart and McDonalds, right?


----------



## Bfgrn

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO
> 
> When you read liberal authors through the ages, one thing they have in common is the concept of an intellectual elite who should be given charge for making decisions.
> 
> You are so full of s**t, your eyes are probably brown.
> 
> *And we are still gonna whack Social Security.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, THAT is what we need to do. Let's go after the weakest, most fragile and vulnerable people in our society. Let's take away any security and dignity in the final years of their life. A life that paved the way for the next generation.
> 
> Instead, when they finally retire (probably just work until they die) and keep younger people from taking over those jobs, we will hand them a CUP, so they can spend every day of their final years begging. Conservatives would LOVE that...
> 
> You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
> Leviticus 19:32
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they have worked their entire life, *why* exactly would they need Social Security???
> 
> Oh that's right, the idiot liberal spends lavishly on vacations, iPad's, iPhones, and other gadgets, then expect hard working conservatives to provide for them for the rest of their lives. If you have worked your entire life, you have ZERO excuse for not having the money set aside for your own retirement.
Click to expand...


Hey doggy breath, those people PAID INTO Social Security their whole working lives. It is social insurance, not a handout. Social Security assures a *minimum *quality of life for older Americans. 

Thank you for exhibiting your ignorant stereotyping. Only liberals spend lavishly on vacations, iPad's, iPhones, and other gadgets. Only liberals have abortions. Only liberals are on welfare. Only liberals receive food stamps.

Ironically, it is the *RED* states that suck the most federal money.

The conservative movement's favorite philosopher Ayn Rand's novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized "producers" -- noble, intelligent  Übermenschen whose faith in their own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams drives everything else in society. And she called out the evil of "parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.

Conservatives love this story. They're eager to claim the gleaming mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's darkly implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do. If you want to arouse their class and race resentments, there are few narratives that can get them rolling like this producers-versus-parasites tale.

But the conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees, flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly concentrated in the *blue* cities and states -- the regions full of smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places in the country to live.

And the real *parasites* are centered in *red *states (the only exceptions being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and Texas) -- the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a fading past, rejected science, substituted superstition for sense, and refused to invest in their own futures. It's not unfair to say that those regions are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling labor, and expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about their wealth-destroying ways.

And we* producers *have had enough.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over this before. You do not have a liberal bone in your body. You are a conservative to the core.
> 
> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO
> 
> When you read liberal authors through the ages, one thing they have in common is the concept of an intellectual elite who should be given charge for making decisions.
> 
> You are so full of s**t, your eyes are probably brown.
> 
> *And we are still gonna whack Social Security.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, THAT is what we need to do. Let's go after the weakest, most fragile and vulnerable people in our society. Let's take away any security and dignity in the final years of their life. A life that paved the way for the next generation.
> 
> Instead, when they finally retire (probably just work until they die) and keep younger people from taking over those jobs, we will hand them a CUP, so they can spend every day of their final years begging. Conservatives would LOVE that...
> 
> You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
> Leviticus 19:32
Click to expand...


As I said before dickweed, maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

I owe you nothing in  the way of an expalantion....nothing at all.  You don't deserve it because you are such a arrogant projectionist lemming.

But, I'll let others know that I would never take Social Security away from those who have paid into the system.  They paid into and they have a promise of something coming to them.

That does not mean the people entering the workforce today need be strapped with the same thing.

You figure the rest out blowhard.

It is not wonder conservatives can't work with liberals.  We'd have an easier time sculpting granite with Q-tips.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, THAT is what we need to do. Let's go after the weakest, most fragile and vulnerable people in our society. Let's take away any security and dignity in the final years of their life. A life that paved the way for the next generation.
> 
> Instead, when they finally retire (probably just work until they die) and keep younger people from taking over those jobs, we will hand them a CUP, so they can spend every day of their final years begging. Conservatives would LOVE that...
> 
> You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
> Leviticus 19:32
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they have worked their entire life, *why* exactly would they need Social Security???
> 
> Oh that's right, the idiot liberal spends lavishly on vacations, iPad's, iPhones, and other gadgets, then expect hard working conservatives to provide for them for the rest of their lives. If you have worked your entire life, you have ZERO excuse for not having the money set aside for your own retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey doggy breath, those people PAID INTO Social Security their whole working lives. It is social insurance, not a handout. Social Security assures a *minimum *quality of life for older Americans.
> 
> Thank you for exhibiting your ignorant stereotyping. Only liberals spend lavishly on vacations, iPad's, iPhones, and other gadgets. Only liberals have abortions. Only liberals are on welfare. Only liberals receive food stamps.
> 
> Ironically, it is the *RED* states that suck the most federal money.
> 
> The conservative movement's favorite philosopher Ayn Rand's novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized "producers" -- noble, intelligent  Übermenschen whose faith in their own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams drives everything else in society. And she called out the evil of "parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.
> 
> Conservatives love this story. They're eager to claim the gleaming mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's darkly implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do. If you want to arouse their class and race resentments, there are few narratives that can get them rolling like this producers-versus-parasites tale.
> 
> But the conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees, flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly concentrated in the *blue* cities and states -- the regions full of smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places in the country to live.
> 
> And the real *parasites* are centered in *red *states (the only exceptions being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and Texas) -- the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a fading past, rejected science, substituted superstition for sense, and refused to invest in their own futures. It's not unfair to say that those regions are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling labor, and expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about their wealth-destroying ways.
> 
> And we* producers *have had enough.
Click to expand...


More dogs**t from the  chief dogs**ter.  A great many of those red states (the biggest sucks on the public tit) used to be blue states (i.e. Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Lousiana)  They are getting better but old habits die hard.

How long do we have to deal with you horsehockey ?



http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/02/do-welfare-recipients-mostly-vote.html


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> But the conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees, flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly concentrated in the *blue* cities and states -- the regions full of smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places in the country to live.



You mean like Chicago and New York and Los Angeles ?

Oh yeah, Detroit....there's another blue stronghold.  Great place to live (how is it this easy ?).

You can keep them and all those smart people that go with them.


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was on a plane home thursday night, and I sat next to a guy who's a salesman for some big trucking company.  He said business for his company was booming because all the little guys are bailing.  They just can't handle the cost of dealing with all of the new regulations the Obama administration has imposed on them.  He said a company needs a corporate sized financial department to deal with all the government red tape, even if they only have three trucks.
> 
> That's why this recovery is so anemic.  Obama is driving all the small business owners out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b-b-but that's capitalism right? You like Walmart and McDonalds, right?
Click to expand...


Why don't you take Harry Ried's dick out of your mouth before you try putting words in ours.

Wal-Mart and McDonald's have gotten great leverage out of Uncle Sam and local governments.  They are not my idea of a good time.  I have to be really hungry with no other options before I'll even think of a Big Mac.


----------



## Oddball

Bfgrn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, THAT is what we need to do. Let's go after the weakest, most fragile and vulnerable people in our society. Let's take away any security and dignity in the final years of their life. A life that paved the way for the next generation.
> 
> Instead, when they finally retire (probably just work until they die) and keep younger people from taking over those jobs, we will hand them a CUP, so they can spend every day of their final years begging. Conservatives would LOVE that...
> 
> You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
> Leviticus 19:32
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they have worked their entire life, *why* exactly would they need Social Security???
> 
> Oh that's right, the idiot liberal spends lavishly on vacations, iPad's, iPhones, and other gadgets, then expect hard working conservatives to provide for them for the rest of their lives. If you have worked your entire life, you have ZERO excuse for not having the money set aside for your own retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey doggy breath, those people PAID INTO Social Security their whole working lives. It is social insurance, not a handout. Social Security assures a *minimum *quality of life for older Americans.
> 
> Thank you for exhibiting your ignorant stereotyping. Only liberals spend lavishly on vacations, iPad's, iPhones, and other gadgets. Only liberals have abortions. Only liberals are on welfare. Only liberals receive food stamps.
> 
> Ironically, it is the *RED* states that suck the most federal money.
> 
> The conservative movement's favorite philosopher Ayn Rand's novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized "producers" -- noble, intelligent  Übermenschen whose faith in their own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams drives everything else in society. And she called out the evil of "parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.
> 
> Conservatives love this story. They're eager to claim the gleaming mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's darkly implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do. If you want to arouse their class and race resentments, there are few narratives that can get them rolling like this producers-versus-parasites tale.
> 
> But the conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees, flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly concentrated in the *blue* cities and states -- the regions full of smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places in the country to live.
> 
> And the real *parasites* are centered in *red *states (the only exceptions being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and Texas) -- the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a fading past, rejected science, substituted superstition for sense, and refused to invest in their own futures. It's not unfair to say that those regions are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling labor, and expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about their wealth-destroying ways.
> 
> And we* producers *have had enough.
Click to expand...

This lame-assed, brain dead, bullshit argument has been debunked so many times that I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed to try and invoke this lame-assed, brain dead, bullshit argument yet again....Well, not really, seeing as embarrassment doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the emotional repertoire of knee-jerk liberoidal pinheads like you.

Population density (how much do you think it costs, per capita, to maintain a mile of freeway in Montana vs. what it costs in California?) and amount of lands under federal control (you don't think that administration of all those millions of acres of National Forests, National Parks, BLM lands, etcetera, out west come on the cheap, do you?), figure into those fake liberoidal boilerplate statistics as much as anything else.

Seriously...You're not bullshitting anyone with a brain anymore.


----------



## saveliberty

You'd be speaking German if it weren't for Detroit.  Probably doing a lot of walking too.  LA didn't happen on its own.


----------



## saveliberty

I also find it very stupid to live on the 10th floor of an apartment building with a parking garage a block away.  Fresh air every day here.


----------



## P@triot

A lesson in irony​
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." 

Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

This ends today's lesson​


----------



## Dick Tuck




----------



## Mac1958

.

Agreed.  Who needs business owners, anyway?  They're not as smart as they think they are, and they don't work as hard as they think they do.  Our President told us  that.

Let the government do it, its job is to make life fair, to take care of us.

.


----------



## Listening

Rottweiler said:


> A lesson in irony​
> The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
> 
> Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
> 
> This ends today's lesson​



Outa rep.

When I get some more...it's coming your way.

This is a classic.


----------



## P@triot

Dick Tuck said:


>



Thank you for illustrating how government has unconstitutionally invaded every sector of our lives. Sort of backfired on you, uh stupid?

A few things you fail to realize (liberals always do fail to realize just about everything):

1.) The road has nothing to do with anything. For one, I drive on dirt roads all the time. We don't need paved roads to be successful. It's just a desperate attempt by liberals to justify marxism and confiscate the wealth that others earned.

2.) Roads are created and repaired by local taxes. The issues Obama discusses are FEDERAL issues. Obama is the President, ie he has ZERO authority/power with regards to roads. Epic liberal fail!

3.) "Reliable Government Electricity" - LMAO!!! Typical liberal, lives with his head burried in the sand, listening only to marxist radicals. Nearly every day I see stories about people who have been without power for weeks.

4.) Fire department is paid for by local taxes (just like the roads). Obama is responsible for FEDERAL government only. Epic liberal fail

5.) Fair access to radio waves?!?!? And government is responsible for that _how_? What is your definition of "fair"? Last time I checked, people had to pay for that themselves, and those that couldn't afford it, didn't have it. That's kind of the opposite definition of a marxists definition of "fair".

6. Ports for trade/imports?!?! Really?!?!? Really? Last time I checked, boats were bringing in cocaine by the billions, and not exactly using ports and legal channels. Any shore will do to bring in products... 

7. How exactly do "driving standards" help an entrepreneur build his business? LMAO! Fucking liberal tools....


----------



## Listening

Rottweiler said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for illustrating how government has unconstitutionally invaded every sector of our lives. Sort of backfired on you, uh stupid?
> 
> A few things you fail to realize (liberals always do fail to realize just about everything):
> 
> 1.) The road has nothing to do with anything. For one, I drive on dirt roads all the time. We don't need paved roads to be successful. It's just a desperate attempt by liberals to justify marxism and confiscate the wealth that others earned.
> 
> 2.) Roads are created and repaired by local taxes. The issues Obama discusses are FEDERAL issues. Obama is the President, ie he has ZERO authority/power with regards to roads. Epic liberal fail!
> 
> 3.) "Reliable Government Electricity" - LMAO!!! Typical liberal, lives with his head burried in the sand, listening only to marxist radicals. Nearly every day I see stories about people who have been without power for weeks.
> 
> 4.) Fire department is paid for by local taxes (just like the roads). Obama is responsible for FEDERAL government only. Epic liberal fail
> 
> 5.) Fair access to radio waves?!?!? And government is responsible for that _how_? What is your definition of "fair"? Last time I checked, people had to pay for that themselves, and those that couldn't afford it, didn't have it. That's kind of the opposite definition of a marxists definition of "fair".
> 
> 6. Ports for trade/imports?!?! Really?!?!? Really? Last time I checked, boats were bringing in cocaine by the billions, and not exactly using ports and legal channels. Any shore will do to bring in products...
> 
> 7. How exactly do "driving standards" help an entrepreneur build his business? LMAO! Fucking liberal tools....
Click to expand...


So true.

What is becoming more and more clear is that Obama didn't mean "you didn't build that...".

He means "you can't build that...."  which is total and utter bulls**t.


----------



## saveliberty

Seems to me if all you see every where is the government, you're not in America.


----------



## saveliberty

My cat died after a long illness a couple months ago.  The wife won't let me have another one, too much fur floating around the house.  If you're looking for free meals every day, nice temperature controlled environment without charge, your own bathroom, all medical expenses at no charge and some quiet time feel free to apply as my new pet.


----------



## Amazed

Dick Tuck said:


>



Poor Dck, do you need Obammy to wipe your ass for you too?

I am betting you are union worker.....


----------



## saveliberty

Amazed said:


> Poor Dck, do you need Obammy to wipe your ass for you too?
> 
> I am betting you are union worker.....



That's just crazy talk.  He'd have to show up at work occassionally.


----------



## Amazed

saveliberty said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Dck, do you need Obammy to wipe your ass for you too?
> 
> I am betting you are union worker.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just crazy talk.  He'd have to show up at work occassionally.
Click to expand...


Point taken.....


----------



## Katzndogz

saveliberty said:


> My cat died after a long illness a couple months ago.  The wife won't let me have another one, too much fur floating around the house.  If you're looking for free meals every day, nice temperature controlled environment without charge, your own bathroom, all medical expenses at no charge and some quiet time feel free to apply as my new pet.



That's the goal.  We are all to be pets, with the government as the owner.


----------



## Zander




----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Zander said:


>



what remains interesting to me is that Obama hasn't proposed a way to pay all the people, living and dead, who helped Phelps.  It seems the real plan is, they helped, and so Phelps owes more to Barry to spend on whomever he sees fit, i.e., welfare recipients but not the people who really helped.  

He's a creepy lying fraud, actually!!


----------



## Cecilie1200

saveliberty said:


> Regardless of whether I got where I am by myself, a bunch of liberals in DC want to tell me where to go.



Seems fair.  After all, you want to tell them where to go, don't you?


----------



## Mr.Nick

No your dad just happened to slip on the government provided banana peel and have his cock fall into your mothers vagina by accident....

Thank God for government - if it wasn't for them we wouldn't exist as a species.


----------



## Bfgrn

Rottweiler said:


> A lesson in irony​
> The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
> 
> Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
> 
> This ends today's lesson​



This really IS a great lesson on how the conservative mind thinks. This 'lesson' boldly states is the very core of conservatism.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world. 

1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism

 From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, *it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them*.




This ends today's lesson​


----------



## Neotrotsky

One sees you get what you pay for.....


----------



## buckeye45_73

Bfgrn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lesson in irony​
> 
> The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
> 
> Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
> 
> 
> This ends today's lesson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This really IS a great lesson on how the conservative mind thinks. This 'lesson' boldly states is the very core of conservatism.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> 1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism
> 
> From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
> 
> The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, *it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This ends today's lesson​​
Click to expand...


Says the guy who worships Castro and Stalin ​


----------



## Bfgrn

buckeye45_73 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lesson in irony​
> 
> The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
> 
> Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
> 
> 
> This ends today's lesson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This really IS a great lesson on how the conservative mind thinks. This 'lesson' boldly states is the very core of conservatism.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> 1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism
> 
> From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
> 
> The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, *it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This ends today's lesson​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who worships Castro and Stalin ​
Click to expand...


As a liberal, I don't 'worship' any man. I don't believe in a hierarchy like conservatives do. But while we are talking about Putin, how did your man crush see this man?

Irony... 

*Bush and Putin: Best of friends*






"I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul" - George W. Bush

Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin have met for the first time and appear to have hit it off.

The first handshake looked stiff and awkward, but after well over an hour of talks they came out smiling with Mr Bush inviting the Russian leader to visit his ranch in Texas.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rottweiler said:


> A lesson in irony​
> The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
> 
> Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
> 
> This ends today's lesson​



Damn that's good stuff right there,


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Bfgrn said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This really IS a great lesson on how the conservative mind thinks. This 'lesson' boldly states is the very core of conservatism.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> 1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism
> 
> From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
> 
> The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, *it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This ends today's lesson​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who worships Castro and Stalin ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a liberal, I don't 'worship' any man. I don't believe in a hierarchy like conservatives do. But while we are talking about Putin, how did your man crush see this man?
> 
> Irony...
> 
> *Bush and Putin: Best of friends*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul" - George W. Bush
> 
> Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin have met for the first time and appear to have hit it off.
> 
> The first handshake looked stiff and awkward, but after well over an hour of talks they came out smiling with Mr Bush inviting the Russian leader to visit his ranch in Texas.
Click to expand...


President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Obama tells Russia's Medvedev more flexibility after election | Reuters


----------



## Dick Tuck

Rottweiler said:


> A lesson in irony​
> The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
> 
> Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
> 
> This ends today's lesson​



So you think the people who work their asses off in minimum wage jobs, and need a helping hand to feed their families are animals?  I think you're a poor excuse for a human.  Why don't you try feeding your family on $1.38 a meal, and tell me about it.

Your example is bullshit.  People need food to survive as do animals.  I don't know a single person that needs food stamp assistance who doesn't want to better their lives to the point where they receive a living wage, and no longer have to rely on government assistance.  I bet you hate the minimum wage as well.


----------



## Bfgrn

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lesson in irony​
> The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
> 
> Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
> 
> Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
> 
> This ends today's lesson​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn that's good stuff right there,
Click to expand...


Thank you for enthusiastically supporting the core of conservatism. 

And it supports this truth: While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Let's consider what core beliefs would be absolutely essential for authoritarian despots throughout history to carry out the human atrocities of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot...

That some group of human beings are less than human, they are merely 'animals', thus, their extermination is justified and moral. They are removing the 'parasites'...


----------



## Neotrotsky

As everyone knows
Fascism and Communism have more in common than not
They are both CPEs and put state above man
They both depend on big gov't 

They are both creatures of the Left 



Hayek 
Fascism defined it the best:
_"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization"_​

Peter Drucker had a nice one:
_"the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. 
Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stagereached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."_​


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Neotrotsky said:


> As everyone knows
> Fascism and Communism have more in common than not
> They are both CPEs and put state above man
> They both depend on big gov't
> 
> They are both creatures of the Left
> 
> 
> 
> Hayek
> Fascism defined it the best:
> _"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization"_​
> 
> Peter Drucker had a nice one:
> _"the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following.
> Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stagereached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."_​





I think what you're trying to say is that most Communist states are just fascists states in disguise - you're right.

As to fascism being a creature of the left - sorry, but extreme nationalism has never been a creature of the left. That's more of a right wing thing.


----------



## Neotrotsky

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> As everyone knows
> Fascism and Communism have more in common than not
> They are both CPEs and put state above man
> They both depend on big gov't
> 
> They are both creatures of the Left
> 
> 
> 
> Hayek
> Fascism defined it the best:
> _"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization"_​
> 
> Peter Drucker had a nice one:
> _"the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following.
> Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stagereached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you're trying to say is that most Communist states are just fascists states in disguise - you're right.
> 
> As to fascism being a creature of the left - sorry, but extreme nationalism has never been a creature of the left. That's more of a right wing thing.
Click to expand...


Nationalism can be used by the right or left

Fascism, as an economic/ social structure is still a creature of the left


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Neotrotsky said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> As everyone knows
> Fascism and Communism have more in common than not
> They are both CPEs and put state above man
> They both depend on big gov't
> 
> They are both creatures of the Left
> 
> 
> 
> Hayek
> Fascism defined it the best:
> _"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization"_​
> 
> Peter Drucker had a nice one:
> _"the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following.
> Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stagereached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you're trying to say is that most Communist states are just fascists states in disguise - you're right.
> 
> As to fascism being a creature of the left - sorry, but extreme nationalism has never been a creature of the left. That's more of a right wing thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nationalism can be used by the right or left
Click to expand...

Not in this country.



> Fascism, as an economic/ social structure is still a creature of the left


You've done nothing to substantiate that argument.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Did Fascists believe in small gov't ?

next


----------



## Mac1958

.

I can see how important it is for us to assign fascism to one American ideology or the other, but the whole exercise is folly.   There are obviously elements from both whacked out ends of the political spectrum.  

Why this is so important, however, is an absolute mystery to me.

.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Neotrotsky said:


> Did Fascists believe in small gov't ?
> 
> next


No.* But anarchists do.*


----------



## Neotrotsky

Do Fascists believe in individual rights ?



like taking candy from a baby


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> As everyone knows
> Fascism and Communism have more in common than not
> They are both CPEs and put state above man
> They both depend on big gov't
> 
> They are both creatures of the Left
> 
> 
> 
> Hayek
> Fascism defined it the best:
> _"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization"_​
> 
> Peter Drucker had a nice one:
> _"the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following.
> Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stagereached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you're trying to say is that most Communist states are just fascists states in disguise - you're right.
> 
> As to fascism being a creature of the left - sorry, but extreme nationalism has never been a creature of the left. That's more of a right wing thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nationalism can be used by the right or left
> 
> Fascism, as an economic/ social structure is still a creature of the left
Click to expand...


Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called *corporatism *because it was the merger of state and corporate power.

That would be YOU...


----------



## Bfgrn

Neotrotsky said:


> Did Fascists believe in small gov't ?
> 
> next








next


----------



## Zander

Bfgrn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Fascists believe in small gov't ?
> 
> next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> next
Click to expand...



Sorry bub, we aren't that stupid. Here is a chart of the deficit. It clearly shows the effect of Obama's spending binge....


----------



## Bfgrn

Zander said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Fascists believe in small gov't ?
> 
> next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bub, we aren't that stupid. Here is a chart of the deficit. It clearly shows the effect of Obama's spending binge....
Click to expand...


Here's your problem, there is no Obama spending binge. 







Obama spending binge never happened
*
Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s*

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

 In the 2009 fiscal year  the last of George W. Bushs presidency  federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

 In fiscal 2010  the first budget under Obama  spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

 In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

 In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Offices estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

 Finally in fiscal 2013  the final budget of Obamas term  spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBOs latest budget outlook.

Over Obamas four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? Its in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress  especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obamas legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama, Austerity President


Feb 1 2012

Imagine an alternate reality where the first term of President Barack Obama coincided with one of the greatest periods of government austerity in recent memory. Imagine total government spending under his watch had the steepest annual decline in three decades. 

Imagine total government employees fell by the fastest rate in more than 60 years. 

Imagine that in his last two years, federal spending and federal employment grew by the slowest annual rate since the 1950s.

Now open your eyes. Welcome to Austerity USA. Total government employment -- that's federal, state, and local -- has indeed fallen by the sharpest annual rate since the 1940s. It's now at 2006 levels and declining.







----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a quiz! 

I present to you the first three years in spending for three recent presidents: Barack Obama, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan. To make it a game, I've removed their names and indexed the spending increases to their first month of office. And I've replaced the dates with integers from 1-10 so you can't guess by looking at the years.

Can you guess which president is which?

*President #1*





President #2





President #3





The hint that solves the puzzle: They're in chronological order. It goes Reagan, Bush, Obama. Going by federal expenditures (and note these are nominal figures), it would seem that if Obama's a socialist, Ronald Reagan is Karl Marx with an ICBM.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Bfgrn said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This really IS a great lesson on how the conservative mind thinks. This 'lesson' boldly states is the very core of conservatism.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> 1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism
> 
> From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
> 
> The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, *it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This ends today's lesson​​
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who worships Castro and Stalin​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a liberal, I don't 'worship' any man. I don't believe in a hierarchy like conservatives do. But while we are talking about Putin, how did your man crush see this man?
> 
> Irony...
> 
> *Bush and Putin: Best of friends*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul" - George W. Bush
> 
> Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin have met for the first time and appear to have hit it off.
> 
> The first handshake looked stiff and awkward, but after well over an hour of talks they came out smiling with Mr Bush inviting the Russian leader to visit his ranch in Texas.
Click to expand...

 
He liked him.....again I'm not a sycophant.....or a robot, like you lefties. And lefties dont believe in a heirarchy? WHAT? When did THAT happen....oh let me guess you're a socialist utopian?


----------



## CMike

Obama is such an arrogant fucker.


----------



## Full-Auto

Bfgrn said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This really IS a great lesson on how the conservative mind thinks. This 'lesson' boldly states is the very core of conservatism.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> 
> Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
> 
> 1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism
> 
> From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
> 
> The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, *it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This ends today's lesson​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who worships Castro and Stalin ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a liberal, I don't 'worship' any man. I don't believe in a hierarchy like conservatives do. But while we are talking about Putin, how did your man crush see this man?
> 
> Irony...
> 
> *Bush and Putin: Best of friends*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul" - George W. Bush
> 
> Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin have met for the first time and appear to have hit it off.
> 
> The first handshake looked stiff and awkward, but after well over an hour of talks they came out smiling with Mr Bush inviting the Russian leader to visit his ranch in Texas.
Click to expand...


Liberals are supposed to believe in liberty.
Not liberally taking from others......

Great rant if you were not from the big government party.

Yes Irony so thick you can cut it.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bub, we aren't that stupid. Here is a chart of the deficit. It clearly shows the effect of Obama's spending binge....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's your problem, there is no Obama spending binge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama spending binge never happened
> *
> Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s*
> 
> Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
> 
> &#8226; In the 2009 fiscal year &#8212; the last of George W. Bush&#8217;s presidency &#8212; federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
> 
> &#8226; In fiscal 2010 &#8212; the first budget under Obama &#8212; spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
> 
> &#8226; In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
> 
> &#8226; In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office&#8217;s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
> 
> &#8226; Finally in fiscal 2013 &#8212; the final budget of Obama&#8217;s term &#8212; spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO&#8217;s latest budget outlook.
> 
> Over Obama&#8217;s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
> 
> There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
> 
> Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It&#8217;s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.
> 
> What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress &#8212; especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
> 
> The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama&#8217;s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Barack Obama, Austerity President
> 
> 
> Feb 1 2012
> 
> Imagine an alternate reality where the first term of President Barack Obama coincided with one of the greatest periods of government austerity in recent memory. Imagine total government spending under his watch had the steepest annual decline in three decades.
> 
> Imagine total government employees fell by the fastest rate in more than 60 years.
> 
> Imagine that in his last two years, federal spending and federal employment grew by the slowest annual rate since the 1950s.
> 
> Now open your eyes. Welcome to Austerity USA. Total government employment -- that's federal, state, and local -- has indeed fallen by the sharpest annual rate since the 1940s. It's now at 2006 levels and declining.
Click to expand...


Hey moron -- I agree with Zander -- we're not that stupid.. Spending rose in 2009 (supposedly the last year of the Bush budget- LOL) because of ADDITIONAL spending like the OBAMA STIMULUS and additional bailouts that had NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH after Jan. of '09.. 

Take your spin and rotate on it.. The DEFICITS are ACTUALLY as Zander depicted.. And that's how REAL history will reflect it..


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bub, we aren't that stupid. Here is a chart of the deficit. It clearly shows the effect of Obama's spending binge....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your problem, there is no Obama spending binge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama spending binge never happened
> *
> Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s*
> 
> Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
> 
>  In the 2009 fiscal year  the last of George W. Bushs presidency  federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
> 
>  In fiscal 2010  the first budget under Obama  spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
> 
>  In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
> 
>  In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Offices estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
> 
>  Finally in fiscal 2013  the final budget of Obamas term  spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBOs latest budget outlook.
> 
> Over Obamas four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
> 
> There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
> 
> Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? Its in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.
> 
> What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress  especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
> 
> The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obamas legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Barack Obama, Austerity President
> 
> 
> Feb 1 2012
> 
> Imagine an alternate reality where the first term of President Barack Obama coincided with one of the greatest periods of government austerity in recent memory. Imagine total government spending under his watch had the steepest annual decline in three decades.
> 
> Imagine total government employees fell by the fastest rate in more than 60 years.
> 
> Imagine that in his last two years, federal spending and federal employment grew by the slowest annual rate since the 1950s.
> 
> Now open your eyes. Welcome to Austerity USA. Total government employment -- that's federal, state, and local -- has indeed fallen by the sharpest annual rate since the 1940s. It's now at 2006 levels and declining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey moron -- I agree with Zander -- we're not that stupid.. Spending rose in 2009 (supposedly the last year of the Bush budget- LOL) because of ADDITIONAL spending like the OBAMA STIMULUS and additional bailouts that had NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH after Jan. of '09..
> 
> Take your spin and rotate on it.. The DEFICITS are ACTUALLY as Zander depicted.. And that's how REAL history will reflect it..
Click to expand...


Nothing to do with Bush...REALLY??? 2009 WAS the Bush budget. 

United States federal budget

The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the *next fiscal year*, beginning October 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember *TARP*?

The *Troubled Asset Relief Program* (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George W. Bush: Auto bailout was mine! 

I didnt want there to be 21 percent unemployment, Bush told the 22,000 attendees. Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy.

I said, No depression.

In his memoir he said the move was the only option to avert immediate bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM and the loss of a million jobs and $150 billion in tax revenues.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I guess you ARE stupid.


----------



## flacaltenn

No -- you just ASSUME I'm stupid.. All of the additions that built up the debt in 2009 were not ON BUDGET.. Not the Reid-Pelosi Stimulus, not the extra tax breaks that steal the SS PREMIUMS, not the Green fantasies that have crashed horribly etc.. Over a Trillion Bucks in additional spending that had NOTHING TO DO with the established fiscal budget. 

NO RATIONAL person attributes the total 2009 spending to GW Bush. Which leaves you in your own special short bus -- doesn't it?


----------



## Listening

More tripe from the left.

Obama didn't need to go on a binge.

He lost revenue and needed to cut spending.  And he didn't.

End of story.


----------



## Listening

flacaltenn said:


> No -- you just ASSUME I'm stupid.. All of the additions that built up the debt in 2009 were not ON BUDGET.. Not the Reid-Pelosi Stimulus, not the extra tax breaks that steal the SS PREMIUMS, not the Green fantasies that have crashed horribly etc.. Over a Trillion Bucks in additional spending that had NOTHING TO DO with the established fiscal budget.
> 
> NO RATIONAL person attributes the total 2009 spending to GW Bush. Which leaves you in your own special short bus -- doesn't it?



Yeah,

Bush's budget was not based on the revenue losses that occured.  But since they had "permission", they spent the money.

Obama is fiscally responsible !


----------



## Amazed

Obama hasn't passed a budget since being elected dipwad...


----------



## The T

Amazed said:


> Obama hasn't passed a budget since being elected dipwad...


 
Both Houses have rejected his budgets 100%.


----------



## Bfgrn

How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, its about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obamas opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obamas policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obamas effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, its harder than it sounds.

Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.

When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?

So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obamas policies.

In two instances, this made Obamas policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obamas decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years  at a total cost of $620 billion  to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.

The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obamas spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obamas planned deficit reduction.

Theres also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldnt have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal  one including tax increases and spending cuts  might have.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?



5 Trillion.

Next question.

Oh, and let's not forget the way he's set us up to keep adding debt.  Our air sucking economy isn't going to turn the flow of red ink around for a long time.



Bfgrn said:


> Theres also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldnt have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal  one including tax increases and *spending cuts*  might have.



ROTFLMA

The left always holds this up.

He wanted the tax increases now and the spending cuts later.

Everybody knows those spending cuts would not have happened.  Ever.


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 Trillion.
> 
> Next question.
> 
> Oh, and let's not forget the way he's set us up to keep adding debt. Our air sucking economy isn't going to turn the flow of red ink around for a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theres also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldnt have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal  one including tax increases and *spending cuts*  might have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFLMA
> 
> The left always holds this up.
> 
> He wanted the tax increases now and the spending cuts later.
> 
> Everybody knows those spending cuts would not have happened. Ever.
Click to expand...

 

Even modest decreases in spending is a total cut to Statists. Statists don't want to cut a thing. Tax/Spend. It's how they hold power.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.



that explains why conservatives have wanted very limited government since they started the Revolution.

See why we say a liberal will be slow?? What other explanation is possible??

and of course we must note the liberal fear of saying who the aristocracy is. What does that fear tell us abut the IQ and character of a liberal.


----------



## Zander

Bfgrn said:


> How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?
> 
> There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.
> 
> When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, its about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obamas opponents: $4.7 trillion.
> 
> But ask yourself: Which of Obamas policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.
> 
> There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.
> 
> The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obamas effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, its harder than it sounds.
> 
> Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.
> 
> When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?
> 
> So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obamas policies.
> 
> In two instances, this made Obamas policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obamas decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years  at a total cost of $620 billion  to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.
> 
> The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obamas spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obamas planned deficit reduction.
> 
> Theres also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldnt have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal  one including tax increases and spending cuts  might have.



Poor Obama. It's not his fault!! It's....... (wait for it!) ......BOOSH!!!!!!! 
Obamacare is going to save money too!!! ......


----------



## Listening

Zander said:


> Poor Obama. It's not his fault!! It's....... (wait for it!) ......BOOSH!!!!!!!
> Obamacare is going to save money too!!! ......



David Axelrod to Obama....

"You didn't build that deficit....somebody else did !!!"


----------



## Bfgrn

You know, it is really funny (not really)...NONE of you right wingers with tiny little brains and big mouths EVER opened your pie holes when Republicans ran up most of our debt. Not a fucking PEEP. 

Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. George W. Bush raised it 7 times. WHERE was the angst?

Did Bush include his 2 wars in his budgets?...NO, WHY NOT? Oh, that's right, the war was going to pay for itself.

If you can't read and comprehend THIS chart, then even the short bus is not for you...






Under Obama,  federal spending (which has grown every year since then 1960s) is increasing at its slowest pace in half a century, and federal employment is in true decline. Eighteen months removed from the start of the Census, it's shrinking at its fastest rate since the mid-1950s.

So what were are left with is denial of the facts, because of your hatred for our President, and the dogma driven right wing pea sized brains you were born with.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?
> 
> There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.
> 
> When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, its about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obamas opponents: $4.7 trillion.
> 
> But ask yourself: Which of Obamas policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.
> 
> There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.
> 
> The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obamas effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, its harder than it sounds.
> 
> Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.
> 
> When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?
> 
> So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obamas policies.
> 
> In two instances, this made Obamas policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obamas decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years  at a total cost of $620 billion  to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.
> 
> The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obamas spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obamas planned deficit reduction.
> 
> Theres also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldnt have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal  one including tax increases and spending cuts  might have.



Never mind the important diff between a TAX CUT and SPENDING.. To a thread - hijacking leftist -- they are identical.. 

I don't see Obama being charged for CONTINUING the Bush Medicare Prescription program do you?

Anyway -- no more troll snacks.. I'd prefer to discuss the OP.. Which is EXACTLY why BFgrn is here to divert and distract from any conversation that touches on REAL FIXES to the job problem due to MODERN economical conditions that have NOTHING to do with Reagan or FDR.. 

Not surprisingly, many reputable market analysts dismiss the drought in new IPOs as not important to job creation. Mostly because they analyze only the jobs created WITHIN the start-up.. When you're talking about a new Battery Tech company or an Virtual Education company -- the jobs CASCADE from that creation into other existing and new companies not to mention the SECONDARY jobs created in the Service sector. 

I'm convinced that we're having the wrong discussion about only jobs that the PREZ likes and can label with acceptable price tags (ie donations) to his labor and green constituents. And that Tech start-ups are the only flotsam available to grasp that will prolong the American standard of living..


----------



## freedombecki

Bfgrn said:


> Nothing to do with Bush...REALLY??? 2009 WAS the Bush budget!



Oh? My sources say that on May 11, 2009, *Obama* signed the 2009 budget into law and not Bush.

Good grief. When a President signs a budget into law, it's HIS.

Why do you think Obama isn't signing any more budgets into law?

He can't without someone else writing it.


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?
> 
> There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.
> 
> When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, its about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obamas opponents: $4.7 trillion.
> 
> But ask yourself: Which of Obamas policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.
> 
> There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.
> 
> The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obamas effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, its harder than it sounds.
> 
> Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.
> 
> When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?
> 
> So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obamas policies.
> 
> In two instances, this made Obamas policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obamas decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years  at a total cost of $620 billion  to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.
> 
> The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obamas spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obamas planned deficit reduction.
> 
> Theres also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldnt have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal  one including tax increases and spending cuts  might have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the important diff between a TAX CUT and SPENDING.. To a thread - hijacking leftist -- they are identical..
> 
> I don't see Obama being charged for CONTINUING the Bush Medicare Prescription program do you?
> 
> Anyway -- no more troll snacks.. I'd prefer to discuss the OP.. Which is EXACTLY why BFgrn is here to divert and distract from any conversation that touches on REAL FIXES to the job problem due to MODERN economical conditions that have NOTHING to do with Reagan or FDR..
> 
> Not surprisingly, many reputable market analysts dismiss the drought in new IPOs as not important to job creation. Mostly because they analyze only the jobs created WITHIN the start-up.. When you're talking about a new Battery Tech company or an Virtual Education company -- the jobs CASCADE from that creation into other existing and new companies not to mention the SECONDARY jobs created in the Service sector.
> 
> I'm convinced that we're having the wrong discussion about only jobs that the PREZ likes and can label with acceptable price tags (ie donations) to his labor and green constituents. And that Tech start-ups are the only flotsam available to grasp that will prolong the American standard of living..
Click to expand...


Maybe you are just uninformed?

Obama Signs Jobs Act, Easing IPO Rules - WSJ.com

Obama looks to spur private sector hiring

WASHINGTON

Limited in his ability to create jobs through direct spending, President Barack Obama is considering measures to encourage the private sector to free up its cash reserves and hire more workers to ease the nation's unemployment crush.

As Obama prepares to unveil a new jobs agenda next week, his aides are reviewing options that would provide tax incentives to employers who expand their payrolls. That approach is a more indirect effort to spur the economy and relies less on direct intervention and massive public works projects.

Among the proposals circulating in the White House is a $33 billion tax credit that Obama first proposed early last year but that Congress whittled into a smaller one-year package.

Under one version of the plan, employers would receive a tax credit of up to $5,000, subtracted from their share of federal payroll taxes, for every net new hire. White House officials caution that the overall jobs plan is still subject to change.

The tax credit, however, is a relatively untested idea. Congress passed a version in March 2010, known as the HIRE Act, which provided $13 billion in tax credits to qualified employers who hired new workers. But there is no government data to track its success.

"The HIRE Act was very small," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics and an occasional adviser to Democrats and Republicans. "It really didn't add to payrolls."

"It would have to be bigger," he added. "Something more along the lines that the Obama administration proposed in 2010."

While promising a major jobs package, Obama is hamstrung by budget cuts and a tight debt ceiling that he had a hand in negotiating.

As a result, economists predict that while the president's initiatives could eliminate some drag on the economy and maintain the status quo, they won't be enough to propel it to new heights

At a minimum, the president's plan will call on Congress to extend current payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits, spend money for new construction projects and offer incentives to businesses to hire more workers.


----------



## freedombecki

"At a minimum, the president's plan will call on Congress to extend  current payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits, spend money for new  construction projects and offer incentives to businesses to hire more  workers."

Soon as he passes a budget, Obama may get a little more cooperation. But until then, he cannot be trusted.

He isn't fooling us again.


----------



## Zander

Bfgrn said:


> You know, it is really funny (not really)...NONE of you right wingers with tiny little brains and big mouths EVER opened your pie holes when Republicans ran up most of our debt. Not a fucking PEEP.
> 
> Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. George W. Bush raised it 7 times. WHERE was the angst?
> 
> Did Bush include his 2 wars in his budgets?...NO, WHY NOT? Oh, that's right, the war was going to pay for itself.
> 
> If you can't read and comprehend THIS chart, then even the short bus is not for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Obama,  federal spending (which has grown every year since then 1960s) is increasing at its slowest pace in half a century, and federal employment is in true decline. Eighteen months removed from the start of the Census, it's shrinking at its fastest rate since the mid-1950s.
> 
> So what were are left with is denial of the facts, because of your hatred for our President, and the dogma driven right wing pea sized brains you were born with.



Get your head out of Obama's ass and face reality. Obama is a failure.  He had a huge majority in the House and Senate for 2 years. He had a bad economy to deal with. So what did he do? He decided to spend his entire first 2 years on ramming a hugely unpopular entitlement program, "Obamacare",  down our throats- and totally ignored the economy.  He was rewarded with a massive defeat in 2010 - he is facing a second rebuke in 2012. He's a failure.


----------



## Bfgrn

Zander said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it is really funny (not really)...NONE of you right wingers with tiny little brains and big mouths EVER opened your pie holes when Republicans ran up most of our debt. Not a fucking PEEP.
> 
> Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. George W. Bush raised it 7 times. WHERE was the angst?
> 
> Did Bush include his 2 wars in his budgets?...NO, WHY NOT? Oh, that's right, the war was going to pay for itself.
> 
> If you can't read and comprehend THIS chart, then even the short bus is not for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Obama,  federal spending (which has grown every year since then 1960s) is increasing at its slowest pace in half a century, and federal employment is in true decline. Eighteen months removed from the start of the Census, it's shrinking at its fastest rate since the mid-1950s.
> 
> So what were are left with is denial of the facts, because of your hatred for our President, and the dogma driven right wing pea sized brains you were born with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your head out of Obama's ass and face reality. Obama is a failure.  He had a huge majority in the House and Senate for 2 years. He had a bad economy to deal with. So what did he do? He decided to spend his entire first 2 years on ramming a hugely unpopular entitlement program, "Obamacare",  down our throats- and totally ignored the economy.  He was rewarded with a massive defeat in 2010 - he is facing a second rebuke in 2012. He's a failure.
Click to expand...


I don't have my head up anybody's ass. There are things I don't like about Obama. But, the Affordable Healthcare Act is hugely popular when each provisions is polled. The only provision that is not popular is the individual mandate. Which is a Republican idea. Obama, who you folks call a 'socialist', shut out the progressive and liberals during the health care debate. We should have had a public option, or the ability to buy Medicare before you are 65. Obama didn't have the 60 votes needed, because the Senator from Aetna, Joe LIEberman and blue dog Democrats. 

The Stimulus Bill was a big success, it was just not big enough. But it did reverse the hemorrhaging of jobs that Bush left him with.

Do you people stand on your head when you read these charts?

Bush handed Obama the worst economy since the great depression. Obama immediately passed a job-stimulus bill which helped stop job losses faster than during the milder 1st Bush recession.






December 9, 2011.  The economy was collapsing at its fastest rate since the Great Depression when Obama took office. In his second month he got Congress to pass a jobs stimulus bill worth about $900 billion. This helped stop the collapse and heightened the first spike in job growth. But the Republicans blocked more stimulus and by August 2010, falling stimulus spending began reducing job growth.


----------



## Zander

Bfgrn said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it is really funny (not really)...NONE of you right wingers with tiny little brains and big mouths EVER opened your pie holes when Republicans ran up most of our debt. Not a fucking PEEP.
> 
> Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. George W. Bush raised it 7 times. WHERE was the angst?
> 
> Did Bush include his 2 wars in his budgets?...NO, WHY NOT? Oh, that's right, the war was going to pay for itself.
> 
> If you can't read and comprehend THIS chart, then even the short bus is not for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Obama,  federal spending (which has grown every year since then 1960s) is increasing at its slowest pace in half a century, and federal employment is in true decline. Eighteen months removed from the start of the Census, it's shrinking at its fastest rate since the mid-1950s.
> 
> So what were are left with is denial of the facts, because of your hatred for our President, and the dogma driven right wing pea sized brains you were born with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your head out of Obama's ass and face reality. Obama is a failure.  He had a huge majority in the House and Senate for 2 years. He had a bad economy to deal with. So what did he do? He decided to spend his entire first 2 years on ramming a hugely unpopular entitlement program, "Obamacare",  down our throats- and totally ignored the economy.  He was rewarded with a massive defeat in 2010 - he is facing a second rebuke in 2012. He's a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have my head up anybody's ass. There are things I don't like about Obama. But, the Affordable Healthcare Act is hugely popular when each provisions is polled. The only provision that is not popular is the individual mandate. Which is a Republican idea. Obama, who you folks call a 'socialist', shut out the progressive and liberals during the health care debate. We should have had a public option, or the ability to buy Medicare before you are 65. Obama didn't have the 60 votes needed, because the Senator from Aetna, Joe LIEberman and blue dog Democrats.
> 
> The Stimulus Bill was a big success, it was just not big enough. But it did reverse the hemorrhaging of jobs that Bush left him with.
> 
> Do you people stand on your head when you read these charts?
> 
> Bush handed Obama the worst economy since the great depression. Obama immediately passed a job-stimulus bill which helped stop job losses faster than during the milder 1st Bush recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> December 9, 2011.  The economy was collapsing at its fastest rate since the Great Depression when Obama took office. In his second month he got Congress to pass a jobs stimulus bill worth about $900 billion. This helped stop the collapse and heightened the first spike in job growth. But the Republicans blocked more stimulus and by August 2010, falling stimulus spending began reducing job growth.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Mr Krugman. If only Obama had put us deeper in debt, then we'd be all be better off!! yeah, that's the ticket.  

Face it bub, Obama is going to be sent home, permanently. He had a chance to be a great leader, he wasted his chance passing a law that will be gutted the moment Romney is sworn in.


----------



## Full-Auto

Bfgrn said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it is really funny (not really)...NONE of you right wingers with tiny little brains and big mouths EVER opened your pie holes when Republicans ran up most of our debt. Not a fucking PEEP.
> 
> Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. George W. Bush raised it 7 times. WHERE was the angst?
> 
> Did Bush include his 2 wars in his budgets?...NO, WHY NOT? Oh, that's right, the war was going to pay for itself.
> 
> If you can't read and comprehend THIS chart, then even the short bus is not for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Obama,  federal spending (which has grown every year since then 1960s) is increasing at its slowest pace in half a century, and federal employment is in true decline. Eighteen months removed from the start of the Census, it's shrinking at its fastest rate since the mid-1950s.
> 
> So what were are left with is denial of the facts, because of your hatred for our President, and the dogma driven right wing pea sized brains you were born with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your head out of Obama's ass and face reality. Obama is a failure.  He had a huge majority in the House and Senate for 2 years. He had a bad economy to deal with. So what did he do? He decided to spend his entire first 2 years on ramming a hugely unpopular entitlement program, "Obamacare",  down our throats- and totally ignored the economy.  He was rewarded with a massive defeat in 2010 - he is facing a second rebuke in 2012. He's a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have my head up anybody's ass. There are things I don't like about Obama. But, the Affordable Healthcare Act is hugely popular when each provisions is polled. The only provision that is not popular is the individual mandate. Which is a Republican idea. Obama, who you folks call a 'socialist', shut out the progressive and liberals during the health care debate. We should have had a public option, or the ability to buy Medicare before you are 65. Obama didn't have the 60 votes needed, because the Senator from Aetna, Joe LIEberman and blue dog Democrats.
> 
> The Stimulus Bill was a big success, it was just not big enough. But it did reverse the hemorrhaging of jobs that Bush left him with.
> 
> Do you people stand on your head when you read these charts?
> 
> Bush handed Obama the worst economy since the great depression. Obama immediately passed a job-stimulus bill which helped stop job losses faster than during the milder 1st Bush recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> December 9, 2011.  The economy was collapsing at its fastest rate since the Great Depression when Obama took office. In his second month he got Congress to pass a jobs stimulus bill worth about $900 billion. This helped stop the collapse and heightened the first spike in job growth. But the Republicans blocked more stimulus and by August 2010, falling stimulus spending began reducing job growth.
Click to expand...


The stimulus was a success?

 

Well if we are talking outsourcing.....it was huge...............


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> You know, it is really funny (not really)...NONE of you right wingers with tiny little brains and big mouths EVER opened your pie holes when Republicans ran up most of our debt. Not a fucking PEEP.
> 
> Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. George W. Bush raised it 7 times. WHERE was the angst?
> 
> Did Bush include his 2 wars in his budgets?...NO, WHY NOT? Oh, that's right, the war was going to pay for itself.
> 
> If you can't read and comprehend THIS chart, then even the short bus is not for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Obama,  federal spending (which has grown every year since then 1960s) is increasing at its slowest pace in half a century, and federal employment is in true decline. Eighteen months removed from the start of the Census, it's shrinking at its fastest rate since the mid-1950s.
> 
> So what were are left with is denial of the facts, because of your hatred for our President, and the dogma driven right wing pea sized brains you were born with.



Ah yes,

The George Carlin analysis of people....he can read our minds.

Federal employment should decline.  There is nothing to pay for it.  It isn't declining fast enough !

Denial of the facts...you say "not one peep" when I heard all kinds of crowing.

Go Fluke yourself.


----------



## Bfgrn

Zander said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get your head out of Obama's ass and face reality. Obama is a failure.  He had a huge majority in the House and Senate for 2 years. He had a bad economy to deal with. So what did he do? He decided to spend his entire first 2 years on ramming a hugely unpopular entitlement program, "Obamacare",  down our throats- and totally ignored the economy.  He was rewarded with a massive defeat in 2010 - he is facing a second rebuke in 2012. He's a failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have my head up anybody's ass. There are things I don't like about Obama. But, the Affordable Healthcare Act is hugely popular when each provisions is polled. The only provision that is not popular is the individual mandate. Which is a Republican idea. Obama, who you folks call a 'socialist', shut out the progressive and liberals during the health care debate. We should have had a public option, or the ability to buy Medicare before you are 65. Obama didn't have the 60 votes needed, because the Senator from Aetna, Joe LIEberman and blue dog Democrats.
> 
> The Stimulus Bill was a big success, it was just not big enough. But it did reverse the hemorrhaging of jobs that Bush left him with.
> 
> Do you people stand on your head when you read these charts?
> 
> Bush handed Obama the worst economy since the great depression. Obama immediately passed a job-stimulus bill which helped stop job losses faster than during the milder 1st Bush recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> December 9, 2011.  The economy was collapsing at its fastest rate since the Great Depression when Obama took office. In his second month he got Congress to pass a jobs stimulus bill worth about $900 billion. This helped stop the collapse and heightened the first spike in job growth. But the Republicans blocked more stimulus and by August 2010, falling stimulus spending began reducing job growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, Mr Krugman. If only Obama had put us deeper in debt, then we'd be all be better off!! yeah, that's the ticket.
> 
> Face it bub, Obama is going to be sent home, permanently. He had a chance to be a great leader, he wasted his chance passing a law that will be gutted the moment Romney is sworn in.
Click to expand...


I am truly amazed at the lack of understanding the right has of economics. Even this conservative icon understood. Which leads me to believe none of you are conservatives. You are some mutant form of life.

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke


Stimulus Too Small - The Wall Street Journal

Fourteen months ago, just after Barack Hussein Obama's election, most of us would have bet that the U.S. unemployment rate today would be something like 7.5%, that it would be heading down, and that the economy would be growing at about 4% per year.

A 5% unemployment rate as of the end of 2009 would have been seen from a late-2008 perspective as a very good and lucky outcome, and a 10% unemployment rate would have been seen as a very bad and unlucky outcome.

Well, we have been unlucky. Unemployment is not going down but going sidewayswe hope that it is still not going up. And the unemployment rate is not 7.5% but 10%. More important, perhaps, is that the expectation is for 3% real GDP growth in 2010.

That leaves us with two major questions: First, why has the outcome thus far been so much worse than what pretty much everyone expected in the late fall of 2008? And second, why is the forecast going forward for growth so much slower than our previous experience with recovery from a deep recession in 1983-84?

Four Factors

I attribute the differences to four factors:

First, the financial collapse of late 2008 did much more damage than we realizedto American households' and businesses' willingness to spend, as well as to the financial system's ability to match savers with cash to businesses that needed to borrow. The shock now looks to have been about twice as great as the consensus in the fall of 2008 thought.

When it comes to fighting economic depressions, governments essentially have two bags of tricks they can pick from: They can directly put the otherwise unemployed to work via deficit spending, or have the central bank boost asset prices and so make it more attractive for businesses to borrow and put the otherwise-unemployed to work. The incoming Obama administration tried to do both.

And that leads us to Factor No. 2. The Obama administration envisioned a $1 trillion short-term deficit-spending stimulus for a problem that turned out to be twice as big as was then understood. In other words, had the administration known how big the problem would turn out to be, it would have sought a $2 trillion stimulus. And what did we get once Congress got through with it? A $600 billion stimulusabout one-third of what we needed.

Making matters worse: The stimulus was not terribly well targeted. In an attempt to attract Republican votes, roughly two-fifths of it was tax cuts. Such temporary cuts are ineffective at boosting spending because too many people will simply save it. (It also failed to win any extra votes.) Roughly two-fifths of the stimulus was infrastructure and other forms of direct federal spending. But it is hard to boost federal spending quickly without wasting money, and those projects that are shovel-ready are not terribly labor intensive.

Meanwhile, the most-effective stimulus would have been aid to the states, which would have kept the states from cutting back on services and do a huge amount of good for employment. But senators don't want to hand out money to governors; the governors then tend to run against the senators and take their jobs away.

This problem with both the quantity and quality of the stimulus is tied up with the third factor: that the Obama administration declared victory on fiscal policy with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Actwith $600 billion in stimulus money and $200 billion of ineffective transfers to the upper middle classand then went home.

There was no intensive lobbying for a bigger program, no proposals to introduce triggers into the budget resolution so that if the late-2009 situation appeared dire a second round of deficit spending could be undertaken, no attempts to expand the stimulus programs when it became clear in the spring that the macroeconomic shock had in fact been twice as bad as people had thought. The background chatter is that trying for more deficit spending would have been fruitless, given the broken Senate, the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, and the need to shift our attention in the next couple of years to shrinking the long-term financial hole we're in.
The Fed's Failing

That background chatter is probably right. But even if the recovery act was the largest achievable plan given all those constraints, there is still the Federal Reserve. And that's where the fourth factor comes in.

It is true that as far as normal monetary policy is concerned, the Federal Reserve was tapped out: Its normal purchases of short-term Treasuries for cash had already done all they could do. 

more


----------



## Amazed

Bfgrn said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have my head up anybody's ass. There are things I don't like about Obama. But, the Affordable Healthcare Act is hugely popular when each provisions is polled. The only provision that is not popular is the individual mandate. Which is a Republican idea. Obama, who you folks call a 'socialist', shut out the progressive and liberals during the health care debate. We should have had a public option, or the ability to buy Medicare before you are 65. Obama didn't have the 60 votes needed, because the Senator from Aetna, Joe LIEberman and blue dog Democrats.
> 
> The Stimulus Bill was a big success, it was just not big enough. But it did reverse the hemorrhaging of jobs that Bush left him with.
> 
> Do you people stand on your head when you read these charts?
> 
> Bush handed Obama the worst economy since the great depression. Obama immediately passed a job-stimulus bill which helped stop job losses faster than during the milder 1st Bush recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> December 9, 2011.  The economy was collapsing at its fastest rate since the Great Depression when Obama took office. In his second month he got Congress to pass a jobs stimulus bill worth about $900 billion. This helped stop the collapse and heightened the first spike in job growth. But the Republicans blocked more stimulus and by August 2010, falling stimulus spending began reducing job growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Mr Krugman. If only Obama had put us deeper in debt, then we'd be all be better off!! yeah, that's the ticket.
> 
> Face it bub, Obama is going to be sent home, permanently. He had a chance to be a great leader, he wasted his chance passing a law that will be gutted the moment Romney is sworn in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am truly amazed at the lack of understanding the right has of economics. Even this conservative icon understood. Which leads me to believe none of you are conservatives. You are some mutant form of life.
> 
> Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> Stimulus Too Small - The Wall Street Journal
> 
> Fourteen months ago, just after Barack Hussein Obama's election, most of us would have bet that the U.S. unemployment rate today would be something like 7.5%, that it would be heading down, and that the economy would be growing at about 4% per year.
> 
> A 5% unemployment rate as of the end of 2009 would have been seen from a late-2008 perspective as a very good and lucky outcome, and a 10% unemployment rate would have been seen as a very bad and unlucky outcome.
> 
> Well, we have been unlucky. Unemployment is not going down but going sidewayswe hope that it is still not going up. And the unemployment rate is not 7.5% but 10%. More important, perhaps, is that the expectation is for 3% real GDP growth in 2010.
> 
> That leaves us with two major questions: First, why has the outcome thus far been so much worse than what pretty much everyone expected in the late fall of 2008? And second, why is the forecast going forward for growth so much slower than our previous experience with recovery from a deep recession in 1983-84?
> 
> Four Factors
> 
> I attribute the differences to four factors:
> 
> First, the financial collapse of late 2008 did much more damage than we realizedto American households' and businesses' willingness to spend, as well as to the financial system's ability to match savers with cash to businesses that needed to borrow. The shock now looks to have been about twice as great as the consensus in the fall of 2008 thought.
> 
> When it comes to fighting economic depressions, governments essentially have two bags of tricks they can pick from: They can directly put the otherwise unemployed to work via deficit spending, or have the central bank boost asset prices and so make it more attractive for businesses to borrow and put the otherwise-unemployed to work. The incoming Obama administration tried to do both.
> 
> And that leads us to Factor No. 2. The Obama administration envisioned a $1 trillion short-term deficit-spending stimulus for a problem that turned out to be twice as big as was then understood. In other words, had the administration known how big the problem would turn out to be, it would have sought a $2 trillion stimulus. And what did we get once Congress got through with it? A $600 billion stimulusabout one-third of what we needed.
> 
> Making matters worse: The stimulus was not terribly well targeted. In an attempt to attract Republican votes, roughly two-fifths of it was tax cuts. Such temporary cuts are ineffective at boosting spending because too many people will simply save it. (It also failed to win any extra votes.) Roughly two-fifths of the stimulus was infrastructure and other forms of direct federal spending. But it is hard to boost federal spending quickly without wasting money, and those projects that are shovel-ready are not terribly labor intensive.
> 
> Meanwhile, the most-effective stimulus would have been aid to the states, which would have kept the states from cutting back on services and do a huge amount of good for employment. But senators don't want to hand out money to governors; the governors then tend to run against the senators and take their jobs away.
> 
> This problem with both the quantity and quality of the stimulus is tied up with the third factor: that the Obama administration declared victory on fiscal policy with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Actwith $600 billion in stimulus money and $200 billion of ineffective transfers to the upper middle classand then went home.
> 
> There was no intensive lobbying for a bigger program, no proposals to introduce triggers into the budget resolution so that if the late-2009 situation appeared dire a second round of deficit spending could be undertaken, no attempts to expand the stimulus programs when it became clear in the spring that the macroeconomic shock had in fact been twice as bad as people had thought. The background chatter is that trying for more deficit spending would have been fruitless, given the broken Senate, the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, and the need to shift our attention in the next couple of years to shrinking the long-term financial hole we're in.
> The Fed's Failing
> 
> That background chatter is probably right. But even if the recovery act was the largest achievable plan given all those constraints, there is still the Federal Reserve. And that's where the fourth factor comes in.
> 
> It is true that as far as normal monetary policy is concerned, the Federal Reserve was tapped out: Its normal purchases of short-term Treasuries for cash had already done all they could do.
> 
> more
Click to expand...


What a stupid fuck you are, this "Conservative" Icon?

*DeLong is both a liberal in the modern American political sense and a free trade neo-liberal. He has cited Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei Shleifer, Milton Friedman, and Lawrence Summers (with whom he has co-authored numerous papers) as the economists who have had the greatest influence on his views.[4]

DeLong lives in suburban Berkeley, California[5] with his wife Ann Marie Marciarille,[6] AARP Health and Aging Policy Research Fellow at Pacific McGeorge's Capital Center for Government Law and Policy.[7] He received his A.B. and Ph.D. from Harvard University (1987). Before moving to Berkeley, he taught at Harvard, Boston University, and MIT.
*

J. Bradford DeLong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have my head up anybody's ass. There are things I don't like about Obama. But, the Affordable Healthcare Act is hugely popular when each provisions is polled. The only provision that is not popular is the individual mandate. Which is a Republican idea. Obama, who you folks call a 'socialist', shut out the progressive and liberals during the health care debate. We should have had a public option, or the ability to buy Medicare before you are 65. Obama didn't have the 60 votes needed, because the Senator from Aetna, Joe LIEberman and blue dog Democrats.
> 
> The Stimulus Bill was a big success, it was just not big enough. But it did reverse the hemorrhaging of jobs that Bush left him with.
> 
> Do you people stand on your head when you read these charts?
> 
> Bush handed Obama the worst economy since the great depression. Obama immediately passed a job-stimulus bill which helped stop job losses faster than during the milder 1st Bush recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> December 9, 2011.  The economy was collapsing at its fastest rate since the Great Depression when Obama took office. In his second month he got Congress to pass a jobs stimulus bill worth about $900 billion. This helped stop the collapse and heightened the first spike in job growth. But the Republicans blocked more stimulus and by August 2010, falling stimulus spending began reducing job growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Mr Krugman. If only Obama had put us deeper in debt, then we'd be all be better off!! yeah, that's the ticket.
> 
> Face it bub, Obama is going to be sent home, permanently. He had a chance to be a great leader, he wasted his chance passing a law that will be gutted the moment Romney is sworn in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am truly amazed at the lack of understanding the right has of economics. Even this conservative icon understood. Which leads me to believe none of you are conservatives. You are some mutant form of life.
> 
> Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> Stimulus Too Small - The Wall Street Journal
> 
> Fourteen months ago, just after Barack Hussein Obama's election, most of us would have bet that the U.S. unemployment rate today would be something like 7.5%, that it would be heading down, and that the economy would be growing at about 4% per year.
> 
> A 5% unemployment rate as of the end of 2009 would have been seen from a late-2008 perspective as a very good and lucky outcome, and a 10% unemployment rate would have been seen as a very bad and unlucky outcome.
> 
> Well, we have been unlucky. Unemployment is not going down but going sidewayswe hope that it is still not going up. And the unemployment rate is not 7.5% but 10%. More important, perhaps, is that the expectation is for 3% real GDP growth in 2010.
> 
> That leaves us with two major questions: First, why has the outcome thus far been so much worse than what pretty much everyone expected in the late fall of 2008? And second, why is the forecast going forward for growth so much slower than our previous experience with recovery from a deep recession in 1983-84?
> 
> Four Factors
> 
> I attribute the differences to four factors:
> 
> First, the financial collapse of late 2008 did much more damage than we realizedto American households' and businesses' willingness to spend, as well as to the financial system's ability to match savers with cash to businesses that needed to borrow. The shock now looks to have been about twice as great as the consensus in the fall of 2008 thought.
> 
> When it comes to fighting economic depressions, governments essentially have two bags of tricks they can pick from: They can directly put the otherwise unemployed to work via deficit spending, or have the central bank boost asset prices and so make it more attractive for businesses to borrow and put the otherwise-unemployed to work. The incoming Obama administration tried to do both.
> 
> And that leads us to Factor No. 2. The Obama administration envisioned a $1 trillion short-term deficit-spending stimulus for a problem that turned out to be twice as big as was then understood. In other words, had the administration known how big the problem would turn out to be, it would have sought a $2 trillion stimulus. And what did we get once Congress got through with it? A $600 billion stimulusabout one-third of what we needed.
> 
> Making matters worse: The stimulus was not terribly well targeted. In an attempt to attract Republican votes, roughly two-fifths of it was tax cuts. Such temporary cuts are ineffective at boosting spending because too many people will simply save it. (It also failed to win any extra votes.) Roughly two-fifths of the stimulus was infrastructure and other forms of direct federal spending. But it is hard to boost federal spending quickly without wasting money, and those projects that are shovel-ready are not terribly labor intensive.
> 
> Meanwhile, the most-effective stimulus would have been aid to the states, which would have kept the states from cutting back on services and do a huge amount of good for employment. But senators don't want to hand out money to governors; the governors then tend to run against the senators and take their jobs away.
> 
> This problem with both the quantity and quality of the stimulus is tied up with the third factor: that the Obama administration declared victory on fiscal policy with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Actwith $600 billion in stimulus money and $200 billion of ineffective transfers to the upper middle classand then went home.
> 
> There was no intensive lobbying for a bigger program, no proposals to introduce triggers into the budget resolution so that if the late-2009 situation appeared dire a second round of deficit spending could be undertaken, no attempts to expand the stimulus programs when it became clear in the spring that the macroeconomic shock had in fact been twice as bad as people had thought. The background chatter is that trying for more deficit spending would have been fruitless, given the broken Senate, the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, and the need to shift our attention in the next couple of years to shrinking the long-term financial hole we're in.
> The Fed's Failing
> 
> That background chatter is probably right. But even if the recovery act was the largest achievable plan given all those constraints, there is still the Federal Reserve. And that's where the fourth factor comes in.
> 
> It is true that as far as normal monetary policy is concerned, the Federal Reserve was tapped out: Its normal purchases of short-term Treasuries for cash had already done all they could do.
> 
> more
Click to expand...

This is mere opinion. Which means that and $1.39 will get you a large coffee.


----------



## Chris

Romney's only strong stand on anything in his entire political career is not releasing his taxes.

He must be hiding something pretty big.


----------



## Chris

If Republicans want smaller government, they should move to Somalia.


----------



## Listening

Chris said:


> Romney's only strong stand on anything in his entire political career is not releasing his taxes.
> 
> He must be hiding something pretty big.



So are you...your head is hidden in your ass.


----------



## Listening

Chris said:


> If Republicans want smaller government, they should move to Somalia.



If American wants a higher overall I.Q., they'll move you to Denmark.


----------



## P@triot

Chris said:


> If Republicans want smaller government, they should move to Somalia.



Considering this nation was built on smaller government, and has a signed law that _requires_ small, limited government, I would say we shouldn't (and won't be) moving any where. You pro-communist assholes are the one's who should be moving to Cuba. Funny how it's everything you want, yet you strangely refuse to go...


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Republicans want smaller government, they should move to Somalia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering this nation was built on smaller government, and has a signed law that _requires_ small, limited government, I would say we shouldn't (and won't be) moving any where. You pro-communist assholes are the one's who should be moving to Cuba. Funny how it's everything you want, yet you strangely refuse to go...
Click to expand...


Your hero Bush increased the Govt by some margin when he put in the Patriot Act...


----------



## P@triot

Chris said:


> Romney's only strong stand on anything in his entire political career is not releasing his taxes.
> 
> He must be hiding something pretty big.



And oddly, Harry Reid is refusing to release _any_ of his taxes. Since Romney is releasing at least some of his, and Reid is refusing to release ANY of his, who is the one with something to hide?

You're a partisan hack and a closet communist. You don't even have the courage to have an honest conversation about who and what you are...


----------



## Bfgrn

Amazed said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Mr Krugman. If only Obama had put us deeper in debt, then we'd be all be better off!! yeah, that's the ticket.
> 
> Face it bub, Obama is going to be sent home, permanently. He had a chance to be a great leader, he wasted his chance passing a law that will be gutted the moment Romney is sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am truly amazed at the lack of understanding the right has of economics. Even this conservative icon understood. Which leads me to believe none of you are conservatives. You are some mutant form of life.
> 
> Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> Stimulus Too Small - The Wall Street Journal
> 
> Fourteen months ago, just after Barack Hussein Obama's election, most of us would have bet that the U.S. unemployment rate today would be something like 7.5%, that it would be heading down, and that the economy would be growing at about 4% per year.
> 
> A 5% unemployment rate as of the end of 2009 would have been seen from a late-2008 perspective as a very good and lucky outcome, and a 10% unemployment rate would have been seen as a very bad and unlucky outcome.
> 
> Well, we have been unlucky. Unemployment is not going down but going sidewayswe hope that it is still not going up. And the unemployment rate is not 7.5% but 10%. More important, perhaps, is that the expectation is for 3% real GDP growth in 2010.
> 
> That leaves us with two major questions: First, why has the outcome thus far been so much worse than what pretty much everyone expected in the late fall of 2008? And second, why is the forecast going forward for growth so much slower than our previous experience with recovery from a deep recession in 1983-84?
> 
> Four Factors
> 
> I attribute the differences to four factors:
> 
> First, the financial collapse of late 2008 did much more damage than we realizedto American households' and businesses' willingness to spend, as well as to the financial system's ability to match savers with cash to businesses that needed to borrow. The shock now looks to have been about twice as great as the consensus in the fall of 2008 thought.
> 
> When it comes to fighting economic depressions, governments essentially have two bags of tricks they can pick from: They can directly put the otherwise unemployed to work via deficit spending, or have the central bank boost asset prices and so make it more attractive for businesses to borrow and put the otherwise-unemployed to work. The incoming Obama administration tried to do both.
> 
> And that leads us to Factor No. 2. The Obama administration envisioned a $1 trillion short-term deficit-spending stimulus for a problem that turned out to be twice as big as was then understood. In other words, had the administration known how big the problem would turn out to be, it would have sought a $2 trillion stimulus. And what did we get once Congress got through with it? A $600 billion stimulusabout one-third of what we needed.
> 
> Making matters worse: The stimulus was not terribly well targeted. In an attempt to attract Republican votes, roughly two-fifths of it was tax cuts. Such temporary cuts are ineffective at boosting spending because too many people will simply save it. (It also failed to win any extra votes.) Roughly two-fifths of the stimulus was infrastructure and other forms of direct federal spending. But it is hard to boost federal spending quickly without wasting money, and those projects that are shovel-ready are not terribly labor intensive.
> 
> Meanwhile, the most-effective stimulus would have been aid to the states, which would have kept the states from cutting back on services and do a huge amount of good for employment. But senators don't want to hand out money to governors; the governors then tend to run against the senators and take their jobs away.
> 
> This problem with both the quantity and quality of the stimulus is tied up with the third factor: that the Obama administration declared victory on fiscal policy with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Actwith $600 billion in stimulus money and $200 billion of ineffective transfers to the upper middle classand then went home.
> 
> There was no intensive lobbying for a bigger program, no proposals to introduce triggers into the budget resolution so that if the late-2009 situation appeared dire a second round of deficit spending could be undertaken, no attempts to expand the stimulus programs when it became clear in the spring that the macroeconomic shock had in fact been twice as bad as people had thought. The background chatter is that trying for more deficit spending would have been fruitless, given the broken Senate, the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, and the need to shift our attention in the next couple of years to shrinking the long-term financial hole we're in.
> The Fed's Failing
> 
> That background chatter is probably right. But even if the recovery act was the largest achievable plan given all those constraints, there is still the Federal Reserve. And that's where the fourth factor comes in.
> 
> It is true that as far as normal monetary policy is concerned, the Federal Reserve was tapped out: Its normal purchases of short-term Treasuries for cash had already done all they could do.
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid fuck you are, this "Conservative" Icon?
> 
> *DeLong is both a liberal in the modern American political sense and a free trade neo-liberal. He has cited Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei Shleifer, Milton Friedman, and Lawrence Summers (with whom he has co-authored numerous papers) as the economists who have had the greatest influence on his views.[4]
> 
> DeLong lives in suburban Berkeley, California[5] with his wife Ann Marie Marciarille,[6] AARP Health and Aging Policy Research Fellow at Pacific McGeorge's Capital Center for Government Law and Policy.[7] He received his A.B. and Ph.D. from Harvard University (1987). Before moving to Berkeley, he taught at Harvard, Boston University, and MIT.
> *
> 
> J. Bradford DeLong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I was talking about Edmund Burke...

And, btw Adam Smith is a conservative icon (invisible hand), as so is Milton Friedman. Friedman was an economic adviser to Ronald Reagan. His political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention.


----------



## Vel

Rottweiler said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney's only strong stand on anything in his entire political career is not releasing his taxes.
> 
> He must be hiding something pretty big.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oddly, Harry Reid is refusing to release _any_ of his taxes. Since Romney is releasing at least some of his, and Reid is refusing to release ANY of his, who is the one with something to hide?
> 
> You're a partisan hack and a closet communist. You don't even have the courage to have an honest conversation about who and what you are...
Click to expand...


Wait for it. The response will be that," Reid isn't running for POTUS". The problem with that response is that Harry Reif has much more to do with setting tax policy that the POTUS does and is far more likely to have a conflict of interest their. That makes Reid's taxes far more germane.


----------



## Clementine

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



Does anyone on the left believe that people get credit for anything they do?   Considering how many people are on welfare, receive every benefit known to mankind, from education to living expenses and then rely on affirmative action to tilt the playing field (not level it), of course many believe that a person should turn around and thank government for their success.   Some should.    A thank you to the tax payers would be nice, but since they feel entitled to the fruits of our labors, I'm not holding my breath.

Obama didn't get there on his own.   Of course, he sealed his records so no one will know the extent of the help.   He didn't earn the Nobel Peace prize, so others handed that to him.

Obama has never started or run a business so he has no idea how they came to exist or why they get successful.   He's an idiot and pandering to a group of people who are so clueless about how the country works that they'll believe this crap.


----------



## Full-Auto

"You didn't get there on your own"


----------



## Uncensored2008

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> what could possibly be the end game for our brain dead liberals now the Hitler Stalin Mao Tojo Castro Pot pot, and now Europe have failed???



It hasn't changed.

What the left values, the ONLY thing the left values, is order. The goal remains a global dictatorship that will impose order on humanity, that will force people to obey without question or resistance.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone



Leftism is the rule of people without compassion or mercy.


----------



## Bfgrn

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftism is the rule of people without compassion or mercy.
Click to expand...


Yea, the people who created Medicare, the Civil Rights bill, Social Security and ended child slavery, NOW want to kill them all...


----------



## Uncensored2008

saveliberty said:


> Prudence?  Like fiscal conservatism?  Balanced budgets?  Liberalism also expected people to be educated and preserve liberty.



Modern progressives like Bgfrn are not liberals, they are leftists. Payne would recognize nothing of their agenda, though Mao and Stalin would embrace it as their own.


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> I am truly amazed at the lack of understanding the right has of economics.



Says the side that has created nothing but massive unemployment, massive national debt, and massive gas prices. Then claims their policies are "working" :cuckoo". There isn't a liberal/progressive/democrat alive that understands economics. And that is because liberals refuse to look at facts or accept history. Instead, they are fed propaganda and they eat it up like the idiot sow's that they are. Communism/Marxism/Socialism doesn't work. It has _never_ worked. But just keep eating up the false information that George Soros is spoon feeding you so he can consolidate his power over you. This is a man who called working for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's "the greatest time of his life".



Bfgrn said:


> Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy. Edmund Burke



I.E. we recognize that Communism/Marxism/Socialism runs up massive debt until it collapses the entire nation, but we need to attempt to justify these nationa collapsing policies.



Bfgrn said:


> Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government. Edmund Burke



Only an asshole thinks freedom is "oppressive". Funny think about liberal assholes, all of them have lived under the ultimate privilege of freedom while bashing it. Would love to see each and every one of them live under the oppresive regimes of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc. Wonder how much they would love communism while they were being lined up for execution? 



Bfgrn said:


> Stimulus Too Small - The Wall Street Journal
> 
> Well, we have been unlucky.



Vintage liberal "logic". No matter how much failure their policies create, no matter how much misery their policies manufacture, no matter how much it ends in disaster, ignore the facts and just declare "unlucky". I've always felt really bad for the GOP in Congress, because trying to work with liberals is like working with small children. They don't understand the issues, they don't understand economics, they just have an ideology and they push straight ahead like stubborn children with the ideology. The GOP are the only adults in the room - that has to be exasperating after a while.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftism is the rule of people without compassion or mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, the people who created Medicare, the Civil Rights bill, Social Security and ended child slavery, NOW want to kill them all...
Click to expand...


This from the person who claims to operate from reason and logic ?



Medicare can be seen as good and bad....it depends on your point of view.

Social Security...the same.

Civil Rights has always been a lightning rod....it is not the cure all you wish it was.

Child Slavery ?  You think we've ended it ?  You ever talk to people in the school system who see kids who are being abused by the awful family circumstances they are allowed to wallow in ?

I'd rather see a kid working 10 hours a day than living with his crack whore mom who has a new boyfriend every week.

I'd most rather see neither every happen.

But, liberals just cower at the idea that any of their doings helped to cause the issues with todays current "traditional" family.  They seem to hate it.

But hey....that crack whore mom didn't get there on her own.


----------



## P@triot

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> what could possibly be the end game for our brain dead liberals now the Hitler Stalin Mao Tojo Castro Pot pot, and now Europe have failed???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't changed.
> 
> What the left values, the ONLY thing the left values, is order. The goal remains a global dictatorship that will impose order on humanity, that will force people to obey without question or resistance.
Click to expand...


Truer words were never spoken! Very well said. They genuinely _fear_ freedom. The thought of people doing their own thing in their own direction causes massive panic attacks in liberals. The idea of a totalitarianism brings comfort to them, because they think everybody being forced to "row" in the same direction will bring results. Little do they know, none of us are sitting in the same boat . This is all because they reject history, refuse to learn and understand it, and instead rely on the false history (like George Washington and the assinine cherry tree story) created by the propaganda crowd.


----------



## Katzndogz

You didn't get there on your own is supposed to impose the idea that business owners accepted welfare.   Welfare in the form of infrastructure.  Having accepted welfare, they should not now claim they did it on their own.

To the democrats even a government contract, in which the government becomes a customer is a form of welfare.


----------



## Oddball

Bfgrn said:


> And, btw Adam Smith is a conservative icon (invisible hand), as so is Milton Friedman. Friedman was an economic adviser to Ronald Reagan.* His political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention.*


With the notable exception of Harding and Coolidge, we never have come to that "minimal intervention" point in the last century or so.


----------



## Bfgrn

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am truly amazed at the lack of understanding the right has of economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the side that has created nothing but massive unemployment, massive national debt, and massive gas prices. Then claims their policies are "working" :cuckoo". There isn't a liberal/progressive/democrat alive that understands economics. And that is because liberals refuse to look at facts or accept history. Instead, they are fed propaganda and they eat it up like the idiot sow's that they are. Communism/Marxism/Socialism doesn't work. It has _never_ worked. But just keep eating up the false information that George Soros is spoon feeding you so he can consolidate his power over you. This is a man who called working for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's "the greatest time of his life".
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy. Edmund Burke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I.E. we recognize that Communism/Marxism/Socialism runs up massive debt until it collapses the entire nation, but we need to attempt to justify these nationa collapsing policies.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government. Edmund Burke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an asshole thinks freedom is "oppressive". Funny think about liberal assholes, all of them have lived under the ultimate privilege of freedom while bashing it. Would love to see each and every one of them live under the oppresive regimes of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc. Wonder how much they would love communism while they were being lined up for execution?
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stimulus Too Small - The Wall Street Journal
> 
> Well, we have been unlucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vintage liberal "logic". No matter how much failure their policies create, no matter how much misery their policies manufacture, no matter how much it ends in disaster, ignore the facts and just declare "unlucky". I've always felt really bad for the GOP in Congress, because trying to work with liberals is like working with small children. They don't understand the issues, they don't understand economics, they just have an ideology and they push straight ahead like stubborn children with the ideology. The GOP are the only adults in the room - that has to be exasperating after a while.
Click to expand...


The 'adults' are the ones who ruined our economy and created our debt. Why is logic an enemy and truth a menace to you right wing parrots?

See if your tiny little brain can comprehend THIS:

Ronald Reagan, not a Democrat, created as much debt in 5 years, as it took every other president from George Washington to Carter to create...COMBINED. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!







And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.


----------



## P@triot

Katzndogz said:


> You didn't get there on your own is supposed to impose the idea that business owners accepted welfare.   Welfare in the form of infrastructure.  Having accepted welfare, they should not now claim they did it on their own.
> 
> To the democrats even a government contract, in which the government becomes a customer is a form of welfare.



But even that doesn't hold up, because the business owners PAID for that stuff in the form of taxes. The highest corporate taxes in the WORLD.


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am truly amazed at the lack of understanding the right has of economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the side that has created nothing but massive unemployment, massive national debt, and massive gas prices. Then claims their policies are "working" :cuckoo". There isn't a liberal/progressive/democrat alive that understands economics. And that is because liberals refuse to look at facts or accept history. Instead, they are fed propaganda and they eat it up like the idiot sow's that they are. Communism/Marxism/Socialism doesn't work. It has _never_ worked. But just keep eating up the false information that George Soros is spoon feeding you so he can consolidate his power over you. This is a man who called working for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's "the greatest time of his life".
> 
> 
> 
> I.E. we recognize that Communism/Marxism/Socialism runs up massive debt until it collapses the entire nation, but we need to attempt to justify these nationa collapsing policies.
> 
> 
> 
> Only an asshole thinks freedom is "oppressive". Funny think about liberal assholes, all of them have lived under the ultimate privilege of freedom while bashing it. Would love to see each and every one of them live under the oppresive regimes of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc. Wonder how much they would love communism while they were being lined up for execution?
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stimulus Too Small - The Wall Street Journal
> 
> Well, we have been unlucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vintage liberal "logic". No matter how much failure their policies create, no matter how much misery their policies manufacture, no matter how much it ends in disaster, ignore the facts and just declare "unlucky". I've always felt really bad for the GOP in Congress, because trying to work with liberals is like working with small children. They don't understand the issues, they don't understand economics, they just have an ideology and they push straight ahead like stubborn children with the ideology. The GOP are the only adults in the room - that has to be exasperating after a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'adults' are the ones who ruined our economy and created our debt. Why is logic an enemy and truth a menace to you right wing parrots?
> 
> See if your tiny little brain can comprehend THIS:
> 
> Ronald Reagan, not a Democrat, created as much debt in 5 years, as it took every other president from George Washington to Carter to create...COMBINED. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.
Click to expand...


In other words, the numbers show I'm right and you are wrong, so lets change the conversation to Ronald Reagan . Ronald Reagan is dead my friend. It's time to move on.

And Barack Obama has added more to the national debt in his first 3 years than George Washington through George Bush combined in their first 3 years. In fact, he's added more to the debt in 3 years than Ronald Reagan did in 8 years!!!

Finally, everyone I know was disgusted with the spending of GWB. So stop using that as an EXCUSE and just admit that Barack Obama is a FAILURE! We have no problems criticizing conservative representatives, wonder why you little Nazi's can't criticize your representatives?!?!


----------



## Foxfyre

Seems to me that the Obama apologists are getting a little frantic trying to raise up President Bush as the great Satan once again and focus attention on him rather than look at the record of their own hero.  Most especially when at least one continues to spam the thread with the same tired charts and graphs over and over and over.  Others want to point to the "evils" of free market, laissez faire economic principles by demonizing former Presidents or focus on evil corporations or Wall Street as the villains in the current economic maliase.   A few support the President in the concept that everything is just hunky dory all things considered.

After all he has raised the deficit and increased spending less than any of his predecessors.  Once you sort of ignore his first year in office that is.  But it is true.  If you spend and borrow and obligate the people about as much as is possible to do that and then continue at that level from that point on, you can claim you aren't raising spending or increasing the deficit much.

And none of that changes the fact that the President does not give the business owner or the working man credit for much of anything, and he continues to look to government as the solution for all things.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> The 'adults' are the ones who ruined our economy and created our debt. Why is logic an enemy and truth a menace to you right wing parrots?



You actually believe that George Bush single-handedly created the mortgage bubble and the sub-prime ponzi scheme, and you have the nerve to criticize others?



> See if your tiny little brain can comprehend THIS:
> 
> Ronald Reagan, not a Democrat, created as much debt in 5 years, as it took every other president from George Washington to Carter to create...COMBINED.



See if the party can grasp this, and then feed it into your central nervous cluster, drone:

Barack Obama, a democrat, created as much debt in 3 1/2 years as it took every other president, from George Washington and including Reagan, to create.  Obama has added to date, $5.67 Trillion in debt, which will be at $6.5 by the time he leaves office in January. That is a greater debt than held the day Reagan left office - by ONE man.

Funny how you seem to miss this.

But then, there is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.



> Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!



Which is less debt than Obama alone has added.



> And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade???



Everywhere. 

Bush was pilloried over the debt he added. Reagan added debt to defeat your beloved USSR, it was an investment that ushered in the longest peace time expansion in U.S. History. Obama, on the other hand, has driven us right back into recession.




> When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'...



You couldn't hear because your head was, and is, shoved firmly up your ass.



> And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.



Who here has supported the Patriot Act?

Obama does, but I see no conservatives in support of it. Habeas corpus you are just lying about - or your party is, you are but a drone reciting what you are programmed to recite.

You know who actually DID suspend habeas corpus? Abraham Lincoln, whom every leftist in this forum will claim as the greatest president in history.


----------



## Foxfyre

Rottweiler said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't get there on your own is supposed to impose the idea that business owners accepted welfare.   Welfare in the form of infrastructure.  Having accepted welfare, they should not now claim they did it on their own.
> 
> To the democrats even a government contract, in which the government becomes a customer is a form of welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even that doesn't hold up, because the business owners PAID for that stuff in the form of taxes. The highest corporate taxes in the WORLD.
Click to expand...


Yup.  Or perhaps President Obama thinks that all that infrastructure magically appeared as a benevolent act of the great God government which allowed somebody to then build a business.  Does he think there would be ANY infrastructure anywhere if there were not people starting businesses, hiring people, and fueling an economy? 

Maybe he thinks government doesn't need us at all?  You just set up a government, print up some money, and run a country?


----------



## Listening

I drive around and look to see what infrastructure we need that we don't have.

I can't see any.

What is it that you would spend money on.

Right now, my city is busy tearing up good roads and resurfacing them so they can spend all their budgeted dollars.  What a racket.

The best thing we could do would be to spend the money on severance for all the government people who need to be let go (and their departments shut down) so small business can more easily get started.


----------



## Barb

Listening said:


> I drive around and look to see what infrastructure we need that we don't have.
> 
> I can't see any.
> 
> What is it that you would spend money on.
> 
> Right now, my city is busy tearing up good roads and resurfacing them so they can spend all their budgeted dollars.  What a racket.
> 
> The best thing we could do would be to spend the money on severance for all the government people who need to be let go (and their departments shut down) so small business can more easily get started.



Negged for being a lying sack of shit.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> Negged for being a lying sack of shit.



Looks like he can hit back a lot harder than you can attack.

I'd say you made a stupid move with that.


----------



## chanel

Foxfyre said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't get there on your own is supposed to impose the idea that business owners accepted welfare.   Welfare in the form of infrastructure.  Having accepted welfare, they should not now claim they did it on their own.
> 
> To the democrats even a government contract, in which the government becomes a customer is a form of welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even that doesn't hold up, because the business owners PAID for that stuff in the form of taxes. The highest corporate taxes in the WORLD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Or perhaps President Obama thinks that all that infrastructure magically appeared as a benevolent act of the great God government which allowed somebody to then build a business.  Does he think there would be ANY infrastructure anywhere if there were not people starting businesses, hiring people, and fueling an economy?
> 
> Maybe he thinks government doesn't need us at all?  You just set up a government, print up some money, and run a country?
Click to expand...

Well today I heard more backpedalling (or digging themselves deeper) about small businesses being in "partnership" with the govt. I can't find the quote from O's spokesperson but I'll keep looking.

Guess what? Very few businesses consider Big Brother a "partner". And he still doesn't get that.  Partners don't take half your money and then tell you that you are greedy.


----------



## bripat9643

chanel said:


> Guess what? Very few businesses consider Big Brother a "partner". And he still doesn't get that.  Partners don't take half your money and then tell you that you are greedy.



Government is a "partner" like Guido the Leg Breaker down the street.  He's always there to take his cut of what your business earns.


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> The 'adults' are the ones who ruined our economy and created our debt. Why is logic an enemy and truth a menace to you right wing parrots?





Uncensored2008 said:


> You actually believe that George Bush single-handedly created the mortgage bubble and the sub-prime ponzi scheme, and you have the nerve to criticize others?



The irony of course, is that Bill Clinton single-handedly created the mortgage bubble and sub-prime ponzi scheme, when he signed the Community Re-Investment Act and forced banks to make loans to people who didn't previously qualify.

It's what happens when communist/marxist/socialist government interferes with the free market.

Before Bill Clinton and that bill, a house was an asset that went up and up and up in price over the years. After Bill Clinton, the housing market collapsed. And then the left blames the "free market" for their oppresive regulations that eliminated the free market. The irony is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.


----------



## P@triot

Listening said:


> I drive around and look to see what infrastructure we need that we don't have.
> 
> I can't see any.
> 
> What is it that you would spend money on.
> 
> Right now, my city is busy tearing up good roads and resurfacing them so they can spend all their budgeted dollars.  What a racket.
> 
> The best thing we could do would be to spend the money on severance for all the government people who need to be let go (and their departments shut down) so small business can more easily get started.



Swear to God - we have the EXACT SAME THING where I live. My wife and I keep saying how they are tearing up all of these roads in phenomenal condition just to turn around and "rebuild" them. Any wonder we're $16 trillion in debt when this is being done with federal money (and should NOT be under ANY circumstances)?

The left (and especially Obama) simply can't accept reality. The numbers don't lie, so they just ignore them...


----------



## P@triot

Foxfyre said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't get there on your own is supposed to impose the idea that business owners accepted welfare.   Welfare in the form of infrastructure.  Having accepted welfare, they should not now claim they did it on their own.
> 
> To the democrats even a government contract, in which the government becomes a customer is a form of welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even that doesn't hold up, because the business owners PAID for that stuff in the form of taxes. The highest corporate taxes in the WORLD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Or perhaps President Obama thinks that all that infrastructure magically appeared as a benevolent act of the great God government which allowed somebody to then build a business.  Does he think there would be ANY infrastructure anywhere if there were not people starting businesses, hiring people, and fueling an economy?
> 
> Maybe he thinks government doesn't need us at all?  You just set up a government, print up some money, and run a country?
Click to expand...


I seriously doubt we will be able to over come the disaster that is the Obama Administration. Since taking office, he's had the printing presses spitting out dollar bills around the clock to artificially prop up an economy he destroyed. But that's inflated the dollar to the point where it is damn near worthless. Unless the next administration pulls all of those trillions back out of the economy, shreds those fake dollars, and then starts paying off the debt by cutting entitlements hard & deep (which isn't going to happen because of politics), then we will have a Greece-like collapse in the not too distant future...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rottweiler said:


> The irony of course, is that Bill Clinton single-handedly created the mortgage bubble and sub-prime ponzi scheme, when he signed the Community Re-Investment Act and forced banks to make loans to people who didn't previously qualify.
> 
> It's what happens when communist/marxist/socialist government interferes with the free market.
> 
> Before Bill Clinton and that bill, a house was an asset that went up and up and up in price over the years. After Bill Clinton, the housing market collapsed. And then the left blames the "free market" for their oppresive regulations that eliminated the free market. The irony is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.



CRA originated under Jimmy Carter, Clinton expanded it and Witch Hunter Janet Reno took the unprecedented action of suing banks for failing to meet CRA goals.

That said, without securitized mortgage bundles, the thing still would not have collapsed. Mortgage securities began under Clinton, but exploded under Bush. 2003-5 saw the majority of new mortgage debt bundled into securities, right along with the toxic loans made under CRA.

Carter, Clinton, AND Bush all share responsibility for that mess.


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


>



Does anyone notices how this liberal assholes chart stops at 2005? 

Definitely don't want anyone to see that the debt went from $9 trillion under GWB to $16 trillion. Think about how astounding those numbers are. Obama added more to the debt in 3 years than GWB and Reagan _combined_ did in 16 years!!!


----------



## Barb

Uncensored2008 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negged for being a lying sack of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like he can hit back a lot harder than you can attack.
> 
> I'd say you made a stupid move with that.
Click to expand...


We'll see. I got a few things to do. In ALL honesty?  could give a fuck less.


----------



## Foxfyre

Listening said:


> I drive around and look to see what infrastructure we need that we don't have.
> 
> I can't see any.
> 
> What is it that you would spend money on.
> 
> Right now, my city is busy tearing up good roads and resurfacing them so they can spend all their budgeted dollars.  What a racket.
> 
> The best thing we could do would be to spend the money on severance for all the government people who need to be let go (and their departments shut down) so small business can more easily get started.



Yup.  And you can bet your bottom dollar that a private business contracted to maintain a county road wouldn't have done what they all too often did out on North 14 where we used to live.   More than once we watched them paint beautiful new white striping down the edges and refresh the center stripe, and then resurface it with asphalt a week later--yep, same government guys doing the work.  (I bet they felt like idiots too, but they had no choice but follow orders.)

When you are using your own money, you tend to be a lot more careful about things like that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Also government agencies at ALL levels tend to try to spend all the money they are allotted or risk having their budgets cut the following year.  There is absolutely no reward for economy or saving the people money.  You only get rewarded if you spend it.

The private sector does not think that way.


----------



## Listening

Barb said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drive around and look to see what infrastructure we need that we don't have.
> 
> I can't see any.
> 
> What is it that you would spend money on.
> 
> Right now, my city is busy tearing up good roads and resurfacing them so they can spend all their budgeted dollars.  What a racket.
> 
> The best thing we could do would be to spend the money on severance for all the government people who need to be let go (and their departments shut down) so small business can more easily get started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negged for being a lying sack of shit.
Click to expand...


It would be just great if you liberals could support these kinds of observations.

You don't think  this is going on.

I got news for you dumbass.....l

I have friends who work as mechanics for the local utility.  They get called in on overtime at the end of the year and wind up playing cards just so they can burn up the budget....otherwise they lose it.

You'll find some neg rep waiting for you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Listening said:


> I drive around and look to see what infrastructure we need that we don't have.
> 
> I can't see any.
> 
> .



I looked it up once after seeing another liberal article about our crumbling infrastructure. In the North East that said the best example was the Tappan Zee Bridge.

Iin reality, the bridge is working fine and has always been regularly maintained so it won't fall into the river.

Its one job a liberal governement can do because the standard of quality they must meet is perfectly obvious and inescapable.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

SMH

my god, the stupid is so deep, it burns it is so deep, how sad


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> SMH
> 
> my god, the stupid is so deep, it burns it is so deep, how sad


 
Yeah...burns for YOU. You're an ill-educated MORON that should be in a place like CHINA that agrees with YOU. 

IDIOT.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> SMH
> 
> my god, the stupid is so deep, it burns it is so deep, how sad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...burns for YOU. You're an ill-educated MORON that should be in a place like CHINA that agrees with YOU.
> 
> IDIOT.
Click to expand...


You really shouldnt respond to anything i say ever, it really is embarrassing for you to do so.

Remember, the rest of the planet thinks this of you






this makes me the adult and you the joke..

however, after this weekend, you are now a very dangerous joke


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> SMH
> 
> my god, the stupid is so deep, it burns it is so deep, how sad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...burns for YOU. You're an ill-educated MORON that should be in a place like CHINA that agrees with YOU.
> 
> IDIOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really shouldnt respond to anything i say ever, it really is embarrassing for you to do so.
Click to expand...


I am afraid it you who should be embarrassed for any of your posts.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Listening said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...burns for YOU. You're an ill-educated MORON that should be in a place like CHINA that agrees with YOU.
> 
> IDIOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really shouldnt respond to anything i say ever, it really is embarrassing for you to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am afraid it you who should be embarrassed for any of your posts.
Click to expand...


Stay down for gods sake, here you didnt have to respond, yet you did, proving once again that you dont really understand this game


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...burns for YOU. You're an ill-educated MORON that should be in a place like CHINA that agrees with YOU.
> 
> IDIOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really shouldnt respond to anything i say ever, it really is embarrassing for you to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am afraid it you who should be embarrassed for any of your posts.
Click to expand...

 
CHUSA isn't good at the intimidation game.

And *IT *should be _embarassed._
_IT is totally UNAMERICAN. Must be it's breeding and education._


----------



## ConzHateUSA

oh T, I am intimidated by you guys, for real;

after this weekend I believe you will kill me, yes


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> oh T, I am intimidated by you guys, for real;
> 
> after this weekend I believe you will kill me, yes


 
YOU'RE a MAROON.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh T, I am intimidated by you guys, for real;
> 
> after this weekend I believe you will kill me, yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU'RE a MAROON.
Click to expand...


no, just a realist

while you personally may not shoot anyone, many in your movement have and will

we have known for a long time your extreme members would start this, and have

the question now is what happens on election day, do you support the voter suppression, the likes of which our military would invade were it to happen anywhere else?


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh T, I am intimidated by you guys, for real;
> 
> after this weekend I believe you will kill me, yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU'RE a MAROON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, just a realist
> 
> while you personally may not shoot anyone, many in your movement have and will
> 
> we have known for a long time your extreme members would start this, and have
> 
> the question now is what happens on election day, do you support the voter suppression, the likes of which our military would invade were it to happen anywhere else?
Click to expand...

 
Hit the bong a little more, idiot. I wouldn't recommend drinking the water.

YOU are truly out of your mind and project. 

[And trust me? I'm copying every thing YOU type for posterity]...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

oh T, you are copying everything I write?

ahh, you make me feel so proud...surely you understand that when everything is said and done, you will be the one in the corner being laughed at?

for real, you do know that?  oh well

what reason would you have to copy what i write...weird


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> oh T, you are copying everything I write?
> 
> ahh, you make me feel so proud...surely you understand that when everything is said and done, you will be the one in the corner being laughed at?
> 
> for real, you do know that? oh well
> 
> what reason would you have to copy what i write...weird


 
s0n? Keep going. Please troll. This is being fowarded...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh T, you are copying everything I write?
> 
> ahh, you make me feel so proud...surely you understand that when everything is said and done, you will be the one in the corner being laughed at?
> 
> for real, you do know that? oh well
> 
> what reason would you have to copy what i write...weird
> 
> 
> 
> 
> s0n? Keep going. Please troll. This is being fowarded...
Click to expand...


forwarded  

dear god man, now you are simply making a fool of yourself in front of everyone  

look, you are a racist and you hate America because America isnt purely white and christian, who in the hell would you forward anything to  LOL


----------



## The T

ConzHateUSA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh T, you are copying everything I write?
> 
> ahh, you make me feel so proud...surely you understand that when everything is said and done, you will be the one in the corner being laughed at?
> 
> for real, you do know that? oh well
> 
> what reason would you have to copy what i write...weird
> 
> 
> 
> 
> s0n? Keep going. Please troll. This is being fowarded...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forwarded
> 
> dear god man, now you are simply making a fool of yourself in front of everyone
Click to expand...

 
Keep going. Last post I'll make toward you s0n.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

The T said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> s0n? Keep going. Please troll. This is being fowarded...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forwarded
> 
> dear god man, now you are simply making a fool of yourself in front of everyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep going. Last post I'll make toward you s0n.
Click to expand...


but you said you were forwarding them, are you copy and pasting and forwarding them to the head office at tea party central?

  moran


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really shouldnt respond to anything i say ever, it really is embarrassing for you to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid it you who should be embarrassed for any of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay down for gods sake, here you didnt have to respond, yet you did, proving once again that you dont really understand this game
Click to expand...


What game, moron ?

You spam the board with irrelevant garbage and it gets pointed out.

Aren't you the one who claims to wear a Rolodex and drive a BMW ?

Good grief.....reality has found the Twilight Zone.


----------



## Listening

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



Did anyone think a thread could fill close to 300 pages ?

Let's get back to basics.

Obama does not know what the hell he is talking about.


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of course, is that Bill Clinton single-handedly created the mortgage bubble and sub-prime ponzi scheme, when he signed the Community Re-Investment Act and forced banks to make loans to people who didn't previously qualify.
> 
> It's what happens when communist/marxist/socialist government interferes with the free market.
> 
> Before Bill Clinton and that bill, a house was an asset that went up and up and up in price over the years. After Bill Clinton, the housing market collapsed. And then the left blames the "free market" for their oppresive regulations that eliminated the free market. The irony is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CRA originated under Jimmy Carter, Clinton expanded it and Witch Hunter Janet Reno took the unprecedented action of suing banks for failing to meet CRA goals.
> 
> That said, without securitized mortgage bundles, the thing still would not have collapsed. Mortgage securities began under Clinton, but exploded under Bush. 2003-5 saw the majority of new mortgage debt bundled into securities, right along with the toxic loans made under CRA.
> 
> Carter, Clinton, AND Bush all share responsibility for that mess.
Click to expand...


You forgot Raygun...


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone notices how this liberal assholes chart stops at 2005?
> 
> Definitely don't want anyone to see that the debt went from $9 trillion under GWB to $16 trillion. Think about how astounding those numbers are. Obama added more to the debt in 3 years than GWB and Reagan _combined_ did in 16 years!!!
Click to expand...


Two things:
1) It stops at 2007 which makes me wonder if you can't read something as simple as that chart, what else do you get wrong.
2) Ok, so the debt went up to $16 trillion. But you forgot the 'why'. Doesn't suprise me. A partisan hack is a partisan hack...


----------



## saveliberty

Obama tried to create class warfare.  Every socialist leader resorts to it at some point.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Seems to me that the Obama apologists are getting a little frantic trying to raise up President Bush as the great Satan once again and focus attention on him rather than look at the record of their own hero.  Most especially when at least one continues to spam the thread with the same tired charts and graphs over and over and over.  Others want to point to the "evils" of free market, laissez faire economic principles by demonizing former Presidents or focus on evil corporations or Wall Street as the villains in the current economic maliase.   A few support the President in the concept that everything is just hunky dory all things considered.
> 
> After all he has raised the deficit and increased spending less than any of his predecessors.  Once you sort of ignore his first year in office that is.  But it is true.  If you spend and borrow and obligate the people about as much as is possible to do that and then continue at that level from that point on, you can claim you aren't raising spending or increasing the deficit much.
> 
> And none of that changes the fact that the President does not give the business owner or the working man credit for much of anything, and he continues to look to government as the solution for all things.



Obama's first year (2009) in office WAS Bush's budget. Is it that you don't understand the FACTS about federal budgets, or are you just dishonest Foxfyre?

TARP was Bush, not Obama. It was necessary, as much as all of us held our noses. If the banks and lending institutions had collapsed, every working American's 401k and retirement would have been wiped out with the banks collapse. Not to mention our economy would have collapsed with it.

The "evils" of free market, too much laissez-faire, evil corporations and Wall Street *ARE* the villains in the current economic malaise. It was the PRIVATE sector operating outside of government regulations that destroyed our economy, not the government. 

The Stimulus bill was absolutely essential. It dramatically reversed the hemorrhaging of job loses (750,000 per month). If you believe McCain would have done nothing while America was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs per month, you are not a person with an adult brain.


----------



## saveliberty

BS Bfgrn.  I remember Obama was there with Obama at the signing of TARP, because Obama was going to inherit it.  TARP had Obama's blessing from day one.  None of this justifies Obama's acceleration of the deficit.


----------



## Dr Grump

saveliberty said:


> BS Bfgrn.  I remember Obama was there with Obama at the signing of TARP, because Obama was going to inherit it.  TARP had Obama's blessing from day one.  None of this justifies Obama's acceleration of the deficit.



Please explain point by point:
1) How expanded the deficit
2) Why he expanded it
3) What you would have done differently
4) Take your time...


----------



## Bfgrn

saveliberty said:


> BS Bfgrn.  I remember Obama was there with Obama at the signing of TARP, because Obama was going to inherit it.  TARP had Obama's blessing from day one.  None of this justifies Obama's acceleration of the deficit.



Yes, it had Obama's blessing. And I just said I agree with it. It was necessary, but no one liked it. Not Bush, Obama, me or anyone but the banks.

Bush began the bailouts of the auto industry. And he said he would do it again.

Bush Would Do it Again on Auto Bailouts

*Former pres. tells dealers it prevented 21% unemployment.*

Id do it again, proclaimed Bush, speaking to the annual convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association.

The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush Administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.

Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy, said the ex-President, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade.  If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay, he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.

But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.

I didnt want there to be 21% unemployment, he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.

The former President has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009  though he did call the bailout the only option in his 2010 book, Decision Points  leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.

In that book, the 43rd President argued that, The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back Americas Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.

more


----------



## The T

Bfgrn said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS Bfgrn. I remember Obama was there with Obama at the signing of TARP, because Obama was going to inherit it. TARP had Obama's blessing from day one. None of this justifies Obama's acceleration of the deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it had Obama's blessing. And I just said I agree with it. It was necessary, but no one liked it. Not Bush, Obama, me or anyone but the banks.
> 
> Bush began the bailouts of the auto industry. And he said he would do it again.
> 
> *Bush Would Do it Again on Auto Bailouts*
> 
> *Former pres. tells dealers it prevented 21% unemployment.*
> 
> Id do it again, proclaimed Bush, speaking to the annual convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association.
> 
> The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush Administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.
> 
> Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy, said the ex-President, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay, he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.
> 
> But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.
> 
> I didnt want there to be 21% unemployment, he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.
> 
> The former President has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009  though he did call the bailout the only option in his 2010 book, Decision Points  leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.
> 
> In that book, the 43rd President argued that, The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back Americas Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.
> 
> Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.
> 
> more
Click to expand...

 
And BUSH was WRONG...Happy?

MANY of us have said this BUFU...YOU just keep on with it. DOES NOT MAKE OBAMA correct either. Obama is doing the same fucking thing...and YOU seem to be fine with it...WHY?


----------



## Dr Grump

The T said:


> And BUSH was WRONG...Happy?
> MANY of us have said this BUFU...YOU just keep on with it. DOES NOT MAKE OBAMA correct either. Obama is doing the same fucking thing...and YOU seem to be fine with it...WHY?



I'm not gonna speak for BFGN, but where did he say Bush was wrong. It was one of the few things that Bush did that was right...


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And BUSH was WRONG...Happy?
> MANY of us have said this BUFU...YOU just keep on with it. DOES NOT MAKE OBAMA correct either. Obama is doing the same fucking thing...and YOU seem to be fine with it...WHY?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna speak for BFGN, but where did he say Bush was wrong. It was one of the few things that Bush did that was right...
Click to expand...


He didn't.

We did.


----------



## Bfgrn

The T said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS Bfgrn. I remember Obama was there with Obama at the signing of TARP, because Obama was going to inherit it. TARP had Obama's blessing from day one. None of this justifies Obama's acceleration of the deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it had Obama's blessing. And I just said I agree with it. It was necessary, but no one liked it. Not Bush, Obama, me or anyone but the banks.
> 
> Bush began the bailouts of the auto industry. And he said he would do it again.
> 
> *Bush Would Do it Again on Auto Bailouts*
> 
> *Former pres. tells dealers it prevented 21% unemployment.*
> 
> Id do it again, proclaimed Bush, speaking to the annual convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association.
> 
> The bailout, which ultimately totaled $85 billion, was originally begun during the waning days of the Bush Administration. With a specific rescue effort rejected by Congress, the former Commander-in-Chief decided to tap into a separate, $700 billion fund Capitol Hill did approve for the bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry.
> 
> Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy, said the ex-President, during his speech in Las Vegas, referring to his normal stand in favor of free trade. If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay, he said, referring to the collapse of both General Motors and Chrysler.
> 
> But Bush also noted that coming on top of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the meltdown of the banking industry and the collapse of the housing market, a painful shift in policy was needed.
> 
> I didnt want there to be 21% unemployment, he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs.
> 
> The former President has kept a low-key profile since leaving office in January 2009  though he did call the bailout the only option in his 2010 book, Decision Points  leaving his successor to field much of the criticism.
> 
> In that book, the 43rd President argued that, The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back Americas Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars.
> 
> Republican president candidate Mitt Romney is among those who have said they would have rejected a bailout.
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And BUSH was WRONG...Happy?
> 
> MANY of us have said this BUFU...YOU just keep on with it. DOES NOT MAKE OBAMA correct either. Obama is doing the same fucking thing...and YOU seem to be fine with it...WHY?
Click to expand...


I don't care how much you yell and scream, the bailout of the auto industry was not only the right thing to do, it was a HUGE success. American auto industry is, by nearly all measures, healthier than its been in many years. G.M. and Chrysler, not to mention Ford, which didnt get taxpayer money but benefited indirectly, are profitable, hiring more workers, competing more effectively, gaining market share and building better cars and trucks.

And we have a prime example of a corporate bankruptcy untainted by any taxpayer money or government rescue operation. Lehman Brothers, which remains the largest bankruptcy ever measured by assets.

The once venerable investment bank emerged from three and a half years in Chapter 11. Gone, along with the gleaming Midtown Manhattan tower now branded with the Barclays logo, are most of the more than 25,000 jobs once on the firms payroll and nearly all the over $600 billion in assets that once swelled its balance sheet. Lehman still owns a large portfolio of troubled real estate assets and derivative securities. Its only reason for existence is to manage those assets to pay off its remaining creditors, whose claims total more than $300 billion. It remains mired in contentious litigation.


----------



## Dr Grump

Listening said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And BUSH was WRONG...Happy?
> MANY of us have said this BUFU...YOU just keep on with it. DOES NOT MAKE OBAMA correct either. Obama is doing the same fucking thing...and YOU seem to be fine with it...WHY?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna speak for BFGN, but where did he say Bush was wrong. It was one of the few things that Bush did that was right...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't.
> 
> We did.
Click to expand...


He was inferring that BFGN seemed to be saying that because Bush did it, Obama can do it to. He didn't.

And I know you think it wrong.....the idea of others helping each other out is anathema to your idealogy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Bfgrn said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to you just reinforces a universal truth.
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftism is the rule of people without compassion or mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, the people who created Medicare, the Civil Rights bill, Social Security and ended child slavery, NOW want to kill them all...
Click to expand...


And southern slave owners were "compassionate" and "merciful" because they provided housing, food, and clothes to their slaves, right?

There's a lot more to compassion and mercy than just not killing people, and making them into helpless, dependent pets isn't it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Foxfyre said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't get there on your own is supposed to impose the idea that business owners accepted welfare.   Welfare in the form of infrastructure.  Having accepted welfare, they should not now claim they did it on their own.
> 
> To the democrats even a government contract, in which the government becomes a customer is a form of welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even that doesn't hold up, because the business owners PAID for that stuff in the form of taxes. The highest corporate taxes in the WORLD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Or perhaps President Obama thinks that all that infrastructure magically appeared as a benevolent act of the great God government which allowed somebody to then build a business.  Does he think there would be ANY infrastructure anywhere if there were not people starting businesses, hiring people, and fueling an economy?
> 
> Maybe he thinks government doesn't need us at all?  You just set up a government, print up some money, and run a country?
Click to expand...


Of course government needs us.  There's no point in having power if you don't have peons to lord it over.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Listening said:


> I drive around and look to see what infrastructure we need that we don't have.
> 
> I can't see any.
> 
> What is it that you would spend money on.
> 
> Right now, my city is busy tearing up good roads and resurfacing them so they can spend all their budgeted dollars.  What a racket.
> 
> The best thing we could do would be to spend the money on severance for all the government people who need to be let go (and their departments shut down) so small business can more easily get started.



To Obama's way of thinking, the existing roads and bridges are largesse gifted to us by the government of many years ago, and the taxpayers of that time (if you really press him on the subject).  Only problem with that is that existing roads and bridges have to be repaired and even rebuilt.  The Interstate highway system may have originally been put in in the 1950s, but - as an example - the stretch of I-10 that runs through my city has been in the process of being totally rebuilt for several years now, since the original structure was totally inadequate to traffic needs now.  It's far from the first time just in my memory that it's needed work, not even counting the regular repavings.  So Obama and his ass-kissers don't need to be telling me how I'm not paying for those roads and bridges because their original contruction was paid for before I was born.


----------



## oreo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even that doesn't hold up, because the business owners PAID for that stuff in the form of taxes. The highest corporate taxes in the WORLD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Or perhaps President Obama thinks that all that infrastructure magically appeared as a benevolent act of the great God government which allowed somebody to then build a business.  Does he think there would be ANY infrastructure anywhere if there were not people starting businesses, hiring people, and fueling an economy?
> 
> Maybe he thinks government doesn't need us at all?  You just set up a government, print up some money, and run a country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course government needs us.  There's no point in having power if you don't have peons to lord it over.
Click to expand...



DITTO---






"When you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama


----------



## Cecilie1200

Listening said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drive around and look to see what infrastructure we need that we don't have.
> 
> I can't see any.
> 
> What is it that you would spend money on.
> 
> Right now, my city is busy tearing up good roads and resurfacing them so they can spend all their budgeted dollars.  What a racket.
> 
> The best thing we could do would be to spend the money on severance for all the government people who need to be let go (and their departments shut down) so small business can more easily get started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negged for being a lying sack of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be just great if you liberals could support these kinds of observations.
> 
> You don't think  this is going on.
> 
> I got news for you dumbass.....l
> 
> I have friends who work as mechanics for the local utility.  They get called in on overtime at the end of the year and wind up playing cards just so they can burn up the budget....otherwise they lose it.
> 
> You'll find some neg rep waiting for you.
Click to expand...


In many municipalities, the police are famous for being more zealous about arrests around the end of the year.  Why?  Because the more time they spend in bookings, the more overtime they rack up with which to buy Christmas presents.


----------



## oreo

These cartoons are coming in by the hundreds--LOL


----------



## Barb




----------



## Barb

Listening said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drive around and look to see what infrastructure we need that we don't have.
> 
> I can't see any.
> 
> What is it that you would spend money on.
> 
> Right now, my city is busy tearing up good roads and resurfacing them so they can spend all their budgeted dollars.  What a racket.
> 
> The best thing we could do would be to spend the money on severance for all the government people who need to be let go (and their departments shut down) so small business can more easily get started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negged for being a lying sack of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be just great if you liberals could support these kinds of observations.
> 
> You don't think  this is going on.
> 
> I got news for you dumbass.....l
> 
> I have friends who work as mechanics for the local utility.  They get called in on overtime at the end of the year and wind up playing cards just so they can burn up the budget....otherwise they lose it.
> 
> You'll find some neg rep waiting for you.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0R6Suov9u0]America&#39;s crumbling infrastructure - YouTube[/ame]

here's one hardly complimentary to the current administration:

Crumbling Infrastructure Symbolizes U.S. Economy - TheStreet


> In fact, while the U.S. government was pretending to be attending to its neglected infrastructure, the U.S.'s global ranking for the quality of its infrastructure was plummeting lower. A Reuters article reveals that in a mere four years (from 2007 to 2011) the U.S.'s ranking fell from 6 to 16.



Crumbling infrastructure ranks U.S. behind Barbados » Evansville Courier & Press



> The World Economic Forum, which as recently as 1995 listed U.S. infrastructure as tops in the world, now maintains the country has slipped to 23rd place behind, among others, Barbados. The American Society of Civil Engineers, in its most recent infrastructure report card, gave the country a "D'' and asserted it would require an investment of $2.2 trillion over five years to get it in shape.





> Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire (D), who has visited Shanghai and other parts of China as part of her efforts to develop her state's economy, told HuffPost "we see our infrastructure deteriorating and becoming inadequate in comparison to those we're in competition with."
> 
> Infrastructure Problems In U.S. Go Far Beyond Dollars
> "That construction that we see going on in China?" she said. "That used to be us, that used to be us doing all that investment."


----------



## OODA_Loop

Business creates tax payers.

Chicken - egg.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. This is burying Obama.
2. When he loses this election, they will remember this, and when his time is over,  I can imagine when they throw the dirt on this guys coffin, when they haul him off to his grave, his tomb stone will have this written on it, 

'You Didn't Build That' 
Barrack Hussain Obama
    'I Dug This Hole'

3. Its the gaffe that out gaffes all other gaffes!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Bfgrn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leftism is the rule of people without compassion or mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, the people who created Medicare, the Civil Rights bill, Social Security and ended child slavery, NOW want to kill them all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And southern slave owners were "compassionate" and "merciful" because they provided housing, food, and clothes to their slaves, right?
> 
> There's a lot more to compassion and mercy than just not killing people, and making them into helpless, *dependent pets* isn't it.
Click to expand...


Compassion and mercy








Dependent pets


----------



## saveliberty

OODA_Loop said:


> Business creates tax payers.
> 
> Chicken - egg.



The government made those.


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> Compassion and mercy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent pets



*Freedom*






See the difference between the pictures you posted and the one I did? You have a picture of poverty (created by liberal policy) and a picture of dependent children (created by liberal poverty). While I have a picture of a wealthy, healthy, successful, independent, *self-reliable* adult.

Game. Set. Match. asshole


----------



## Listening

Once again, I am going to ask about the "crumbling infrastructure".

I read the articles that keep referencing this, but they don't say just what it is.

Everyone points to the bridge in Minneapolis....but for all the bridges we have......

The question has not been addressed...what infrastructure is missing ?

What can't we do now that we need to be doing ?

More roads ?

More bridges ?

Ports ?


----------



## regent

A good  businessman, could be dropped off on a deserted island and soon have a thriving business going. All it takes is some creativity, some capital and bingo streets are in, buildings erected, laws passed, police and fire departments created and another millionaire is ready to take his place in the Republican party.


----------



## P@triot

Listening said:


> Once again, I am going to ask about the "crumbling infrastructure".
> 
> I read the articles that keep referencing this, but they don't say just what it is.
> 
> Everyone points to the bridge in Minneapolis....but for all the bridges we have......
> 
> The question has not been addressed...what infrastructure is missing ?
> 
> What can't we do now that we need to be doing ?
> 
> More roads ?
> 
> More bridges ?
> 
> Ports ?



They can't point to anything because it's all a myth to attempt to justify their confiscate all wealth and hand all control to the federal government communist policies...


----------



## P@triot

Listening said:


> Once again, I am going to ask about the "crumbling infrastructure".
> 
> I read the articles that keep referencing this, but they don't say just what it is.
> 
> Everyone points to the bridge in Minneapolis....but for all the bridges we have......
> 
> The question has not been addressed...what infrastructure is missing ?
> 
> What can't we do now that we need to be doing ?
> 
> More roads ?
> 
> More bridges ?
> 
> Ports ?



Furthermore, even if bridges were collapsing, that's NOT the responsibility of the federal government. And that's what the uneducated liberal can't grasp.

Since they've never read the Constitution, they believe the federal govenrment has full control, authority, and responsibility over ALL things (ie communism)...


----------



## Bfgrn

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compassion and mercy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent pets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Freedom*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the difference between the pictures you posted and the one I did? You have a picture of poverty (created by liberal policy) and a picture of dependent children (created by liberal poverty). While I have a picture of a wealthy, healthy, successful, independent, *self-reliable* adult.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. asshole
Click to expand...


Hey asshole, you don't get to make shit up to match your pea brain dogma.

In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor.

Progressive Era Reform

Child Labor Reform
Concern for the conditions of the poor gave way to a growing interest in the rights of the working class. One of the most persistent causes of Progressive Era reformers was child labor reform.

The 1890 census revealed that more than one million children, ten to fifteen years old, worked in America. That number increased to two million by 1910. Industries employed children as young as five or six to work as many as eighteen to twenty hours a day.

Physical ailments were common. Glassworks employees were exposed to intense heat and heavy fumes. Young miners sat on boards in cramped positions, breathing heavy dust, sifting through coal. Seafood workers stood for hours shucking oysters at five cents a pail. The sharp oyster shells sometimes cut their hands.

Industrialization did not create child labor, but it did contribute to the need for child labor reform. The replacement of skilled artisans by machinery and the growth of factories and mills made child labor increasingly profitable for businesses. Many employers preferred hiring children because they were quick, easy to train, and were willing to work for lower wages.

Progressive Era reformers believed that child labor was detrimental to children and to society. They believed that children should be protected from harmful environments so that they would become healthy, productive adults. Their goals were to develop programs that would eliminate children's participation in industry and increase their involvement in education and extracurricular activities.


----------



## chanel

Am I missing something? Has Obama proposed raising taxes on small businesses to fix our roads and bridges? I thought that was the state's job. Has he proposed raising taxes on the rich to fix our schools or fight crime in our neighborhoods? I thought that was the local government's job.

Or is all this "you didn't build it" nonsense really about the Solyndras and the bailouts and the amnesty and the research on gay drinking habits in the pacific islands?

Everyone benefits from roads and education etc. but only O's friends benefit from his proposals. Stop the ridiculous spin.


----------



## chanel

Am I missing something? Has Obama proposed raising taxes on small businesses to fix our roads and bridges? I thought that was the state's job. Has he proposed raising taxes on the rich to fix our schools or fight crime in our neighborhoods? I thought that was the local government's job.

Or is all this "you didn't build it" nonsense really about the Solyndras and the bailouts and the amnesty and the research on gay drinking habits in the pacific islands?

Everyone benefits from roads and education etc. but only O's friends benefit from his proposals. Stop the ridiculous spin.


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compassion and mercy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent pets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Freedom*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the difference between the pictures you posted and the one I did? You have a picture of poverty (created by liberal policy) and a picture of dependent children (created by liberal poverty). While I have a picture of a wealthy, healthy, successful, independent, *self-reliable* adult.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey asshole, you don't get to make shit up to match your pea brain dogma.
> 
> In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor.
> 
> Progressive Era Reform
> 
> Child Labor Reform
> Concern for the conditions of the poor gave way to a growing interest in the rights of the working class. One of the most persistent causes of Progressive Era reformers was child labor reform.
> 
> The 1890 census revealed that more than one million children, ten to fifteen years old, worked in America. That number increased to two million by 1910. Industries employed children as young as five or six to work as many as eighteen to twenty hours a day.
> 
> Physical ailments were common. Glassworks employees were exposed to intense heat and heavy fumes. Young miners sat on boards in cramped positions, breathing heavy dust, sifting through coal. Seafood workers stood for hours shucking oysters at five cents a pail. The sharp oyster shells sometimes cut their hands.
> 
> Industrialization did not create child labor, but it did contribute to the need for child labor reform. The replacement of skilled artisans by machinery and the growth of factories and mills made child labor increasingly profitable for businesses. Many employers preferred hiring children because they were quick, easy to train, and were willing to work for lower wages.
> 
> Progressive Era reformers believed that child labor was detrimental to children and to society. They believed that children should be protected from harmful environments so that they would become healthy, productive adults. Their goals were to develop programs that would eliminate children's participation in industry and increase their involvement in education and extracurricular activities.
Click to expand...


Progressives don't create policy to "protect" anything or anyone. They create policy to further their own greed and laziness. Their focus is - "how do I as a liberal obtain the wealth of others without working for it". When a liberal supports child labor laws, it's *not* to protect the child. It's to take more labor out of the work force to improve their own chances of getting a job, without having to really _earn_ it. Then they immediately unionize said job so that they can make more money without having to actually _earn_ it. And then they ask the union to provide them with more time off, less work, and more perks.

There is nothing more comical than liberals acting like they care about others. These are the same people who hoard their wealth, purchase expensive iPhones, iPad's, and high speed internet access to bitch about those who have nothing. They don't even see the irony....


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Rottweiler said:


> Progressives don't create policy to "protect" anything or anyone. They create policy to further their own greed and laziness. Their focus is - "how do I as a liberal obtain the wealth of others without working for it". When a liberal supports child labor laws, it's *not* to protect the child. It's to take more labor out of the work force to improve their own chances of getting a job, without having to really _earn_ it. Then they immediately unionize said job so that they can make more money without having to actually _earn_ it. And then they ask the union to provide them with more time off, less work, and more perks.
> 
> There is nothing more comical than liberals acting like they care about others. These are the same people who hoard their wealth, purchase expensive iPhones, iPad's, and high speed internet access to bitch about those who have nothing. They don't even see the irony....



If we had a contest for the biggest lie told today, you would win  

Your post proves what we know and outlines the problem we face, well it is a problem only as long as you shitbagging terrorists are still around...

The very fact that you and many like you actually believe this, well, it is almost overwhelming to figure out how to fix you...


----------



## Full-Auto

Barb said:


>



  some of the best butt hurt from the left I have seen.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Full Auto, when a post *proves wrong everything you have believed your entire life,* just dont respond, pretend that you didnt see it, you will feel better maybe?


----------



## saveliberty

chanel said:


> Am I missing something? Has Obama proposed raising taxes on small businesses to fix our roads and bridges? I thought that was the state's job. Has he proposed raising taxes on the rich to fix our schools or fight crime in our neighborhoods? I thought that was the local government's job.
> 
> Or is all this "you didn't build it" nonsense really about the Solyndras and the bailouts and the amnesty and the research on gay drinking habits in the pacific islands?
> 
> Everyone benefits from roads and education etc. but only O's friends benefit from his proposals. Stop the ridiculous spin.



Hard to miss when you post it twice.


----------



## saveliberty

Bfgrn said:


> Hey asshole, you don't get to make shit up to match your pea brain dogma.
> 
> In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor.
> 
> Progressive Era Reform
> 
> Child Labor Reform
> Concern for the conditions of the poor gave way to a growing interest in the rights of the working class. One of the most persistent causes of Progressive Era reformers was child labor reform.
> 
> The 1890 census revealed that more than one million children, ten to fifteen years old, worked in America. That number increased to two million by 1910. Industries employed children as young as five or six to work as many as eighteen to twenty hours a day.
> 
> Physical ailments were common. Glassworks employees were exposed to intense heat and heavy fumes. Young miners sat on boards in cramped positions, breathing heavy dust, sifting through coal. Seafood workers stood for hours shucking oysters at five cents a pail. The sharp oyster shells sometimes cut their hands.
> 
> Industrialization did not create child labor, but it did contribute to the need for child labor reform. The replacement of skilled artisans by machinery and the growth of factories and mills made child labor increasingly profitable for businesses. Many employers preferred hiring children because they were quick, easy to train, and were willing to work for lower wages.
> 
> Progressive Era reformers believed that child labor was detrimental to children and to society. They believed that children should be protected from harmful environments so that they would become healthy, productive adults. Their goals were to develop programs that would eliminate children's participation in industry and increase their involvement in education and extracurricular activities.



Nice rant.

Where's the rage at the PARENTS who let the kids go to work?  Nice job Progressives, now we have a generation that thinks education and extracurricular activities are detrimental as well.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Progressive Era reformers believed........



It's all about what progressives BELIEVE.

Once they believe it, it must be so.

They will screw with anything if they believe they have a better idea.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Era reformers believed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about what progressives BELIEVE.
> 
> Once they believe it, it must be so.
> 
> They will screw with anything if they believe they have a better idea.
Click to expand...


Look, by now it is clear even to you that you are soon to be nothing more than a footnote in history books *



> * So called tea party, actually created by billionaires to assist their agenda, lasted about 10 yrs, for a short period of time had a great deal of power, but once it became clear to the planet that the average tea partier was actually a moron, they fizzled out rather quickly


Relax, we promise to put this in the history books for you...


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Era reformers believed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about what progressives BELIEVE.
> 
> Once they believe it, it must be so.
> 
> They will screw with anything if they believe they have a better idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, by now it is clear even to you that you are soon to be nothing more than a footnote in history books *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * So called tea party, actually created by billionaires to assist their agenda, lasted about 10 yrs, for a short period of time had a great deal of power, but once it became clear to the planet that the average tea partier was actually a moron, they fizzled out rather quickly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Relax, we promise to put this in the history books for you...
Click to expand...


Hey flaplips,

Or should I say black knight.  You are a lot of talk with nothing behind it.

You turds gave up the house in four short years.  Who's the footnote.

The GOP will take the senate back this year.

Guys like Ted Cruz are headed to Washington.

Keep flapping, asswipe.  When you write your history book, only your mother will read it.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

dear god you are delusional 

but, while you do have power, I will watch with interest while you disenfranchise millions of voters, kill social programs that help people...if the war doesnt start first, that is

I dont know what it will take for people to say enough is enough with you bigot scum, time will tell...we are patient people, so who knows


----------



## Full-Auto

ConzHateUSA said:


> Full Auto, when a post *proves wrong everything you have believed your entire life,* just dont respond, pretend that you didnt see it, you will feel better maybe?



Is the bold type suppose to mean something other then you lack the skills to express yourself.


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> dear god you are delusional
> 
> but, while you do have power, I will watch with interest while you disenfranchise millions of voters, kill social programs that help people...if the war doesnt start first, that is



Sure I am.

Today, the state of Kansas will remove enough moderates from the Senate so that the mod/dem coalition can't stifle anymore legislation.

Right or Wrong.....it's only going in one direction.

I am afraid it is you that is leaving those crusty little stains on his sheets.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Listening said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear god you are delusional
> 
> but, while you do have power, I will watch with interest while you disenfranchise millions of voters, kill social programs that help people...if the war doesnt start first, that is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I am.
> 
> Today, the state of Kansas will remove enough moderates from the Senate so that the mod/dem coalition can't stifle anymore legislation.
> 
> Right or Wrong.....it's only going in one direction.
> 
> I am afraid it is you that is leaving those crusty little stains on his sheets.
Click to expand...


Will you kill all Blacks or just take away their right to vote?


----------



## saveliberty

Meh, all his posts are the same:

This message is hidden because ConzHateUSA is on your ignore list


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear god you are delusional
> 
> but, while you do have power, I will watch with interest while you disenfranchise millions of voters, kill social programs that help people...if the war doesnt start first, that is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I am.
> 
> Today, the state of Kansas will remove enough moderates from the Senate so that the mod/dem coalition can't stifle anymore legislation.
> 
> Right or Wrong.....it's only going in one direction.
> 
> I am afraid it is you that is leaving those crusty little stains on his sheets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you kill all Blacks or just take away their right to vote?
Click to expand...


I don't think we are planning either.

How has it worked for you ?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that the Obama apologists are getting a little frantic trying to raise up President Bush as the great Satan once again and focus attention on him rather than look at the record of their own hero.  Most especially when at least one continues to spam the thread with the same tired charts and graphs over and over and over.  Others want to point to the "evils" of free market, laissez faire economic principles by demonizing former Presidents or focus on evil corporations or Wall Street as the villains in the current economic maliase.   A few support the President in the concept that everything is just hunky dory all things considered.
> 
> After all he has raised the deficit and increased spending less than any of his predecessors.  Once you sort of ignore his first year in office that is.  But it is true.  If you spend and borrow and obligate the people about as much as is possible to do that and then continue at that level from that point on, you can claim you aren't raising spending or increasing the deficit much.
> 
> And none of that changes the fact that the President does not give the business owner or the working man credit for much of anything, and he continues to look to government as the solution for all things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's first year (2009) in office WAS Bush's budget. Is it that you don't understand the FACTS about federal budgets, or are you just dishonest Foxfyre?
> 
> TARP was Bush, not Obama. It was necessary, as much as all of us held our noses. If the banks and lending institutions had collapsed, every working American's 401k and retirement would have been wiped out with the banks collapse. Not to mention our economy would have collapsed with it.
> 
> The "evils" of free market, too much laissez-faire, evil corporations and Wall Street *ARE* the villains in the current economic malaise. It was the PRIVATE sector operating outside of government regulations that destroyed our economy, not the government.
> 
> The Stimulus bill was absolutely essential. It dramatically reversed the hemorrhaging of job loses (750,000 per month). If you believe McCain would have done nothing while America was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs per month, you are not a person with an adult brain.
Click to expand...


SO where are the results of the stimulus?
Why is REAL (U-6 ) unemployment still over 15%? Why is the economy at LESS than 2% annualized growth? Why are home values continuing to fall? 
Loo, the rest of us know you people are Obama sycophants. You will vote in lockstep with other non thinking libs. You are loyal to the jersey. Fine.
The problem is you argue against irrefutable facts and in turn crate your own reality.


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Be honest, come on, you hate minorities, Gays, Jews, Muslims, Asians, etc
> 
> you really do, you know you do, so what is your plan for them?
> 
> kinda Germany 1942?



No plans.

We've seen how your efforts don't seem to do so well.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Dont one of you liberals dare argue with these terrorist shit baggers, as if they give one god damn about the economy, as if they could admit there has been UNPRECEDENTED obstruction preventing Obama and the dems from a bigger stimulus, jobs bills, etc

this is NOT a debate, you are laughed at you fucking terrorist slime...


----------



## The T

Full-Auto said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full Auto, when a post *proves wrong everything you have believed your entire life,* just dont respond, pretend that you didnt see it, you will feel better maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the bold type suppose to mean something other then you lack the skills to express yourself.
Click to expand...

 
What it shows is what an arrogant little prick he is, and the people he supports are the same mindset.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ConzHateUSA said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives don't create policy to "protect" anything or anyone. They create policy to further their own greed and laziness. Their focus is - "how do I as a liberal obtain the wealth of others without working for it". When a liberal supports child labor laws, it's *not* to protect the child. It's to take more labor out of the work force to improve their own chances of getting a job, without having to really _earn_ it. Then they immediately unionize said job so that they can make more money without having to actually _earn_ it. And then they ask the union to provide them with more time off, less work, and more perks.
> 
> There is nothing more comical than liberals acting like they care about others. These are the same people who hoard their wealth, purchase expensive iPhones, iPad's, and high speed internet access to bitch about those who have nothing. They don't even see the irony....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we had a contest for the biggest lie told today, you would win
> 
> Your post proves what we know and outlines the problem we face, well it is a problem only as long as you shitbagging terrorists are still around...
> 
> The very fact that you and many like you actually believe this, well, it is almost overwhelming to figure out how to fix you...
Click to expand...


You just keep believing that as long as makes you feel better.
You are perhaps the best example of a bellicose person.


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Dont one of you liberals dare argue with these terrorist shit baggers, as if they give one god damn about the economy, as if they could admit there has been UNPRECEDENTED obstruction preventing Obama and the dems from a bigger stimulus, jobs bills, etc
> 
> this is NOT a debate, you are laughed at you fucking terrorist slime...



That is good advice.

First, none of you can debate with a crap....

Second.....well, see the first.


----------



## freedombecki

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Freedom*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the difference between the pictures you posted and the one I did? You have a picture of poverty (created by liberal policy) and a picture of dependent children (created by liberal poverty). While I have a picture of a wealthy, healthy, successful, independent, *self-reliable* adult.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey asshole, you don't get to make shit up to match your pea brain dogma.
> 
> In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor.
> 
> Progressive Era Reform
> 
> Child Labor Reform
> Concern for the conditions of the poor gave way to a growing interest in the rights of the working class. One of the most persistent causes of Progressive Era reformers was child labor reform.
> 
> The 1890 census revealed that more than one million children, ten to fifteen years old, worked in America. That number increased to two million by 1910. Industries employed children as young as five or six to work as many as eighteen to twenty hours a day.
> 
> Physical ailments were common. Glassworks employees were exposed to intense heat and heavy fumes. Young miners sat on boards in cramped positions, breathing heavy dust, sifting through coal. Seafood workers stood for hours shucking oysters at five cents a pail. The sharp oyster shells sometimes cut their hands.
> 
> Industrialization did not create child labor, but it did contribute to the need for child labor reform. The replacement of skilled artisans by machinery and the growth of factories and mills made child labor increasingly profitable for businesses. Many employers preferred hiring children because they were quick, easy to train, and were willing to work for lower wages.
> 
> Progressive Era reformers believed that child labor was detrimental to children and to society. They believed that children should be protected from harmful environments so that they would become healthy, productive adults. Their goals were to develop programs that would eliminate children's participation in industry and increase their involvement in education and extracurricular activities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressives don't create policy to "protect" anything or anyone. They create policy to further their own greed and laziness. Their focus is -* "how do I as a liberal obtain the wealth of others without working for it".* When a liberal supports child labor laws, it's *not* to protect the child. It's to take more labor out of the work force to improve their own chances of getting a job, without having to really _earn_ it. Then they immediately unionize said job so that they can make more money without having to actually _earn_ it. And then they ask the union to provide them with more time off, less work, and more perks.
> 
> There is nothing more comical than liberals acting like they care about others. These are the same people who hoard their wealth, purchase expensive iPhones, iPad's, and high speed internet access to bitch about those who have nothing. They don't even see the irony....
Click to expand...

Yep. Look the other way, and they'll take $737,000,000 of taxpayer money and give it to Harry Reid's kid's loser green biz in a guaranteed super federal loan that takes three quarters of a billion dollars and sinks it forever into his own pocket.

The left's lying liars get away with it by taking more and more taxpayer money and lavishing it on the ACORN club and its Dowager sisters.


----------



## freedombecki

ConzHateUSA said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear god you are delusional
> 
> but, while you do have power, I will watch with interest while you disenfranchise millions of voters, kill social programs that help people...if the war doesnt start first, that is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I am.
> 
> Today, the state of Kansas will remove enough moderates from the Senate so that the mod/dem coalition can't stifle anymore legislation.
> 
> Right or Wrong.....it's only going in one direction.
> 
> I am afraid it is you that is leaving those crusty little stains on his sheets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you kill all Blacks or just take away their right to vote?
Click to expand...

And you have the ignorance to call him delusional? lol


----------



## thereisnospoon

ConzHateUSA said:


> Dont one of you liberals dare argue with these terrorist shit baggers, as if they give one god damn about the economy, as if they could admit there has been UNPRECEDENTED obstruction preventing Obama and the dems from a bigger stimulus, jobs bills, etc
> 
> this is NOT a debate, you are laughed at you fucking terrorist slime...



all you have is your angry lib rhetoric.
Newsflash..nobody cares what you have to say. You are a flyspeck.


----------



## copsnrobbers

I sold my shovel when the jobs weren't there.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ConzHateUSA said:


> dear god you are delusional
> 
> but, while you do have power, I will watch with interest while you disenfranchise millions of voters, kill social programs that help people...if the war doesnt start first, that is
> 
> I dont know what it will take for people to say enough is enough with you bigot scum, time will tell...we are patient people, so who knows



"Disenfranchise"....The new lib buzzword designed to influence the courts and public opinion to compel elections officials to permit those ineligible to vote to cast a ballot.
Social programs help only those employed by government to administer the programs.
They are a waste of taxpayer resources. Social programs are replete with waste and fraud.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ConzHateUSA said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear god you are delusional
> 
> but, while you do have power, I will watch with interest while you disenfranchise millions of voters, kill social programs that help people...if the war doesnt start first, that is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I am.
> 
> Today, the state of Kansas will remove enough moderates from the Senate so that the mod/dem coalition can't stifle anymore legislation.
> 
> Right or Wrong.....it's only going in one direction.
> 
> I am afraid it is you that is leaving those crusty little stains on his sheets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you kill all Blacks or just take away their right to vote?
Click to expand...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

No answer eh...

Look, just admit it, Obama was elected by young people, minorities, etc., and you dont want to lose again so you are gonna stop them from voting...

Remember this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw]Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) - YouTube[/ame]


This person is the founder of ALEC, and ALEC wrote the voter suppression laws, you must be so proud of yourself.

If you support this, then that makes you a terrorist and a traitor...got it!

Why do you so vehemently hate America?   

(i know why, multicultural, multi color, etc., we all know why)


----------



## regent

As fast as states passed child-labor laws the Conservative Court would find them unconstitutional. Finally FDR got a law passed regarding child-labor and the Court upheld it.  But that was FDR, with the backing of the people. I wonder how many justices on our Court today would find child-labor laws unconstitutional?  
One way the states got a grip on the use of children in factories and mills was to pass school attendance laws, and that helped.


----------



## Listening

regent said:


> As fast as states passed child-labor laws the Conservative Court would find them unconstitutional. Finally FDR got a law passed regarding child-labor and the Court upheld it.  But that was FDR, with the backing of the people. I wonder how many justices on our Court today would find child-labor laws unconstitutional?
> One way the states got a grip on the use of children in factories and mills was to pass school attendance laws, and that helped.



Like it or not, child labor is not within the scope of the federal governmemt.

You make it sound like the court was against kids when they were simply doing their job.

You know the answer to your question.

Four would likely find against child labor laws for the reasons specified above.

Four don't care about the USC and follow the rule of men (or in the case of Ginsburg...the case of uglies).

And one is conflicted.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ConzHateUSA said:


> No answer eh...
> 
> Look, just admit it, Obama was elected by young people, minorities, etc., and you dont want to lose again so you are gonna stop them from voting...
> 
> Remember this?
> 
> Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) - YouTube
> 
> 
> This person is the founder of ALEC, and ALEC wrote the voter suppression laws, you must be so proud of yourself.
> 
> If you support this, then that makes you a terrorist and a traitor...got it!
> 
> Why do you so vehemently hate America?
> 
> (i know why, multicultural, multi color, etc., we all know why)


You are in serious need of psychological help. Digging some junk from over 30 years ago as if it matters now. 
Who fucking cares what this person (Paul Weyrich) has to say? He's about as much a flyspeck as you. 

Oh, here in the US there is ONE culture. The distinct AMERICAN CULTURE.
The rest of your rant is YOUR problem with race and ethnicity.


----------



## courseofhistory

I used to dislike Obama immensely.  I was a Hillary supporter and didn't like what the dems did to her, including Obama.  Today I feel somewhat differently about him and his policies.  I don't like all of what he has done or wants to do but on average, I've been surprised by some of this stances, especially on terrorism overseas.  Also, I'm a social moderate who believes in women's rights and some reasonable social programs and feel that Romney will gut these things if he's president given the makeup of Congress and it being republican.  I believe in checks and balances and would consider Romeny if the dems held the power in Congress.

What Obama said about businesess was inartfully said but it is true that government makes some things possible for bussinesses to start up and succeed like infrastructure for shipment of goods and access for customers to the business and quite a bit more.  So, I don't hold what he said against me because in essence I agree.


----------



## saveliberty

I'm a business owner and he insulted all of us who own one.  Government offers redtape to those who start a business and little else.


----------



## thereisnospoon

courseofhistory said:


> I used to dislike Obama immensely.  I was a Hillary supporter and didn't like what the dems did to her, including Obama.  Today I feel somewhat differently about him and his policies.  I don't like all of what he has done or wants to do but on average, I've been surprised by some of this stances, especially on terrorism overseas.  Also, I'm a social moderate who believes in women's rights and some reasonable social programs and feel that Romney will gut these things if he's president given the makeup of Congress and it being republican.  I believe in checks and balances and would consider Romeny if the dems held the power in Congress.
> 
> What Obama said about businesess was inartfully said but it is true that government makes some things possible for bussinesses to start up and succeed like infrastructure for shipment of goods and access for customers to the business and quite a bit more.  So, I don't hold what he said against me because in essence I agree.



Who funds government? Who performs the work for government?
You know the answers.
The bottom line is without the taxpayers and the private sector, NOTHING gets done.
Checks and balances has nothing to do with political affiliation.
The typical fence sitting moderate votes as do you because they "feel safer" with one party controlling the legislative branch while the other has the executive.
The irony of this is when those same  people complain that nothing gets done up on Capitol Hill.
Look, we do not vote for balance. We don't vote for 'what is safe'. We choose the candidate that best represents our THINKING( not how we feel) and our view of how government should be operated. We are supposed to vote for the person that best represents what we wish from government. Not which candidate we think will win the election.


----------



## Listening

thereisnospoon said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> No answer eh...
> 
> Look, just admit it, Obama was elected by young people, minorities, etc., and you dont want to lose again so you are gonna stop them from voting...
> 
> Remember this?
> 
> Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) - YouTube
> 
> 
> This person is the founder of ALEC, and ALEC wrote the voter suppression laws, you must be so proud of yourself.
> 
> If you support this, then that makes you a terrorist and a traitor...got it!
> 
> Why do you so vehemently hate America?
> 
> (i know why, multicultural, multi color, etc., we all know why)
> 
> 
> 
> You are in serious need of psychological help. Digging some junk from over 30 years ago as if it matters now.
> Who fucking cares what this person (Paul Weyrich) has to say? He's about as much a flyspeck as you.
> 
> Oh, here in the US there is ONE culture. The distinct AMERICAN CULTURE.
> The rest of your rant is YOUR problem with race and ethnicity.
Click to expand...


The guy who hates what America stands for asks why you hate America.

Only in America !


----------



## bripat9643

ConzHateUSA said:


> Will you kill all Blacks or just take away their right to vote?



We're going to make being liberal against the law, not being black.  We are going to put all of you in reeducation camps and take away your children and raise them in good wholesome right-wing families.


----------



## chanel




----------



## saveliberty

When your vote can no longer help Obama keep office, what makes you safe from paying more taxes?


----------



## Inthemiddle

chanel said:


>



Yep, it's terrifying when a woman having the shit beat out of her by her husband or boyfriend hears those words from a who is arresting the asshole.


----------



## saveliberty

Want to try that again in English IntheMiddle?


----------



## regent

Listening said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As fast as states passed child-labor laws the Conservative Court would find them unconstitutional. Finally FDR got a law passed regarding child-labor and the Court upheld it.  But that was FDR, with the backing of the people. I wonder how many justices on our Court today would find child-labor laws unconstitutional?
> One way the states got a grip on the use of children in factories and mills was to pass school attendance laws, and that helped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, child labor is not within the scope of the federal governmemt.
> 
> You make it sound like the court was against kids when they were simply doing their job.
> 
> You know the answer to your question.
> 
> Four would likely find against child labor laws for the reasons specified above.
> 
> Four don't care about the USC and follow the rule of men (or in the case of Ginsburg...the case of uglies).
> 
> And one is conflicted.
Click to expand...


Perhaps there is something wrong with a country that makes it possible for corporations to work children in their mines and the mills? And worse, for members of the Supreme Court not to see that wrong. 

"The golf links are so near the mill
That almost every day
The laboring children can look out
And see the men at play."

Sarah Cleghorn


----------



## chanel

Inthemiddle said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it's terrifying when a woman having the shit beat out of her by her husband or boyfriend hears those words from a who is arresting the asshole.
Click to expand...


Never happened here.  

But here we go again, giving Obama credit for saving battered women.  He truly is the messiah, eh?

I finally understand the term "circle jerk".


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> You really shouldnt respond to anything i say ever,



No one should.

You have absolutely nothing to offer this forum.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> oh T, I am intimidated by you guys, for real;
> 
> after this weekend I believe you will kill me, yes



If I were to bet on how you would die, I'd go with drowning in the toilet, after the lid smacked your head as you were getting a drink.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> Hey asshole, you don't get to make shit up to match your pea brain dogma.
> 
> In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor.



That's because the depression, largely aggravated by the misapplication of Keynesian theory by Roosevelt, created a rebirth of child labor. Child labor had mostly vanished by the turn of the century, but the desperation caused by Roosevelt's depression drove children back to the factories.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> Will you kill all Blacks or just take away their right to vote?



Why do you want to kill all blacks, troll?

You're a little KKK motherfucker, aren't you? A "good democrat" klansman. I know the Klan dropped the requirement to be a registered democrat in 1968, but that was just a formality. The DNC and the KKK are still Siamese twins.


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey asshole, you don't get to make shit up to match your pea brain dogma.
> 
> In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the depression, largely aggravated by the misapplication of Keynesian theory by Roosevelt, created a rebirth of child labor. Child labor had mostly vanished by the turn of the century, but the desperation caused by Roosevelt's depression drove children back to the factories.
Click to expand...


Seems the Great Depression began after 12 years of Republican rule ending up with a Republican president, Hoover, that spent four years trying to keep the bread lines straight and orderly and encouraging apple-sellers. The Great Depression helped end child labor for an adult could be hired for the same wages as paid to children. Finally, the child-labor matter was settled in 1938 when FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act.


----------



## freedombecki

courseofhistory said:


> I used to dislike Obama immensely.  I was a Hillary supporter and didn't like what the dems did to her, including Obama.  Today I feel somewhat differently about him and his policies.  I don't like all of what he has done or wants to do but on average, I've been surprised by some of this stances, especially on terrorism overseas.  Also, I'm a social moderate who believes in women's rights and some reasonable social programs and feel that Romney will gut these things if he's president given the makeup of Congress and it being republican.  I believe in checks and balances and would consider Romeny if the dems held the power in Congress.
> 
> What Obama said about businesess was inartfully said but it is true that government makes some things possible for bussinesses to start up and succeed like infrastructure for shipment of goods and access for customers to the business and quite a bit more.  So, I don't hold what he said against me because in essence I agree.


Fine. You would be the perfect person to reason with this man that he might reconsider rethinking how he deals with people with hurting border issues this nation has remanded to near-bankruptcy just by their location on the border and Washington politicians withholding services from the citizens of Arizona because boiking gets all in a bad mood when he is called on to fulfill his Constitutional Oath:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVOQSSGNn7s]Obama Kicks Door And Knocks Over Podium (DOPEMAN REMIX) - YouTube[/ame]

How would you like to do business you have to do in the behalf of citizens in your state with someone who has an attitude like that of considering states who did not elect him President as being unworthy of basic federal services their state's taxpayers have made?

We need a change in Washington, because he leaves his prejudicial "enemies" no leadership, no help, no representation. Just a vicious kick and throwover if he's in his "mood".​


----------



## The T

freedombecki said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to dislike Obama immensely. I was a Hillary supporter and didn't like what the dems did to her, including Obama. Today I feel somewhat differently about him and his policies. I don't like all of what he has done or wants to do but on average, I've been surprised by some of this stances, especially on terrorism overseas. Also, I'm a social moderate who believes in women's rights and some reasonable social programs and feel that Romney will gut these things if he's president given the makeup of Congress and it being republican. I believe in checks and balances and would consider Romeny if the dems held the power in Congress.
> 
> What Obama said about businesess was inartfully said but it is true that government makes some things possible for bussinesses to start up and succeed like infrastructure for shipment of goods and access for customers to the business and quite a bit more. So, I don't hold what he said against me because in essence I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. You would be the perfect person to reason with this man that he might reconsider rethinking how he deals with people with hurting border issues this nation has remanded to near-bankruptcy just by their location on the border and Washington politicians withholding services from the citizens of Arizona because boiking gets all in a bad mood when he is called on to fulfill his Constitutional Oath:
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVOQSSGNn7s"]Obama Kicks Door And Knocks Over Podium (DOPEMAN REMIX) - YouTube[/ame]​
> 
> How would you like to do business you have to do in the behalf of citizens in your state with someone who has an attitude like that of considering states who did not elect him President as being unworthy of basic federal services their state's taxpayers have made?​
> 
> 
> We need a change in Washington, because he leaves his prejudicial "enemies" no leadership, no help, no representation. Just a vicious kick and throwover if he's in his "mood".​
Click to expand...

 
The spoiled manchild. He needs to go.


----------



## Al_Fundie

What a jerk this guy is. Of course business owners owe some credit to others for their successes. Just like a QB can't claim to have won a football game all by himself, but not many teams do jack without a QB to begin with.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> Seems the Great Depression began after 12 years of Republican rule ending up with a Republican president, Hoover, that spent four years trying to keep the bread lines straight and orderly and encouraging apple-sellers.



I understand that you are a partisan troll, with virtually zero historical knowledge.

In 1920, the depression brought about by Fabian democrat Woodrow Wilson had brought the nation to it's knees. Determined to induce international Marxism, Wilson had plunged the nation into European wars and European turmoil. The results were a disaster. Domestic business was under attack by the Wilson administration and production was faltering.

William G. Harding swept the election with over 60%, due to the dissatisfaction with Wilson. Bear in mind that Fabian theory was not discredited at the time and Wilson made no attempt to hide his Marxist leanings - in fact it was fully embraced. Democrat Governor James M. Cox ran on a promise of nationalizing commodities such as oil, and was utterly defeated. Cox was the last president, until Obama, to openly advocate socialism.

Harding ended the depression and began an era of prosperity that would be known as "The Roaring 20's.

Harding was followed by Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge is arguably the best president of the 20th century. Coolidge defined conservatism. He removed U.S. troops from foreign nations, lowered taxes and tariffs, substantially reduced the Federal workforce, bringing about the most significant GNP expansion in American history - to this day. Coolidge practiced the economic principles that men such as Rothbard would later document as the most effective means of creating prosperity in the greatest number of people.

After the disaster of Wilson and the incredible success of Harding and Cooldge, the Democrats were a defeated, minority party. Though not widely liked, Harding's secretary of Commerce, "Herbert Hoover" was nominated. In 1928, no Democrat had any chance at the Whitehouse and Hoover easily won office. Hoover was a moderate who likened himself to Teddy Roosevelt and declared himself a progressive. 

Hoover was a dedicated follower of British economist, John Maynard Keynes, and crafted economic policy to follow Keynes. An accountant by training, Hoover micromanaged economic affairs. As a result, when a moderate recession hit in 1929, Hoover reacted with Keynesian stimulus and "make work" programs. The result was a disaster and drove the recession into a depression.

When Franklin Roosevelt was later elected, he EXPANDED the Hoover policies, he did not alter them. FDR was also an advocate of Keynes and simply continued the same policies already in place.

Which resulted in the longest and deepest depression in U.S. History.

 The Great Depression helped end child labor for an adult could be hired for the same wages as paid to children. Finally, the child-labor matter was settled in 1938 when FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act.[/QUOTE]


----------



## saveliberty

Al_Fundie said:


> What a jerk this guy is. Of course business owners owe some credit to others for their successes. Just like a QB can't claim to have won a football game all by himself, but not many teams do jack without a QB to begin with.



So the football team owner goes and changes the QB's contract and takes that money supposedly to help the rest of the team?

Business owners have paid their taxes, Obama is claiming we haven't paid our share and wants more.  Completely unfounded.


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the Great Depression began after 12 years of Republican rule ending up with a Republican president, Hoover, that spent four years trying to keep the bread lines straight and orderly and encouraging apple-sellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you are a partisan troll, with virtually zero historical knowledge.
> 
> In 1920, the depression brought about by Fabian democrat Woodrow Wilson had brought the nation to it's knees. Determined to induce international Marxism, Wilson had plunged the nation into European wars and European turmoil. The results were a disaster. Domestic business was under attack by the Wilson administration and production was faltering.
> 
> William G. Harding swept the election with over 60%, due to the dissatisfaction with Wilson. Bear in mind that Fabian theory was not discredited at the time and Wilson made no attempt to hide his Marxist leanings - in fact it was fully embraced. Democrat Governor James M. Cox ran on a promise of nationalizing commodities such as oil, and was utterly defeated. Cox was the last president, until Obama, to openly advocate socialism.
> 
> Harding ended the depression and began an era of prosperity that would be known as "The Roaring 20's.
> 
> Harding was followed by Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge is arguably the best president of the 20th century. Coolidge defined conservatism. He removed U.S. troops from foreign nations, lowered taxes and tariffs, substantially reduced the Federal workforce, bringing about the most significant GNP expansion in American history - to this day. Coolidge practiced the economic principles that men such as Rothbard would later document as the most effective means of creating prosperity in the greatest number of people.
> 
> After the disaster of Wilson and the incredible success of Harding and Cooldge, the Democrats were a defeated, minority party. Though not widely liked, Harding's secretary of Commerce, "Herbert Hoover" was nominated. In 1928, no Democrat had any chance at the Whitehouse and Hoover easily won office. Hoover was a moderate who likened himself to Teddy Roosevelt and declared himself a progressive.
> 
> Hoover was a dedicated follower of British economist, John Maynard Keynes, and crafted economic policy to follow Keynes. An accountant by training, Hoover micromanaged economic affairs. As a result, when a moderate recession hit in 1929, Hoover reacted with Keynesian stimulus and "make work" programs. The result was a disaster and drove the recession into a depression.
> 
> When Franklin Roosevelt was later elected, he EXPANDED the Hoover policies, he did not alter them. FDR was also an advocate of Keynes and simply continued the same policies already in place.
> 
> Which resulted in the longest and deepest depression in U.S. History.
> 
> The Great Depression helped end child labor for an adult could be hired for the same wages as paid to children. Finally, the child-labor matter was settled in 1938 when FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Well, as they say, that's one take on history and a pretty bleak picture of FDR. Hoover tried to help busines, not the people and it wasn't business that needed the help, it was the people. So how do historians see the picture, well their take on FDR has always to rank FDR as one of the three greatest presidents, and recently they rated FDR as America's greatest president. 
In the first 100 days of his presidency, FDR asked Congress for a Bank Bill. It was passed and FDR began to get banks squared away, do you know what was in the second bill FDR asked Congress to pass or the history of that bill? I wonder what historians read into that second bill of FDR's?


----------



## Foxfyre

courseofhistory said:


> I used to dislike Obama immensely.  I was a Hillary supporter and didn't like what the dems did to her, including Obama.  Today I feel somewhat differently about him and his policies.  I don't like all of what he has done or wants to do but on average, I've been surprised by some of this stances, especially on terrorism overseas.  Also, I'm a social moderate who believes in women's rights and some reasonable social programs and feel that Romney will gut these things if he's president given the makeup of Congress and it being republican.  I believe in checks and balances and would consider Romeny if the dems held the power in Congress.
> 
> What Obama said about businesess was inartfully said but it is true that government makes some things possible for bussinesses to start up and succeed like infrastructure for shipment of goods and access for customers to the business and quite a bit more.  So, I don't hold what he said against me because in essence I agree.



No government doesn't make it possible for businesses to start up and succeed.  Government did not create the infrastructure.  It was business activity, people taking risks, people providing jobs for others and people working in those jobs, buying and selling, that made an infrastructure necessary, that made creation of a government a practical way to organize and administrate the process of creating and maintaining an infrastructure and shared services benefitting all the people.

Take businesses out of the equation and you have no people for they have no way to support themselves.  Take the people out of the equation and government is senseless, useless, and irrelevent.  In no place on Earth will you find a case of first came government and prosperity then followed.

Our President seems incapable of understanding that simple truth.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Foxfyre said:


> No government doesn't make it possible for businesses to start up and succeed.  Government did not create the infrastructure.



you are a liar and a moron...really, from this point forward you should not post or speak in public, you really are embarrassing yourself when you do


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Well, as they say, that's one take on history and a pretty bleak picture of FDR.



is there a better term than bleak to describe great depression and world war??????

Very very stupid but typical men followed Napoleon into the Russian winter and called him a great leader. Even stupider men followed FDR into the depression and world war and called him a great leader.

Barry is not a hero of FDRs caliber yet because his depression has only lasted 3.5 years so far. If he can stretch it out for another term he will join FDR as a great liberal hero.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as they say, that's one take on history and a pretty bleak picture of FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is there a better term than bleak to describe great depression and world war??????
> 
> Very very stupid but typical men followed Napoleon into the Russian winter and called him a great leader. Even stupider men followed FDR into the depression and world war and called him a great leader.
> 
> Barry is not a hero of FDRs caliber yet because his depression has only lasted 3.5 years so far. If he can stretch it out for another term he will join FDR as a great liberal hero.
Click to expand...


god you are stupid

archie, is that you?


----------



## ConzHateUSA




----------



## Amazed

ConzHateUSA said:


> Dont one of you liberals dare argue with these terrorist shit baggers, as if they give one god damn about the economy, as if they could admit there has been UNPRECEDENTED obstruction preventing Obama and the dems from a bigger stimulus, jobs bills, etc
> 
> this is NOT a debate, you are laughed at you fucking terrorist slime...



You aren't equipped for a debate Conz.....all you can do is falme and scream racism....if the rightwing are "terrorists" what do you plan to do about us....type?


----------



## Amazed

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as they say, that's one take on history and a pretty bleak picture of FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is there a better term than bleak to describe great depression and world war??????
> 
> Very very stupid but typical men followed Napoleon into the Russian winter and called him a great leader. Even stupider men followed FDR into the depression and world war and called him a great leader.
> 
> Barry is not a hero of FDRs caliber yet because his depression has only lasted 3.5 years so far. If he can stretch it out for another term he will join FDR as a great liberal hero.
Click to expand...


Barry is a moron whom history will view as less than even Jimmy Carter.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Amazed said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont one of you liberals dare argue with these terrorist shit baggers, as if they give one god damn about the economy, as if they could admit there has been UNPRECEDENTED obstruction preventing Obama and the dems from a bigger stimulus, jobs bills, etc
> 
> this is NOT a debate, you are laughed at you fucking terrorist slime...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't equipped for a debate Conz.....all you can do is falme and scream racism....if the rightwing are "terrorists" what do you plan to do about us....type?
Click to expand...


I plan on defending my country, if on election day you prevent my fellow Americans from voting and it changes the outcome, I will do what any patriot would do.

That you want to steal the election using voter suppression makes you the terrorist.

But you are a tough guy too I see, time will tell, wont it, bigot



By calling the Constitutional professor, Obama, a moron, my president, you are showing that you hate America...i dont like people who hate my country and attack it

bigot

You want your country back?  right?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Amazed said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as they say, that's one take on history and a pretty bleak picture of FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is there a better term than bleak to describe great depression and world war??????
> 
> Very very stupid but typical men followed Napoleon into the Russian winter and called him a great leader. Even stupider men followed FDR into the depression and world war and called him a great leader.
> 
> Barry is not a hero of FDRs caliber yet because his depression has only lasted 3.5 years so far. If he can stretch it out for another term he will join FDR as a great liberal hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barry is a moron whom history will view as less than even Jimmy Carter.
Click to expand...


Well let's not forget that Barry is very controversial and has virtually shut down our government because he is a communist- he had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders!!

Yes he will be considered the worst because he is the least American president ever.


----------



## Amazed

ConzHateUSA said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont one of you liberals dare argue with these terrorist shit baggers, as if they give one god damn about the economy, as if they could admit there has been UNPRECEDENTED obstruction preventing Obama and the dems from a bigger stimulus, jobs bills, etc
> 
> this is NOT a debate, you are laughed at you fucking terrorist slime...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't equipped for a debate Conz.....all you can do is falme and scream racism....if the rightwing are "terrorists" what do you plan to do about us....type?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I plan on defending my country, if on election day you prevent my fellow Americans from voting and it changes the outcome, I will do what any patriot would do.
> 
> That you want to steal the election using voter suppression makes you the terrorist.
> 
> But you are a tough guy too I see, time will tell, wont it, bigot
> 
> By calling the Constitutional professor, Obama, a moron, my president, you are showing that you hate America...i dont like people who hate my country and attack it
> 
> bigot
Click to expand...


O bama is the worst president of the modern era....and the irony is that you are probably tthe biggest bigot on this board..really, you think I'm a tough guy?

Naaa....just way too much for you to handle intellectually or otherwise....you "defended" your nation in 10 didn't you 

Your brethren defended Wis well didn't they?

You go ahead and thump your chest all day long and scream everybody is a racist...you don't like me?

oh golly whatever will I do?


----------



## Amazed

For the record Obama is a pig fucking liar.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Amazed said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't equipped for a debate Conz.....all you can do is falme and scream racism....if the rightwing are "terrorists" what do you plan to do about us....type?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I plan on defending my country, if on election day you prevent my fellow Americans from voting and it changes the outcome, I will do what any patriot would do.
> 
> That you want to steal the election using voter suppression makes you the terrorist.
> 
> But you are a tough guy too I see, time will tell, wont it, bigot
> 
> By calling the Constitutional professor, Obama, a moron, my president, you are showing that you hate America...i dont like people who hate my country and attack it
> 
> bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O bama is the worst president of the modern era....and the irony is that you are probably tthe biggest bigot on this board..really, you think I'm a tough guy?
> 
> Naaa....just way too much for you to handle intellectually or otherwise....you "defended" your nation in 10 didn't you
> 
> Your brethren defended Wis well didn't they?
> 
> You go ahead and thump your chest all day long and scream everybody is a racist...you don't like me?
> 
> oh golly whatever will I do?
Click to expand...




Oh god, i could literally out argue you drunk and asleep, not necessarily because I have a higher IQ than you, although I likely do, but because I have the facts and all you have is your lies and hate.

Let me make this simple for you, the entire planet knows who you guys are, and I have proven that to you many times, by now you are tired of me proving that baggers are the joke of the planet...

but not just jokes, rabid and vile and filthy hating racist scum...i am sorry it hurts your feelings that I am able to identify you correctly as such, and no, it doesnt make me anything other than very observant...


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Amazed said:


> For the record Obama is a pig fucking liar.



sure he is...you betcha

Hey, he is a commie too, right   

Face it, you are ruled by a Black Man, so just say

"Yes Sir Mr. President", and then go about your day


----------



## Amazed

ConzHateUSA said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I plan on defending my country, if on election day you prevent my fellow Americans from voting and it changes the outcome, I will do what any patriot would do.
> 
> That you want to steal the election using voter suppression makes you the terrorist.
> 
> But you are a tough guy too I see, time will tell, wont it, bigot
> 
> By calling the Constitutional professor, Obama, a moron, my president, you are showing that you hate America...i dont like people who hate my country and attack it
> 
> bigot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O bama is the worst president of the modern era....and the irony is that you are probably tthe biggest bigot on this board..really, you think I'm a tough guy?
> 
> Naaa....just way too much for you to handle intellectually or otherwise....you "defended" your nation in 10 didn't you
> 
> Your brethren defended Wis well didn't they?
> 
> You go ahead and thump your chest all day long and scream everybody is a racist...you don't like me?
> 
> oh golly whatever will I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, i could literally out argue you drunk and asleep, not necessarily because I have a higher IQ than you, although I likely do, but because I have the facts and all you have is your lies and hate.
> 
> Let me make this simple for you, the entire planet knows who you guys are, and I have proven that to you many times, by now you are tired of me proving that baggers are the joke of the planet...
> 
> but not just jokes, rabid and vile and filthy hating racist scum...i am sorry it hurts your feelings that I am able to identify you correctly as such, and no, it doesnt make me anything other than very observant...
Click to expand...


Yes of course, Conz is a brilliant mind who quotes every far left source he can find...and screams you are a racist because you don't believe Huffpo/kos....well...or Conz.

You couldn't "out argue" a 12 year old.


----------



## Amazed

ConzHateUSA said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record Obama is a pig fucking liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure he is...you betcha
> 
> Hey, he is a commie too, right
> 
> Face it, you are ruled by a Black Man, so just say
> 
> "Yes Sir Mr. President", and then go about your day
Click to expand...


You black Conz, that why you hate whitey...were you one of those patriotic "brothas" with a nightstck in Philly?

President pig fucker will soon be sent home..


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Amazed said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record Obama is a pig fucking liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure he is...you betcha
> 
> Hey, he is a commie too, right
> 
> Face it, you are ruled by a Black Man, so just say
> 
> "Yes Sir Mr. President", and then go about your day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You black Conz, that why you hate whitey...were you one of those patriotic "brothas" with a nightstck in Philly?
> 
> President pig fucker will soon be sent home..
Click to expand...


Nah, president pig fucker, you aint no racist  

oh god, you are so pathetic


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> is there a better term than bleak to describe great depression and world war??????
> 
> Very very stupid but typical men followed Napoleon into the Russian winter and called him a great leader. Even stupider men followed FDR into the depression and world war and called him a great leader.
> 
> Barry is not a hero of FDRs caliber yet because his depression has only lasted 3.5 years so far. If he can stretch it out for another term he will join FDR as a great liberal hero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barry is a moron whom history will view as less than even Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's not forget that Barry is very controversial and has virtually shut down our government because he is a communist- he had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders!!
> 
> Yes he will be considered the worst because he is the least American president ever.
Click to expand...


So many differences of opinion seem to end up with the charges of someone being a communist. When they trot out the communist thing it's usually as a last resort, and the communist charge is considered much worse than--he didn't eat his veggies, or he has big ears.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> So many differences of opinion seem to end up with the charges of someone being a communist.



well, lets see, he had 2 communst parents, he voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, his mentors were communists, and he is beloved by the CPUSA; so does that make him a communist or a martian????





regent said:


> When they trot out the communist thing it's usually as a last resort, and the communist charge is considered much worse than--he didn't eat his veggies, or he has big ears.



only a liberal communist would compare treason to eating your veggies


----------



## Amazed

ConzHateUSA said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure he is...you betcha
> 
> Hey, he is a commie too, right
> 
> Face it, you are ruled by a Black Man, so just say
> 
> "Yes Sir Mr. President", and then go about your day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You black Conz, that why you hate whitey...were you one of those patriotic "brothas" with a nightstck in Philly?
> 
> President pig fucker will soon be sent home..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, president pig fucker, you aint no racist
> 
> oh god, you are so pathetic
Click to expand...


(smile) Yoy are just another little ankle biter without a brian, ain't ya "brotha"?


----------



## Amazed

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barry is a moron whom history will view as less than even Jimmy Carter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's not forget that Barry is very controversial and has virtually shut down our government because he is a communist- he had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders!!
> 
> Yes he will be considered the worst because he is the least American president ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many differences of opinion seem to end up with the charges of someone being a communist. When they trot out the communist thing it's usually as a last resort, and the communist charge is considered much worse than--he didn't eat his veggies, or he has big ears.
Click to expand...


He had enough of them around him, but who knows what he calls himself.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

amazed proves once again he is a complete and total moran


----------



## Mac1958

ConzHateUSA said:


> amazed proves once again he is a complete and total *moran*




Gawd I love irony.

.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Mac1958 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> amazed proves once again he is a complete and total *moran*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd I love irony.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many differences of opinion seem to end up with the charges of someone being a communist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, lets see, he had 2 communst parents, he voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, his mentors were communists, and he is beloved by the CPUSA; so does that make him a communist or a martian????
> 
> That is an "either/or" argument and a fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they trot out the communist thing it's usually as a last resort, and the communist charge is considered much worse than--he didn't eat his veggies, or he has big ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only a liberal communist would compare treason to eating your veggies
Click to expand...


I thought the veggie thing might inspire new charges of communism, but I had to see.  The charges of communism seem to come easy to you, so I assmume you must have some expertise on the subject, yes or no? And what of IQ's some expertise there too?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

these idiot racist vile filth bagging terrorists dont realize they are the joke of the planet, especially when they do the commie thing

so funny

You geniuses actually think your superiors, myself and the other libs here, are here to DISCUSS anything with you, you have not earned that right, by proving you are nothing but racists and bigots and liars and cheats, we only are here to laugh at you


----------



## Amazed

ConzHateUSA said:


> amazed proves once again he is a complete and total moran



Embrace what you are Conz....you are the very thing you accuse everyone else....except that you justify your own hatred as righteous.

In the end hate is just hate, and you are simply full of it.

Type away ankle biter


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Amazed said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> amazed proves once again he is a complete and total moran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Embrace what you are Conz....you are the very thing you accuse everyone else....except that you justify your own hatred as righteous.
> 
> In the end hate is just hate, and you are simply full of it.
> 
> Type away ankle biter
Click to expand...


If it makes you feel better to puke out that talking point, be my guest.

The whole planet knows who I am and who you are, I am not the one who screamed

"I want my country back"  just because the president is Black...deal with it, bigot


----------



## thereisnospoon

ConzHateUSA said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont one of you liberals dare argue with these terrorist shit baggers, as if they give one god damn about the economy, as if they could admit there has been UNPRECEDENTED obstruction preventing Obama and the dems from a bigger stimulus, jobs bills, etc
> 
> this is NOT a debate, you are laughed at you fucking terrorist slime...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't equipped for a debate Conz.....all you can do is falme and scream racism....if the rightwing are "terrorists" what do you plan to do about us....type?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I plan on defending my country, if on election day you prevent my fellow Americans from voting and it changes the outcome, I will do what any patriot would do.
> 
> That you want to steal the election using voter suppression makes you the terrorist.
> 
> But you are a tough guy too I see, time will tell, wont it, bigot
> 
> 
> 
> By calling the Constitutional professor, Obama, a moron, my president, you are showing that you hate America...i dont like people who hate my country and attack it
> 
> bigot
> 
> You want your country back?  right?
Click to expand...

Yes. We want to take our nation back from you flaming liberal punks.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ConzHateUSA said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No government doesn't make it possible for businesses to start up and succeed.  Government did not create the infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are a liar and a moron...really, from this point forward you should not post or speak in public, you really are embarrassing yourself when you do
Click to expand...


You should not post to Mrs Foxfyre in that manner. She has more class and intelligence in her pinky finger than your entire god forsaken algae eating amoebic body.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ConzHateUSA said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I plan on defending my country, if on election day you prevent my fellow Americans from voting and it changes the outcome, I will do what any patriot would do.
> 
> That you want to steal the election using voter suppression makes you the terrorist.
> 
> But you are a tough guy too I see, time will tell, wont it, bigot
> 
> By calling the Constitutional professor, Obama, a moron, my president, you are showing that you hate America...i dont like people who hate my country and attack it
> 
> bigot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O bama is the worst president of the modern era....and the irony is that you are probably tthe biggest bigot on this board..really, you think I'm a tough guy?
> 
> Naaa....just way too much for you to handle intellectually or otherwise....you "defended" your nation in 10 didn't you
> 
> Your brethren defended Wis well didn't they?
> 
> You go ahead and thump your chest all day long and scream everybody is a racist...you don't like me?
> 
> oh golly whatever will I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, i could literally out argue you drunk and asleep, not necessarily because I have a higher IQ than you, although I likely do, but because I have the facts and all you have is your lies and hate.
> 
> Let me make this simple for you, the entire planet knows who you guys are, and I have proven that to you many times, by now you are tired of me proving that baggers are the joke of the planet...
> 
> but not just jokes, rabid and vile and filthy hating racist scum...i am sorry it hurts your feelings that I am able to identify you correctly as such, and no, it doesnt make me anything other than very observant...
Click to expand...

When are you NOT drunk and asleep?


----------



## Amazed

ConzHateUSA said:


> Amazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> amazed proves once again he is a complete and total moran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Embrace what you are Conz....you are the very thing you accuse everyone else....except that you justify your own hatred as righteous.
> 
> In the end hate is just hate, and you are simply full of it.
> 
> Type away ankle biter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it makes you feel better to puke out that talking point, be my guest.
> 
> The whole planet knows who I am and who you are, I am not the one who screamed
> 
> "I want my country back"  just because the president is Black...deal with it, bigot
Click to expand...


yip, yipp, yip, yip......translates to "I am afraid of righty".

Poor kid.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No government doesn't make it possible for businesses to start up and succeed.  Government did not create the infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are a liar and a moron...really, from this point forward you should not post or speak in public, you really are embarrassing yourself when you do
Click to expand...


STFU dickweed.


----------



## Listening

Lakhota said:


>



And they will.

So why don't you put your pacifier back in your ass and have your mother change your diaper.


----------



## saveliberty

Cartoons best suit the world in which some liberals live in.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Lakhota said:


>



Your arrows are about 25 non-sequiturs.
But for the idea and the capital to start the business, the business would not exist. Hence, the owner did it all himself.
Your side's premise is that anyone and everyone can simply open a business because government does it for them. 
We also know that is 100% false.
BTW, save for the administration of funding, the federal government does NOTHING.
The private sector does it all.
Obama's statement that businesses did not get there on their own is nothing but a big fat "fuck you" to every entrepreneur in the nation.


----------



## Bfgrn

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the Great Depression began after 12 years of Republican rule ending up with a Republican president, Hoover, that spent four years trying to keep the bread lines straight and orderly and encouraging apple-sellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you are a partisan troll, with virtually zero historical knowledge.
> 
> In 1920, the depression brought about by Fabian democrat Woodrow Wilson had brought the nation to it's knees. Determined to induce international Marxism, Wilson had plunged the nation into European wars and European turmoil. The results were a disaster. Domestic business was under attack by the Wilson administration and production was faltering.
> 
> William G. Harding swept the election with over 60%, due to the dissatisfaction with Wilson. Bear in mind that Fabian theory was not discredited at the time and Wilson made no attempt to hide his Marxist leanings - in fact it was fully embraced. Democrat Governor James M. Cox ran on a promise of nationalizing commodities such as oil, and was utterly defeated. Cox was the last president, until Obama, to openly advocate socialism.
> 
> Harding ended the depression and began an era of prosperity that would be known as "The Roaring 20's.
> 
> Harding was followed by Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge is arguably the best president of the 20th century. Coolidge defined conservatism. He removed U.S. troops from foreign nations, lowered taxes and tariffs, substantially reduced the Federal workforce, bringing about the most significant GNP expansion in American history - to this day. Coolidge practiced the economic principles that men such as Rothbard would later document as the most effective means of creating prosperity in the greatest number of people.
> 
> After the disaster of Wilson and the incredible success of Harding and Cooldge, the Democrats were a defeated, minority party. Though not widely liked, Harding's secretary of Commerce, "Herbert Hoover" was nominated. In 1928, no Democrat had any chance at the Whitehouse and Hoover easily won office. Hoover was a moderate who likened himself to Teddy Roosevelt and declared himself a progressive.
> 
> Hoover was a dedicated follower of British economist, John Maynard Keynes, and crafted economic policy to follow Keynes. An accountant by training, Hoover micromanaged economic affairs. As a result, when a moderate recession hit in 1929, Hoover reacted with Keynesian stimulus and "make work" programs. The result was a disaster and drove the recession into a depression.
> 
> When Franklin Roosevelt was later elected, he EXPANDED the Hoover policies, he did not alter them. FDR was also an advocate of Keynes and simply continued the same policies already in place.
> 
> Which resulted in the longest and deepest depression in U.S. History.
> 
> The Great Depression helped end child labor for an adult could be hired for the same wages as paid to children. Finally, the child-labor matter was settled in 1938 when FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Click to expand...


The only problem with your right wing fairy tale...Herbert Hoover, in his OWN words.

_
The leave-it-alone liquidationists headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellonfelt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people._


What NEVER works is what Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon did to bring on the Great Depression...liquidate, and austerity. They listened to the predecessors of the 'Austrian' school. Unless you also believe Medieval blood letting save lives?

Economic Policy Under Hoover

Throughout this declinewhich carried real GNP per worker down to a level 40 percent below that which it had attained in 1929, and which saw the unemployment rise to take in more than a quarter of the labor forcethe government did not try to prop up aggregate demand. The only expansionary fiscal policy action undertaken was the Veterans Bonus, passed over President Hoovers veto. That aside, the full employment budget surplus did not fall over 192933.

The Federal Reserve did not use open market operations to keep the nominal money supply from falling. Instead, its only significant systematic use of open market operations was in the other direction: to raise interest rates and discourage gold outflows after the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in the fall of 1931.

This inaction did not come about because they did not understand the tools of monetary policy. This inaction did not come about because the Federal Reserve was constrained by the necessity of defending the gold standard. The Federal Reserve knew what it was doing: it was letting the private sector handle the Depression in its own fashion. It saw the private sectors task as the liquidation of the American economy. It feared that expansionary monetary policy would impede the necessary private-sector process of readjustment.

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his countrys economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his memoirs about those who had advised inaction during the downslide:
_
The leave-it-alone liquidationists headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellonfelt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people._


The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 192933. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and liquidate the unprofitable portions of the private economy.

In adopting such liquidationist policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter.


----------



## Bfgrn

chanel said:


>



Tell that to these people chanel...

















Sadly, the first words 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help' these people heard was from the RCMP...

That is the Royal CANADIAN Mounted Police, from Vancouver British Columbia

2192.6 Miles away!!!

Tragically, it was TOO LATE for most...
















"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter


----------



## chanel

Yes. FEMA is the poster child of government efficiency.  



> The shortfalls in FEMA's disaster aid account have been obvious to lawmakers on Capitol Hill for months  and privately acknowledged to them by FEMA  but the White House has opted against asking for more money, riling many lawmakers.
> 
> "Despite the fact that the need ... is well known," Reps. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., and David Price, D-N.C., wrote the administration last month, "*it unfortunately appears that no action is being taken by the administration*." The lawmakers chair the panel responsible for FEMA's budget.
> 
> FEMA now admits the disaster aid shortfall could approach $5 billion for the upcoming budget year, and that's before accounting for Irene.



Homeland Security Today: Federal Disaster Aid Account Faces Shortfall; FEMA Puts Long-term Rebuilding on Hold

Here's an example of govt. "help".


> Martha Boneta, who owns a small local farm, found that out the hard way when she was threatened with $5,000 in fines for not getting the proper permit to sell produce and host 10-year-olds birthday party on her property.
> 
> Zoning Administrator Kimberley Johnson, who issued a cease-and-desist letter to Boneta, found a picture of the birthday party in question on Bonetas Facebook, citing it as evidence of her wrongdoing.
> 
> These local food regulation issues, where government frequently oversteps its bounds to protect us from delicious zucchinis and fresh milk, are a great way to illustrate to your liberal, locavore friends that an ever-expanding government might not always have their best interests at heart.



Virginia farmer threatened with $5K fine for hosting childs birthday party « Hot Air


----------



## saveliberty

So what's the excuse for all the years since Katrina?

Remember, New Orleans didn't rebuild, the government did.  We should have some sort of special tax on them right?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Amazed said:


> (smile) Yoy are just another little ankle biter without a brian, ain't ya "brotha"?



No, he's a troll.

He gets his jollies by exciting a reaction from people. He'll never be rational, nor post anything worthwhile.

If you want to defeat him, then ignore him, as all he really seeks is attention.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> The only problem with your right wing fairy tale...Herbert Hoover, in his OWN words.
> 
> _
> The leave-it-alone liquidationists headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellonfelt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people._
> 
> 
> What NEVER works is what Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon did to bring on the Great Depression...liquidate, and austerity. They listened to the predecessors of the 'Austrian' school. Unless you also believe Medieval blood letting save lives?



You are so full of shit.

Programs instituted by Hoover in response to the then recession;


Wage Stablization
The Hoover Moratorium which halted all repartriation payments from Germany to France
The Emergency Relief and Construction Act which gave funds for public works
The Federal Home and Bank Loan Act which created the contstruction of new home to prevent foreclosures
Canceled private oil leases on government lands.
Constructed the Hoover Dam as the precursor to the WPA

Hoover greatly exasperated the depression by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act and sharply increasing income tax in 1932.

All of these were expanded by Roosevelt, who continued the disastrous policies of Hoover.

Sources:
David Burner, Herbert Hoover: A Public Life , Knopf (New York, 1979). 
Martin I Fausold, The Presidency of Herbert Hoover, University Press of Kansas (Lawrence, Kan., 1985). 
Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Great Depression, 1929-1941, Macmillan (New York, 1952). 
Gene Smith, The Shattered Dream: Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression, William Morrow & Company (New York, 1970). 
Harris Gaylord Warren, Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression, Norton Library (New York, 1967). 
Joan Hoff Wilson, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive, Little, Brown, and Company (Boston, 1975).


----------



## Foxfyre

To repeat one more time:

Goverment infrastructure and services are voted by the people who are already in an area.  Roads are built between two places where people already are or because many want to go someplace such as a public beach or national or state park or other attractions.

Yes subsequent businesses use the infrastructure that is already in place, mostly likely in part because they helped pay the taxes that made it possible when they were still working for the other guy.

But in any community of similar prosperity, simiilar education, similar standard of living, only some will risk sometimes everything they own by going into business.  Because they do, all the people in the area have access to more jobs, to more convenient products and services.  And the tax base is increased to provide more funding for maintenance or improvement of the infrastructure and government services.

Can the American businessman survive without government infrastructure and services?  Yes, many did so for a long long time when there was no government infrastructure and when the only roads were the ruts the wagons and stage coaches cut across the prairie.

For the President to say that the businessman owes his existance and prosperity to government is to be as about as out of touch with reality as I've seen in my lifetime.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

what do SHOPPERS "owe their existence and prosperity to".......?

the government?  (after all they use the roads too)
OR
their own efforts?  (after all they work for their paychecks)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> The only problem with your right wing fairy tale...Herbert Hoover, in his OWN words.
> 
> The leave-it-alone liquidationists headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon.



too stupid!!! You are a liberal and a liar too!! Obviously he was refering to Mellon as someone with whom he disagreed!!!


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to these people chanel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the first words 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help' these people heard was from the RCMP...
> 
> That is the Royal CANADIAN Mounted Police, from Vancouver British Columbia
> 
> 2192.6 Miles away!!!
> 
> Tragically, it was TOO LATE for most...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter
Click to expand...


Amazing...You lefties cursed the federal government for reacting too slowly for your taste in the aftermath of Katrina. Now government is your hero( as if it never was not).
The proof here is you lefties kneel at the altar of government only if your side is running the show..Well, which party was running New Orleans and the state of Louisiana? That's right, the democrats. 
The fact is the National Guard was air lifting people out of New Orleans just 24 hours after the storm had passed. 30,000 people were rescued from the floods. Yet, CNN and the other MSM outlets were cursing the Bush admin with charges of racism. Conspiracy theories from lower 9th Ward residents claiming the federal government blew up the levies so that downtown NO would not flood and to kill black people, were ACTUALLY REPORTED as legitimate news stories. The biggest culprit was ultra left wing lib CNN reporterette Soledad O'Brien. She was like a hooked fish. She went down there looking to find ANYTHING negative about the Bush admin she could. What she could not find she simply made up. 
The blame for those who drowmed in their own homes rests squarely on the shoulders of Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin. They had all the authority they needed to evacuate those people. Those two people did NOTHING.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> To repeat one more time:
> 
> Goverment infrastructure and services are voted by the people who are already in an area.  Roads are built between two places where people already are or because many want to go someplace such as a public beach or national or state park or other attractions.
> 
> Yes subsequent businesses use the infrastructure that is already in place, mostly likely in part because they helped pay the taxes that made it possible when they were still working for the other guy.
> 
> But in any community of similar prosperity, simiilar education, similar standard of living, only some will risk sometimes everything they own by going into business.  Because they do, all the people in the area have access to more jobs, to more convenient products and services.  And the tax base is increased to provide more funding for maintenance or improvement of the infrastructure and government services.
> 
> Can the American businessman survive without government infrastructure and services?  Yes, many did so for a long long time when there was no government infrastructure and when the only roads were the ruts the wagons and stage coaches cut across the prairie.
> 
> For the President to say that the businessman owes his existance and prosperity to government is to be as about as out of touch with reality as I've seen in my lifetime.



I have in my community a perfect example.
In nearby Charlotte, NC there is a loop which had been though of nearly 30 years ago. Back then the city leaders thought the road to be unnecessary because at that time few people resided on the outskirts of the city. 
The road was built only once the population expanded outward from the center city. 
The road was built once it had a use. Not the other way around as Obama and his lefty minions imply.


----------



## P@triot

Inthemiddle said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it's terrifying when a woman having the shit beat out of her by her husband or boyfriend hears those words from a who is arresting the asshole.
Click to expand...


Boy, if this isn't vintage liberal logic! The woman, in this "brilliant" scenario has already had the shit beat out of her. A lot of good it does to have the government come afterwards.... 

This is a glaring example of what a bunch of tools you pro-communists are. A self-sufficient woman, not relying on the government, would never have had the "shit beat out of her to begin with".

But hey, personal responsibility (like learning self-defense, strength training, and weapons training) takes effort, right? Better to get your ass beat horribly, then wait for the government to come afterwards and make an arrest...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

thereisnospoon said:


> The blame for those who drowmed in their own homes rests squarely on the shoulders of Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin. They had all the authority they needed to evacuate those people. Those two people did NOTHING.



I do agree for sure but also we cant have government so respected and authoritative at any level that people stand around below sea level in a hurricane waiting for libturd bureaucrats to tell them whether to stay or go to higher ground.

Why should one libturd who might make a mistake hold the lives of an entire city in his hands.

The national economy ought to be looked at the same way.


----------



## theunbubba

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



He didn't think of that on his own:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/heaven-is-a-place-called-elizabeth-warren.html?_r=1


----------



## saveliberty

Removes the, this was all a misunderstanding and taken out of context arguments.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rottweiler said:


> Boy, if this isn't vintage liberal logic! The woman, in this "brilliant" scenario has already had the shit beat out of her. A lot of good it does to have the government come afterwards....
> 
> This is a glaring example of what a bunch of tools you pro-communists are. A self-sufficient woman, not relying on the government, would never have had the "shit beat out of her to begin with".
> 
> But hey, personal responsibility (like learning self-defense, strength training, and weapons training) takes effort, right? Better to get your ass beat horribly, then wait for the government to come afterwards and make an arrest...



Any woman can get beat.

ONCE.

But a self-sufficient woman will never be beat twice. 

Leftist fear strong, self-sufficient women, just as they hate and fear ALL self-sufficient people. That's why they hate Sarah Palin with such putrid bile, because she is a strong, self-sufficient women.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", .



actually he's telling anyone successful at anything they didn't get there on their own! He said parents and teachers, among others, helped but did not reveal the plan to pay them back!!


The real bate and switch plan is for Barry to steal more money from just successful business people and pay back his friends, not those who helped. 71% of his Solyndra green energy dollars  went to those who bundled for his campaign, not to those who helped!!


----------



## ConzHateUSA

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually he's telling anyone successful at anything they didn't get there on their own! He said parents and teachers, among others, helped but did not reveal the plan to pay them back!!
> 
> 
> The real bate and switch plan is for Barry to steal more money from just successful business people and pay back his friends, not those who helped. 71% of his Solyndra green energy dollars  went to those who bundled for his campaign, not to those who helped!!
Click to expand...


the rest of planet earth chuckles at you circle jerk lying terrorists, so far in the couple of months I have been here not a single one of you has told the truth about

*A N Y T H I N G*


----------



## Murf76

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually he's telling anyone successful at anything they didn't get there on their own! He said parents and teachers, among others, helped but did not reveal the plan to pay them back!!
> 
> 
> The real bate and switch plan is for Barry to steal more money from just successful business people and pay back his friends, not those who helped. 71% of his Solyndra green energy dollars  went to those who bundled for his campaign, not to those who helped!!
Click to expand...


You're right.. he'll steal what he can.  But his chief motivation with "you didn't get their on your own" was to defend his campaign gimmick of taxing the so-called "rich".  It's a populist attack which would only net him about 28 billion per year, and thus meaningless in terms of repairing our economy.  But he insists it's some sort of panacea to cure all ills.  Sure, 28 billion will injure small businesses in terms of growth and confidence, but it's not the kind of real money he intends to give his friends.  He's got to get back into office first.


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with your right wing fairy tale...Herbert Hoover, in his OWN words.
> 
> The leave-it-alone liquidationists headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! You are a liberal and a liar too!! Obviously he was refering to Mellon as someone with whom he disagreed!!!
Click to expand...


AFTER he followed Mellon's advice. 

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his countrys economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his *memoirs* about those who had advised inaction during the downslide


----------



## Cecilie1200

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, the people who created Medicare, the Civil Rights bill, Social Security and ended child slavery, NOW want to kill them all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And southern slave owners were "compassionate" and "merciful" because they provided housing, food, and clothes to their slaves, right?
> 
> There's a lot more to compassion and mercy than just not killing people, and making them into helpless, *dependent pets* isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compassion and mercy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent pets
Click to expand...


Is this supposed to make some sort of point?


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually he's telling anyone successful at anything they didn't get there on their own! He said parents and teachers, among others, helped but did not reveal the plan to pay them back!!
> 
> 
> The real bate and switch plan is for Barry to steal more money from just successful business people and pay back his friends, not those who helped. 71% of his Solyndra green energy dollars  went to those who bundled for his campaign, not to those who helped!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the rest of planet earth chuckles at you circle jerk lying terrorists, so far in the couple of months I have been here not a single one of you has told the truth about
> 
> *A N Y T H I N G*
Click to expand...


You wouldn't know *TRUTH* if it jumped up and bit you on your fat ass.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Inthemiddle said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it's terrifying when a woman having the shit beat out of her by her husband or boyfriend hears those words from a who is arresting the asshole.
Click to expand...


Liberal Gun Control = the peculiar idea that a woman who's been beaten to death by her drunken boyfriend is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining how her attacker got that fatal bullet hole.

Why in the HELL is a woman who's being beaten up waiting around for the cops to "rescue" her in your worldview (which rescue is unlikely to show up before she's in the hospital or wearing a toe tag)?


----------



## Listening

Cecilie1200 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it's terrifying when a woman having the shit beat out of her by her husband or boyfriend hears those words from a who is arresting the asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal Gun Control = the peculiar idea that a woman who's been beaten to death by her drunken boyfriend is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining how her attacker got that fatal bullet hole.
> 
> Why in the HELL is a woman who's being beaten up waiting around for the cops to "rescue" her in your worldview (which rescue is unlikely to show up before she's in the hospital or wearing a toe tag)?
Click to expand...


So correct !

What is even more funny is how some women wind up getting helped to jail by the government because of the fact that he contracted said bullet hole.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Al_Fundie said:


> What a jerk this guy is. Of course business owners owe some credit to others for their successes. Just like a QB can't claim to have won a football game all by himself, but not many teams do jack without a QB to begin with.



I already explained this analogy at length.  The government is not part of the team.  Government is the field all the teams play on.  Some win, some lose, and no winning team has ever said, "The credit for our victory goes to the great field we played on."


----------



## Listening

Cecilie1200 said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a jerk this guy is. Of course business owners owe some credit to others for their successes. Just like a QB can't claim to have won a football game all by himself, but not many teams do jack without a QB to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained this analogy at length.  The government is not part of the team.  Government is the field all the teams play on.  Some win, some lose, and no winning team has ever said, "The credit for our victory goes to the great field we played on."
Click to expand...


And I am sure you explained that the field only existed (in maintained shape) because teams played on it.

It is not like you build a field and a football team shows up feeling obligated to play there just because it was built.


----------



## Bfgrn

thereisnospoon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to these people chanel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the first words 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help' these people heard was from the RCMP...
> 
> That is the Royal CANADIAN Mounted Police, from Vancouver British Columbia
> 
> 2192.6 Miles away!!!
> 
> Tragically, it was TOO LATE for most...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing...You lefties cursed the federal government for reacting too slowly for your taste in the aftermath of Katrina. Now government is your hero( as if it never was not).
> The proof here is you lefties kneel at the altar of government only if your side is running the show..Well, which party was running New Orleans and the state of Louisiana? That's right, the democrats.
> The fact is the National Guard was air lifting people out of New Orleans just 24 hours after the storm had passed. 30,000 people were rescued from the floods. Yet, CNN and the other MSM outlets were cursing the Bush admin with charges of racism. Conspiracy theories from lower 9th Ward residents claiming the federal government blew up the levies so that downtown NO would not flood and to kill black people, were ACTUALLY REPORTED as legitimate news stories. The biggest culprit was ultra left wing lib CNN reporterette Soledad O'Brien. She was like a hooked fish. She went down there looking to find ANYTHING negative about the Bush admin she could. What she could not find she simply made up.
> The blame for those who drowmed in their own homes rests squarely on the shoulders of Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin. They had all the authority they needed to evacuate those people. Those two people did NOTHING.
Click to expand...


The irony is so thick here...you right wingers ONLY curse government when Democrats are in charge. When Bush was in the White House you folks LIVED at the alter and there was not a PEEP about too much government, too much debt or too much spending...not a PEEP. And when little despot dictator Republican's get elected governor, you folks CHEER when they step on We, the People, or have government make them pee in a cup.

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. 
Barry Goldwater


----------



## copsnrobbers

I swept out my garage today, I cut the grass and then ran the water sprinklers but I didn't do it on my own. There were ghosts there helping me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Listening said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a jerk this guy is. Of course business owners owe some credit to others for their successes. Just like a QB can't claim to have won a football game all by himself, but not many teams do jack without a QB to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained this analogy at length.  The government is not part of the team.  Government is the field all the teams play on.  Some win, some lose, and no winning team has ever said, "The credit for our victory goes to the great field we played on."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am sure you explained that the field only existed (in maintained shape) because teams played on it.
> 
> It is not like you build a field and a football team shows up feeling obligated to play there just because it was built.
Click to expand...


I had not mentioned that aspect, being more concerned with the point that we ALL live our lives against the backdrop of our environment - including the government - and our successes and failures are due to the hard work and effort we put in against that backdrop.  But you are quite correct.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> The irony is so thick here...you right wingers ONLY curse government when Democrats are in charge. When Bush was in the White House you folks LIVED at the alter and there was not a PEEP about too much government, too much debt or too much spending...not a PEEP. And when little despot dictator Republican's get elected governor, you folks CHEER when they step on We, the People, or have government make them pee in a cup.
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater



The only thing that is thick is your B.S.

There were many conservatives who were not happy with the wars.  And we complained.  The only issue was that because of your approach to things, you had allowed Bush and Co to be pretty entrenched.  I mean, it does not happen very often that the party in power gains seats in the house in the off-term elections....and that is just what Bush did.  And for all your crowing...the best you do was John Kerry.

I don't feel at all obliged to prove how wrong you are in that regard.

Because it does not matter.

The reasons that Bush was wrong are still alive and make Obama just as wrong.

It is amazing just how far you have the liberal needle stuck in your arm.


----------



## copsnrobbers

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is so thick here...you right wingers ONLY curse government when Democrats are in charge. When Bush was in the White House you folks LIVED at the alter and there was not a PEEP about too much government, too much debt or too much spending...not a PEEP. And when little despot dictator Republican's get elected governor, you folks CHEER when they step on We, the People, or have government make them pee in a cup.
> 
> Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that is thick is your B.S.
> 
> There were many conservatives who were not happy with the wars.  And we complained.  The only issue was that because of your approach to things, you had allowed Bush and Co to be pretty entrenched.  I mean, it does not happen very often that the party in power gains seats in the house in the off-term elections....and that is just what Bush did.  And for all your crowing...the best you do was John Kerry.
> 
> I don't feel at all obliged to prove how wrong you are in that regard.
> 
> Because it does not matter.
> 
> The reasons that Bush was wrong are still alive and make Obama just as wrong.
> 
> It is amazing just how far you have the liberal needle stuck in your arm.
Click to expand...


Push the plunger.. quick and hard.


----------



## saveliberty

...four years later...

and all they still have is...


...look at Bush!


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> The irony is so thick here...you right wingers ONLY curse government when Democrats are in charge. When Bush was in the White House you folks LIVED at the alter and there was not a PEEP about too much government, too much debt or too much spending...not a PEEP. And when little despot dictator Republican's get elected governor, you folks CHEER when they step on We, the People, or have government make them pee in a cup.



With each time your argument gets defeated, you come back with weaker and weaker lies. Just about every conservative I know had MAJOR criticism of George W. Bush. Why can't you just accept reality?

Is there one single liberal left on earth that can accept reality? Or does one become a liberal only by becoming a schizophrenic?


----------



## Bfgrn

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is so thick here...you right wingers ONLY curse government when Democrats are in charge. When Bush was in the White House you folks LIVED at the alter and there was not a PEEP about too much government, too much debt or too much spending...not a PEEP. And when little despot dictator Republican's get elected governor, you folks CHEER when they step on We, the People, or have government make them pee in a cup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With each time your argument gets defeated, you come back with weaker and weaker lies. Just about every conservative I know had MAJOR criticism of George W. Bush. Why can't you just accept reality?
> 
> Is there one single liberal left on earth that can accept reality? Or does one become a liberal only by becoming a schizophrenic?
Click to expand...


PURE BULLSHIT. You are a lying piece of shit. There was NO criticism of Bush when he was president from the right...NONE. And you are ignoring how your right wing regressive turds lick the ass of recent despot governors like Christie, Walker and Scott. You turds CHEER when they overstep their authority and step on 'commoners'.

You right wingers are devoid of any honesty. Have an adult read this to you.


Why Conservatives Hate Bush

Excerpt:

Heartening as it is to hear the growing criticism of Bush from within the GOP ranks, the idea that he's veered from conservatism is hogwash. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president hasor ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.

Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.

So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.

One clue that right-wingers might be acting a bit opportunistically in turning on Bush is the sloppy nature of so many of their arguments that he's left conservatism. In seeking to salvage a pure doctrine from the flotsam of the Bush years, for example, his onetime boosters will often say that he forsook a core conservative principle such as "tradition," "humility," or "small government"or, more vapidly, "adherence to the Constitution," "the wisdom of the Founders," or "honesty in government." But general concepts like these are so elastic as to encompass any grounds for disowning a failed course of actionor so generic as to be useless as defining traits of conservatism. (Don't liberals preach adherence to the Constitution?) It may be fashionable now to deride Bush's Iraq policy as insufficiently humble, but on the eve of the invasion, when Bush flouted world opinion, how many conservatives warned that he was jettisoning principle? And, for that matter, how does the failure to prepare for and address Hurricane Katrina's damage stem from a dearth of humility? Even the oft-heard conceit that Bush has become a "big government" conservativebreaking from postwar conservatism's antistatist foundationsdoesn't withstand scrutiny. After all, practically everyone on the right backed his tax cuts, corporate giveaways, and military and security expenditures, which, along with health care cuts, have busted the budget. On inspection, buzzwords like "big government" and "humility" appear to be supple rhetorical tools, used inconsistently and opportunistically, for polemical force or political positioningnot as the basis of serious intellectual critiques.

So are conservatives unhappy with Bush because he let down their causes? No. They're miffed that Bush, in pursuing those very causes, alienated two-thirds of the voting public. Starting with Katrina in the fall of 2005, and proceeding through the worsening civil strife in Iraq, the revelations of the wiretapping and U.S. attorney scandals, and growing discontent with domestic problems like health care, Americans lost faith in Bush's agenda. Various right-wingers are now trying to salvage conservatism not simply to maintain their own reputations but because they worry that, having soured on Bush, voters may soon sour on the creed of conservatism itself. That would be a turn of events for the right so damaging that not even another Ronald Reagan could repair it.


----------



## courseofhistory

Yeah, everyone who has a business got there totally on their own with no help from others who designed or discovered technology and who built roads and bridges, discovered better ways of doing things in medicine, etc. by the big bad government's NASA space flights.  Government stinks and should just go away.  Damnit!  If I want to start a business, I will build my own roads, bridges, technology, etc.  I don't need the stinkin' government to do it for me or contract it out to businesses to do it for me.  I am an island and the government can stick it!


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> PURE BULLSHIT. You are a lying piece of shit. There was NO criticism of Bush when he was president from the right...NONE. And you are ignoring how your right wing regressive turds lick the ass of recent despot governors like Christie, Walker and Scott. You turds CHEER when they overstep their authority and step on 'commoners'.
> 
> You right wingers are devoid of any honesty. Have an adult read this to you



There was tons of criticism of Bush and you know it. Bush was a progressive - he grew government, over spent, and bailed out the private sector (you idiot liberals would *love* _and_ *worship* him had he simply called himself "democrat").

The problem is, your side of the aisle has been hijacked by communists, marxists, and socialists. You've become so radical, that you actually consider Kennedy-era liberals (ie true liberals) to be "conservatives" because they are not pushing communism, and true constitutional conservatives (like our founders) to be "nuts".

Christie and Walker were elected by "commoners" to stop marxists like *you* who are too lazy to earn wealth and instead want it seized by force and redistributed to you. They've stepped on _no_ one and the fact that Scott Walker was re-elected by a bigger margin the second time just proves it. Barack Obama is the asshole stepping on people by taking their wealth and their freedom.

JFK famously said "Ask not what you're country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". And yet here you and the rest of the left sit today crying like little bitches asking what else your country can give to you. You are selfish. You are greedy. You are lazy. And that is why you are hateful and miserable.


----------



## chanel

No man is an island.  No one has ever said that.

But the SUCCESS of one's business is not contingent upon government involvement.  SUCCESS happens IN SPITE of government.

Of course the failure of some businesses can be attributed to high taxes and government interference, but the president didn't mention that.  I wonder why.

In case the Kool Aid drinkers need things spelled out like five year olds, WE LIKE SAFE ROADS AND BRIDGES.  But we don't need to thank Big Brother for them.  In fact, perhaps he should thank us.

Silliness on steroids.


----------



## P@triot

courseofhistory said:


> Yeah, everyone who has a business got there totally on their own with no help from others who designed or discovered technology and who built roads and bridges, discovered better ways of doing things in medicine, etc. by the big bad government's NASA space flights.  Government stinks and should just go away.  Damnit!  If I want to start a business, I will build my own roads, bridges, technoloby, etc.  I don't need the stinkin' government to do it for me or contract it out to businesses to do it for me.  I am an island and the government can stick it!




I drive nearly every day on unpaved, dirt paths. It doesn't effect my day in any capacity whether it's dirt or pavement and the idiot liberal has been incapable so far in explaining their obsession with pointing out "roads" as an excuse for their socialism.


Liberals sound like children with Down Syndrome. "We have woads". Ok? Good. Good. But what does that have to do with a businesses success? "We have woads". Yes, I know we do. But what difference does that make? "We have woads". Look - your defeating yourself here. Since _everybody_ has access to those same roads, wouldn't everybody be successful multi-millionaire business owners if roads had _anything_ to do with _anything_?!? "We have woads". Ugh!!! Go watch Barney. "Otay.... We have woads".


Liberals can't even understand that roads are built by local government with local taxes while we're discussing the federal government. Their argument is so weak and pathetic, they can't even make one for the level of government we're discussing.


Liberals also can't imagine being self-reliant. If government doesn't care for and coddle them like an infant, they fear they would die (and they probably would as lazy as they are). It's beyond their capacity to comprehend us conservatives that are self-reliant and will succeed out of sheer will, regardless of the circumstances. We would never let a little thing like no road stop our prosperity. We'd just drive right over the grass/dirt/rocks/etc. (gasp! imagine _that_?!?!?)


Liberals are killing themselves with the dumbest argument ever. If it wasn't for government and roads creating prosperity, how do they explain how we even got there? There were no paved roads in 1776. And there was no government either when we declared our independence from England. And yet all we did was thrive into the most prosperous nation in world history. It was businesses, without roads or government that paid the taxes which built the roads that you know obsess over like children with Down Symmdrome! 

I know, I know....... "we have woads". That's all you can say and that is all you will respond with.


----------



## saveliberty

courseofhistory said:


> Yeah, everyone who has a business got there totally on their own with no help from others who designed or discovered technology and who built roads and bridges, discovered better ways of doing things in medicine, etc. by the big bad government's NASA space flights.  Government stinks and should just go away.  Damnit!  If I want to start a business, I will build my own roads, bridges, technoloby, etc.  I don't need the stinkin' government to do it for me or contract it out to businesses to do it for me.  I am an island and the government can stick it!



Point is, those things have already been paid for and available to everyone.  Its called equal opportunity.  Stop trying to make it seem those who worked hard and succeed somehow owe more.  Obama is a socialist period.


----------



## regent

As the ink dried on the Constitution, the new government, passed laws helping our "infant industry." As a matter of fact there are those historians that claim one of the primary purposes of the new Constitution was to help trade, and manufacturing.


----------



## saveliberty

regent said:


> As the ink dried on the Constitution, the new government, passed laws helping our "infant industry." As a matter of fact there are those historians that claim one of the primary purposes of the new Constitution was to help trade, and manufacturing.



It was to organize the government and limit it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

regent said:


> As the ink dried on the Constitution, the new government, passed laws helping our "infant industry." As a matter of fact there are those historians that claim one of the primary purposes of the new Constitution was to help trade, and manufacturing.



Oh, for the love of Christ.  I can only assume that if you still aren't getting it by now, it can only be because you just don't WANT to get it.

The fact that our system of government was intended to provide a better background for the efforts of ALL or our citizens to take place against, whatever those efforts might be, does not in any way mitigate the fact that it is still those efforts that determine who accomplishes what.


----------



## Murf76

courseofhistory said:


> Yeah, everyone who has a business got there totally on their own with no help from others who designed or discovered technology and who built roads and bridges, discovered better ways of doing things in medicine, etc. by the big bad government's NASA space flights.  Government stinks and should just go away.  Damnit!  If I want to start a business, I will build my own roads, bridges, technoloby, etc.  I don't need the stinkin' government to do it for me or contract it out to businesses to do it for me.  I am an island and the government can stick it!



Adding to what the last few posters have said, developers are most often required to add to the infrastructure as part of the permit process these days.... everything from access ramps to even schools.  Let's not forget that while Obama lectures us about "infrastructure", his "stimulus" bill in 2009 spent less than 5% toward it, regardless of the fact that he ran around the country telling us otherwise.

Businesses are paying their taxes, more than their fair share in fact.  AND they're building infrastructure out of pocket.  They owe NOTHING to Barack Obama or his personal ambitions.


----------



## Foxfyre

Listening said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a jerk this guy is. Of course business owners owe some credit to others for their successes. Just like a QB can't claim to have won a football game all by himself, but not many teams do jack without a QB to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained this analogy at length.  The government is not part of the team.  Government is the field all the teams play on.  Some win, some lose, and no winning team has ever said, "The credit for our victory goes to the great field we played on."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am sure you explained that the field only existed (in maintained shape) because teams played on it.
> 
> It is not like you build a field and a football team shows up feeling obligated to play there just because it was built.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  No city builds a multi-million dollar stadium and then a football team or baseball team is organized to play in it.   The teams have to already exist in order for the stadium to make any sense.

And it is the same with infrastructure.  The city does not annex land and install roads and sewers and street lights that nobody needs.  The city extends roads and other infrastructure to accommodate developers and existing businesses already there.   The state or the feds don't build a road out into the middle of nowhere.  They build roads to connect people that are already there.

It is commerce and industry that causes people to move to a place who in turn generate more commerce and industry.  Infrastructure follows.  When the commerce and industry go away, so do most of the people.  The only ones left will be those who are just waiting out the time left to them and they will not be sufficient to keep the existing infrastructure from gradually crumbling away.

Goverment owes its existance to commerce and industry.  It is not the other way around.


----------



## saveliberty

Should I go back to all my customers and ask them to pay me more because I want to go out and buy more equipment to benefit all my future customers?


----------



## ConzHateUSA

moron rightwingers will literally talking point themselves out of existence

the jobs their kids and grandkids will need to literally survive will not exist if these extremist rightwing terrorist shitbags get their way


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is so thick here...you right wingers ONLY curse government when Democrats are in charge. When Bush was in the White House you folks LIVED at the alter and there was not a PEEP about too much government, too much debt or too much spending...not a PEEP. And when little despot dictator Republican's get elected governor, you folks CHEER when they step on We, the People, or have government make them pee in a cup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With each time your argument gets defeated, you come back with weaker and weaker lies. Just about every conservative I know had MAJOR criticism of George W. Bush. Why can't you just accept reality?
> 
> Is there one single liberal left on earth that can accept reality? Or does one become a liberal only by becoming a schizophrenic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PURE BULLSHIT. You are a lying piece of shit. There was NO criticism of Bush when he was president from the right...NONE. And you are ignoring how your right wing regressive turds lick the ass of recent despot governors like Christie, Walker and Scott. You turds CHEER when they overstep their authority and step on 'commoners'.
> 
> You right wingers are devoid of any honesty. Have an adult read this to you.
> 
> 
> Why Conservatives Hate Bush
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> Heartening as it is to hear the growing criticism of Bush from within the GOP ranks, the idea that he's veered from conservatism is hogwash. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."
> 
> It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president hasor ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.
> 
> Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.
> 
> So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.
> 
> One clue that right-wingers might be acting a bit opportunistically in turning on Bush is the sloppy nature of so many of their arguments that he's left conservatism. In seeking to salvage a pure doctrine from the flotsam of the Bush years, for example, his onetime boosters will often say that he forsook a core conservative principle such as "tradition," "humility," or "small government"or, more vapidly, "adherence to the Constitution," "the wisdom of the Founders," or "honesty in government." But general concepts like these are so elastic as to encompass any grounds for disowning a failed course of actionor so generic as to be useless as defining traits of conservatism. (Don't liberals preach adherence to the Constitution?) It may be fashionable now to deride Bush's Iraq policy as insufficiently humble, but on the eve of the invasion, when Bush flouted world opinion, how many conservatives warned that he was jettisoning principle? And, for that matter, how does the failure to prepare for and address Hurricane Katrina's damage stem from a dearth of humility? Even the oft-heard conceit that Bush has become a "big government" conservativebreaking from postwar conservatism's antistatist foundationsdoesn't withstand scrutiny. After all, practically everyone on the right backed his tax cuts, corporate giveaways, and military and security expenditures, which, along with health care cuts, have busted the budget. On inspection, buzzwords like "big government" and "humility" appear to be supple rhetorical tools, used inconsistently and opportunistically, for polemical force or political positioningnot as the basis of serious intellectual critiques.
> 
> So are conservatives unhappy with Bush because he let down their causes? No. They're miffed that Bush, in pursuing those very causes, alienated two-thirds of the voting public. Starting with Katrina in the fall of 2005, and proceeding through the worsening civil strife in Iraq, the revelations of the wiretapping and U.S. attorney scandals, and growing discontent with domestic problems like health care, Americans lost faith in Bush's agenda. Various right-wingers are now trying to salvage conservatism not simply to maintain their own reputations but because they worry that, having soured on Bush, voters may soon sour on the creed of conservatism itself. That would be a turn of events for the right so damaging that not even another Ronald Reagan could repair it.
Click to expand...


I stole this from you quote to address your quote:

PURE BULLSHIT.


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> moron rightwingers will literally talking point themselves out of existence
> 
> the jobs their kids and grandkids will need to literally survive will not exist if these extremist rightwing terrorist shitbags get their way



Hey dickweed,

I guess you missed where we clobbered nine or ten of the last moderate incumbents out of the Kansas Senate.  Some of them had been around a long time.

The House was already conservative.

The senate will now go the same way.

I'd say it's the mods who are now out of existence around here.  Or out of power.

Now, the dems don't have RINOS to couple up with...they will just have to sit by and suck on it.

Don't like it.  Move or run for office.  We worked for it and we got it.


----------



## francoHFW

Kansas IS going nuts LOL.

Point is, our infrastructure, education, health care, etc etc  is going to hell under voodoo tax rates, while the greedy rich are bloated- all rich actually.


----------



## Listening

francoHFW said:


> Kansas IS going nuts LOL.
> 
> Point is, our infrastructure, education, health care, etc etc  is going to hell under voodoo tax rates, while the greedy rich are bloated- all rich actually.



Move down here and find out what it means to work for a living.


----------



## Bfgrn

Rottweiler said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> PURE BULLSHIT. You are a lying piece of shit. There was NO criticism of Bush when he was president from the right...NONE. And you are ignoring how your right wing regressive turds lick the ass of recent despot governors like Christie, Walker and Scott. You turds CHEER when they overstep their authority and step on 'commoners'.
> 
> You right wingers are devoid of any honesty. Have an adult read this to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was tons of criticism of Bush and you know it. Bush was a progressive - he grew government, over spent, and bailed out the private sector (you idiot liberals would *love* _and_ *worship* him had he simply called himself "democrat").
> 
> The problem is, your side of the aisle has been hijacked by communists, marxists, and socialists. You've become so radical, that you actually consider Kennedy-era liberals (ie true liberals) to be "conservatives" because they are not pushing communism, and true constitutional conservatives (like our founders) to be "nuts".
> 
> Christie and Walker were elected by "commoners" to stop marxists like *you* who are too lazy to earn wealth and instead want it seized by force and redistributed to you. They've stepped on _no_ one and the fact that Scott Walker was re-elected by a bigger margin the second time just proves it. Barack Obama is the asshole stepping on people by taking their wealth and their freedom.
> 
> JFK famously said "Ask not what you're country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". And yet here you and the rest of the left sit today crying like little bitches asking what else your country can give to you. You are selfish. You are greedy. You are lazy. And that is why you are hateful and miserable.
Click to expand...


Hey doggy breath, I was on numerous message boards when Bush was president. There was never a word spoken by 'conservatives' about too much debt, too much spending or too much government...not a fucking PEEP. You turds worshiped Bush and defended every fucking thing he did.

Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy.

The only people who have call JFK a conservative ARE conservatives. I've been around since Harry Truman was President. I remember voting for Jacob Javits, a LIBERAL Republican Senator who was TOO liberal to serve on the Warren Commission according to LBJ and J Edgar Hoover. There is no man living or dead who embodies my beliefs more than John F. Kennedy. 

The 'Great Society' was made up of programs President Kennedy had promoted or planned: Medicare, the War on Poverty and the Civil Rights bill.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Murf76

Bfgrn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> PURE BULLSHIT. You are a lying piece of shit. There was NO criticism of Bush when he was president from the right...NONE. And you are ignoring how your right wing regressive turds lick the ass of recent despot governors like Christie, Walker and Scott. You turds CHEER when they overstep their authority and step on 'commoners'.
> 
> You right wingers are devoid of any honesty. Have an adult read this to you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was tons of criticism of Bush and you know it. Bush was a progressive - he grew government, over spent, and bailed out the private sector (you idiot liberals would *love* _and_ *worship* him had he simply called himself "democrat").
> 
> The problem is, your side of the aisle has been hijacked by communists, marxists, and socialists. You've become so radical, that you actually consider Kennedy-era liberals (ie true liberals) to be "conservatives" because they are not pushing communism, and true constitutional conservatives (like our founders) to be "nuts".
> 
> Christie and Walker were elected by "commoners" to stop marxists like *you* who are too lazy to earn wealth and instead want it seized by force and redistributed to you. They've stepped on _no_ one and the fact that Scott Walker was re-elected by a bigger margin the second time just proves it. Barack Obama is the asshole stepping on people by taking their wealth and their freedom.
> 
> JFK famously said "Ask not what you're country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". And yet here you and the rest of the left sit today crying like little bitches asking what else your country can give to you. You are selfish. You are greedy. You are lazy. And that is why you are hateful and miserable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey doggy breath, I was on numerous message boards when Bush was president. There was never a word spoken by 'conservatives' about too much debt, too much spending or too much government...not a fucking PEEP. You turds worshiped Bush and defended every fucking thing he did.
> 
> Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy.
> 
> The only people who have call JFK a conservative ARE conservatives. I've been around since Harry Truman was President. I remember voting for Jacob Javits, a LIBERAL Republican Senator who was TOO liberal to serve on the Warren Commission according to LBJ and J Edgar Hoover. There is no man living or dead who embodies my beliefs more than John F. Kennedy.
> 
> The 'Great Society' was made up of programs President Kennedy had promoted or planned: Medicare, the War on Poverty and the Civil Rights bill.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


Good grief, man.  Bush left office with an approval rating of 29-30%.  He wasn't even carrying his own party at that point.  

The REAL hypocrisy is watching Barack Obama double, triple, and quadruple down on everything you all claimed you hated about Bush... and you all lapping it up.


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was tons of criticism of Bush and you know it. Bush was a progressive - he grew government, over spent, and bailed out the private sector (you idiot liberals would *love* _and_ *worship* him had he simply called himself "democrat").
> 
> The problem is, your side of the aisle has been hijacked by communists, marxists, and socialists. You've become so radical, that you actually consider Kennedy-era liberals (ie true liberals) to be "conservatives" because they are not pushing communism, and true constitutional conservatives (like our founders) to be "nuts".
> 
> Christie and Walker were elected by "commoners" to stop marxists like *you* who are too lazy to earn wealth and instead want it seized by force and redistributed to you. They've stepped on _no_ one and the fact that Scott Walker was re-elected by a bigger margin the second time just proves it. Barack Obama is the asshole stepping on people by taking their wealth and their freedom.
> 
> JFK famously said "Ask not what you're country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". And yet here you and the rest of the left sit today crying like little bitches asking what else your country can give to you. You are selfish. You are greedy. You are lazy. And that is why you are hateful and miserable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey doggy breath, I was on numerous message boards when Bush was president. There was never a word spoken by 'conservatives' about too much debt, too much spending or too much government...not a fucking PEEP. You turds worshiped Bush and defended every fucking thing he did.
> 
> Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy.
> 
> The only people who have call JFK a conservative ARE conservatives. I've been around since Harry Truman was President. I remember voting for Jacob Javits, a LIBERAL Republican Senator who was TOO liberal to serve on the Warren Commission according to LBJ and J Edgar Hoover. There is no man living or dead who embodies my beliefs more than John F. Kennedy.
> 
> The 'Great Society' was made up of programs President Kennedy had promoted or planned: Medicare, the War on Poverty and the Civil Rights bill.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, man.  Bush left office with an approval rating of 29-30%.  He wasn't even carrying his own party at that point.
> 
> The REAL hypocrisy is watching Barack Obama double, triple, and quadruple down on everything you all claimed you hated about Bush... and you all lapping it up.
Click to expand...


There are a number of issues I am disappointed with Obama on. He has continued the draconian 'war on drugs', he re-upped the Patriot Act and he refused to fight for a public option in the health care bill. But, NONE of those stances could be considered 'progressive', or liberal. They are conservative.

And the tea party who you right wingers worship LOVE George W. Bush.

Among all Americans, George W. Bush has 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among tea partiers he's viewed favorably, 57/27. 

Among all Americans, the Bush administration takes the largest share -- 39 percent -- of the blame for the "current federal budget deficit." Only 6 percent of tea partiers blame Bush, while 24 percent blame President Obama and 37 percent blame Congress.

- Americans are fairly evenly split on whether they consider "reducing the budget deficit" more important than cutting taxes -- 47 percent say tax cuts, 45 percent say deficit reduction. Tea partiers lean more heavily toward tax cuts (49 percent) than deficit reduction (42 percent). But while Americans would prefer that the government "spend money to create jobs" by a 50/42 margin, only 17 percent of tea partiers agree -- 76 percent want to cut the deficit.

- Among all Americans, Glenn Beck is a divisive and not too well-known media figure. Only around half of them have heard of Beck, and those folks view him favorably, 18/17. Among tea partiers, Beck is wildly popular -- 59/6 favorable.

- Among all Americans, Sarah Palin is wildly unpopular -- her negative/favorable rating is 30/45. But tea partiers adore her and give her a 66/12 favorable rating. Yet here's something to watch -- only 40 percent of tea partiers say Palin could be an "effective president," compared to 47 percent who disagree. (Among all Americans the numbers are 26 percent and 63 percent.)

Right Now - Poll: Tea partiers miss Bush, like the GOP, don't want a third party, and wonder where Obama was born

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke


----------



## Murf76

Bfgrn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey doggy breath, I was on numerous message boards when Bush was president. There was never a word spoken by 'conservatives' about too much debt, too much spending or too much government...not a fucking PEEP. You turds worshiped Bush and defended every fucking thing he did.
> 
> Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Hardingand perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy.
> 
> The only people who have call JFK a conservative ARE conservatives. I've been around since Harry Truman was President. I remember voting for Jacob Javits, a LIBERAL Republican Senator who was TOO liberal to serve on the Warren Commission according to LBJ and J Edgar Hoover. There is no man living or dead who embodies my beliefs more than John F. Kennedy.
> 
> The 'Great Society' was made up of programs President Kennedy had promoted or planned: Medicare, the War on Poverty and the Civil Rights bill.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, man.  Bush left office with an approval rating of 29-30%.  He wasn't even carrying his own party at that point.
> 
> The REAL hypocrisy is watching Barack Obama double, triple, and quadruple down on everything you all claimed you hated about Bush... and you all lapping it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a number of issues I am disappointed with Obama on. He has continued the draconian 'war on drugs', he re-upped the Patriot Act and he refused to fight for a public option in the health care bill. But, NONE of those stances could be considered 'progressive', or liberal. They are conservative.
> 
> And the tea party who you right wingers worship LOVE George W. Bush.
> 
> Among all Americans, George W. Bush has 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among tea partiers he's viewed favorably, 57/27.
> 
> Among all Americans, the Bush administration takes the largest share -- 39 percent -- of the blame for the "current federal budget deficit." Only 6 percent of tea partiers blame Bush, while 24 percent blame President Obama and 37 percent blame Congress.
> 
> - Americans are fairly evenly split on whether they consider "reducing the budget deficit" more important than cutting taxes -- 47 percent say tax cuts, 45 percent say deficit reduction. Tea partiers lean more heavily toward tax cuts (49 percent) than deficit reduction (42 percent). But while Americans would prefer that the government "spend money to create jobs" by a 50/42 margin, only 17 percent of tea partiers agree -- 76 percent want to cut the deficit.
> 
> - Among all Americans, Glenn Beck is a divisive and not too well-known media figure. Only around half of them have heard of Beck, and those folks view him favorably, 18/17. Among tea partiers, Beck is wildly popular -- 59/6 favorable.
> 
> - Among all Americans, Sarah Palin is wildly unpopular -- her negative/favorable rating is 30/45. But tea partiers adore her and give her a 66/12 favorable rating. Yet here's something to watch -- only 40 percent of tea partiers say Palin could be an "effective president," compared to 47 percent who disagree. (Among all Americans the numbers are 26 percent and 63 percent.)
> 
> Right Now - Poll: Tea partiers miss Bush, like the GOP, don't want a third party, and wonder where Obama was born
> 
> Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
> Edmund Burke
Click to expand...


Dude.  Obama has spent more taxpayer money than Bush, gone to war more than Bush, made more unilateral decisions than Bush.  There's just no getting around it.  Obama didn't bother getting Congressional approval for Libya.  He's got his own hit list of people he whacks with drones, doesn't bother with due process even if they're American citizens, and has signed legislation that allows him chuck us into Gitmo indefinitely if we're accused of terrorism. 

The Tea Party might have some nostalgia for Bush, particularly in comparison to Obama, but what's that got to do with now?  You left-wingers might not have understood it, but G.W. is a likeable guy, and I think history will be kind to him in the end.


----------



## Foxfyre

Don't left BFGN do that Murf.  Without accusing anybody specifically,  some have been assigned--probably paid--to make sure that any thread focused on Barack Obama in a negatiive way is refocused on George Bush or Mitt Romney or Republicans or Tea Partiers or anything and everything other than Barack Obama's problems.

The President gave us a huge gift with his possible Freudian slip that allowed us to see his true motibes and intent which is to diminish and marginalize private enterprise and promote more big government.

We really really need to keep our focus there.


----------



## regent

saveliberty said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the ink dried on the Constitution, the new government, passed laws helping our "infant industry." As a matter of fact there are those historians that claim one of the primary purposes of the new Constitution was to help trade, and manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was to organize the government and limit it.
Click to expand...


The government had no powers, before the Constitution and the Constittuion not only created a government, but that document gave the government a number of powers. 
As for the purpose, of the Constitution convention Hamilton issued the notices to the states to send delegates and to take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States was involved.


----------



## Murf76

regent said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the ink dried on the Constitution, the new government, passed laws helping our "infant industry." As a matter of fact there are those historians that claim one of the primary purposes of the new Constitution was to help trade, and manufacturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was to organize the government and limit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government had no powers, before the Constitution and the Constittuion not only created a government, but that document gave the government a number of powers.
> As for the purpose, of the Constitution convention Hamilton issued the notices to the states to send delegates and to take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States was involved.
Click to expand...


By the same token, there is NO federal authority outside those enumerated powers granted by the U.S. Constitution.  The many depredations on that document over the years have resulted in the chaos and tumult we experience today.  The Constitution was the referee on the field; it was our common ground, the final arbitrator and unifier.  It might seem slick enough to twist it like a pretzel and sneak the popular whims of the moment past it, but the result is not worth the effort.  If there's no backstop, no final word on the subject, we're left perpetually divided.


----------



## regent

Murf76 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was to organize the government and limit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government had no powers, before the Constitution and the Constittuion not only created a government, but that document gave the government a number of powers.
> As for the purpose, of the Constitution convention Hamilton issued the notices to the states to send delegates and to take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the same token, there is NO federal authority outside those enumerated powers granted by the U.S. Constitution.  The many depredations on that document over the years have resulted in the chaos and tumult we experience today.  The Constitution was the referee on the field; it was our common ground, the final arbitrator and unifier.  It might seem slick enough to twist it like a pretzel and sneak the popular whims of the moment past it, but the result is not worth the effort.  If there's no backstop, no final word on the subject, we're left perpetually divided.
Click to expand...

Of course, the federal government has authory outside the enumerated powers. But we are now into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


----------



## Murf76

regent said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government had no powers, before the Constitution and the Constittuion not only created a government, but that document gave the government a number of powers.
> As for the purpose, of the Constitution convention Hamilton issued the notices to the states to send delegates and to take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States was involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the same token, there is NO federal authority outside those enumerated powers granted by the U.S. Constitution.  The many depredations on that document over the years have resulted in the chaos and tumult we experience today.  The Constitution was the referee on the field; it was our common ground, the final arbitrator and unifier.  It might seem slick enough to twist it like a pretzel and sneak the popular whims of the moment past it, but the result is not worth the effort.  If there's no backstop, no final word on the subject, we're left perpetually divided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, the federal government has authory outside the enumerated powers. But we are now into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Click to expand...


They've _taken_ authority outside the enumerated powers.  And one disastrous opinion after another at the Supreme Court is their justification for it.  That doesn't make it right.  The Constitution was written in such a way as to be understood by the common man.  What it says is what it means.  These many depredations upon it over the years is what has left us at one another's throats, and it just wasn't intended to be that way.  We were meant to have this final arbiter of disputes, and it has been undermined again and again.


----------



## Vidi

regent said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government had no powers, before the Constitution and the Constittuion not only created a government, but that document gave the government a number of powers.
> As for the purpose, of the Constitution convention Hamilton issued the notices to the states to send delegates and to take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States was involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the same token, there is NO federal authority outside those enumerated powers granted by the U.S. Constitution.  The many depredations on that document over the years have resulted in the chaos and tumult we experience today.  The Constitution was the referee on the field; it was our common ground, the final arbitrator and unifier.  It might seem slick enough to twist it like a pretzel and sneak the popular whims of the moment past it, but the result is not worth the effort.  If there's no backstop, no final word on the subject, we're left perpetually divided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, the federal government has authory outside the enumerated powers. But we are now into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Click to expand...


Any power not enumerated was given to the states.


----------



## Foxfyre

Murf76 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the same token, there is NO federal authority outside those enumerated powers granted by the U.S. Constitution.  The many depredations on that document over the years have resulted in the chaos and tumult we experience today.  The Constitution was the referee on the field; it was our common ground, the final arbitrator and unifier.  It might seem slick enough to twist it like a pretzel and sneak the popular whims of the moment past it, but the result is not worth the effort.  If there's no backstop, no final word on the subject, we're left perpetually divided.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the federal government has authory outside the enumerated powers. But we are now into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've _taken_ authority outside the enumerated powers.  And one disastrous opinion after another at the Supreme Court is their justification for it.  That doesn't make it right.  The Constitution was written in such a way as to be understood by the common man.  What it says is what it means.  These many depredations upon it over the years is what has left us at one another's throats, and it just wasn't intended to be that way.  We were meant to have this final arbiter of disputes, and it has been undermined again and again.
Click to expand...


Yes, it started with Teddy Roosevelt who turned the concept from a federal government restricted to what the Constitution allowed to one in which the federal government is restricted only by what the Constitution forbids.  And it was FDR who took that concept much much further and also tried to pack the courts so they would not interfere with what he wanted to accomplish.

And now we have evolved to a President who seems to see that we need only an unrestrained government to create a better world and that we the people and the commerce and enterprise that we are engaged in has little or no importance to that.


----------



## regent

Vidi said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the same token, there is NO federal authority outside those enumerated powers granted by the U.S. Constitution.  The many depredations on that document over the years have resulted in the chaos and tumult we experience today.  The Constitution was the referee on the field; it was our common ground, the final arbitrator and unifier.  It might seem slick enough to twist it like a pretzel and sneak the popular whims of the moment past it, but the result is not worth the effort.  If there's no backstop, no final word on the subject, we're left perpetually divided.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the federal government has authory outside the enumerated powers. But we are now into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any power not enumerated was given to the states.
Click to expand...


How about the power to grant reprievies and pardons, or the power to make treaties, or how about the power to gurantee every state a republican form of government, or the power to be commander in chief?


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> Of course, the federal government has authory outside the enumerated powers.



No it doesn't.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any power not enumerated was given to the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the power to grant reprievies and pardons, or the power to make treaties, or how about the power to gurantee every state a republican form of government, or the power to be commander in chief?
Click to expand...


Those are enumerated powers, dipshit.


----------



## courseofhistory

Rottweiler said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, everyone who has a business got there totally on their own with no help from others who designed or discovered technology and who built roads and bridges, discovered better ways of doing things in medicine, etc. by the big bad government's NASA space flights.  Government stinks and should just go away.  Damnit!  If I want to start a business, I will build my own roads, bridges, technoloby, etc.  I don't need the stinkin' government to do it for me or contract it out to businesses to do it for me.  I am an island and the government can stick it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I drive nearly every day on unpaved, dirt paths. It doesn't effect my day in any capacity whether it's dirt or pavement and the idiot liberal has been incapable so far in explaining their obsession with pointing out "roads" as an excuse for their socialism.
> 
> 
> Liberals sound like children with Down Syndrome. "We have woads". Ok? Good. Good. But what does that have to do with a businesses success? "We have woads". Yes, I know we do. But what difference does that make? "We have woads". Look - your defeating yourself here. Since _everybody_ has access to those same roads, wouldn't everybody be successful multi-millionaire business owners if roads had _anything_ to do with _anything_?!? "We have woads". Ugh!!! Go watch Barney. "Otay.... We have woads".
> 
> 
> Liberals can't even understand that roads are built by local government with local taxes while we're discussing the federal government. Their argument is so weak and pathetic, they can't even make one for the level of government we're discussing.
> 
> 
> Liberals also can't imagine being self-reliant. If government doesn't care for and coddle them like an infant, they fear they would die (and they probably would as lazy as they are). It's beyond their capacity to comprehend us conservatives that are self-reliant and will succeed out of sheer will, regardless of the circumstances. We would never let a little thing like no road stop our prosperity. We'd just drive right over the grass/dirt/rocks/etc. (gasp! imagine _that_?!?!?)
> 
> 
> Liberals are killing themselves with the dumbest argument ever. If it wasn't for government and roads creating prosperity, how do they explain how we even got there? There were no paved roads in 1776. And there was no government either when we declared our independence from England. And yet all we did was thrive into the most prosperous nation in world history. It was businesses, without roads or government that paid the taxes which built the roads that you know obsess over like children with Down Symmdrome!
> 
> I know, I know....... "we have woads". That's all you can say and that is all you will respond with.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and you're not everyone!  I'm not liberal.  I'm generally a moderate independent which means I don't have to agree with dumb concepts from "my party" just because I can't stray from that mantra.  I happen to agree with some conservative ideas and policies and some more to the middle or left.  This autonomous idiocy about being independent of government and others' help and assistance, their innovation and discoveries, etc. is nonsense.  Of course, successful people and businesses owe it to their individual initiative and hard work but not entirely!

Obviously things are much different than in 1776 due to innovation, discoveries, and progress made by individuals and government.  Government often funds research and many other things that individuals do and invent.  People should take a lot of credit for what they have done over the centuries but it wasn't without assistance from government, sometimes more than others dependent on the endeavor but nevertheless a certain amount of government involvment exists in almost everything we do (most, not all of it in a positive sense).


----------



## Listening

courseofhistory said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, everyone who has a business got there totally on their own with no help from others who designed or discovered technology and who built roads and bridges, discovered better ways of doing things in medicine, etc. by the big bad government's NASA space flights.  Government stinks and should just go away.  Damnit!  If I want to start a business, I will build my own roads, bridges, technoloby, etc.  I don't need the stinkin' government to do it for me or contract it out to businesses to do it for me.  I am an island and the government can stick it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I drive nearly every day on unpaved, dirt paths. It doesn't effect my day in any capacity whether it's dirt or pavement and the idiot liberal has been incapable so far in explaining their obsession with pointing out "roads" as an excuse for their socialism.
> 
> 
> Liberals sound like children with Down Syndrome. "We have woads". Ok? Good. Good. But what does that have to do with a businesses success? "We have woads". Yes, I know we do. But what difference does that make? "We have woads". Look - your defeating yourself here. Since _everybody_ has access to those same roads, wouldn't everybody be successful multi-millionaire business owners if roads had _anything_ to do with _anything_?!? "We have woads". Ugh!!! Go watch Barney. "Otay.... We have woads".
> 
> 
> Liberals can't even understand that roads are built by local government with local taxes while we're discussing the federal government. Their argument is so weak and pathetic, they can't even make one for the level of government we're discussing.
> 
> 
> Liberals also can't imagine being self-reliant. If government doesn't care for and coddle them like an infant, they fear they would die (and they probably would as lazy as they are). It's beyond their capacity to comprehend us conservatives that are self-reliant and will succeed out of sheer will, regardless of the circumstances. We would never let a little thing like no road stop our prosperity. We'd just drive right over the grass/dirt/rocks/etc. (gasp! imagine _that_?!?!?)
> 
> 
> Liberals are killing themselves with the dumbest argument ever. If it wasn't for government and roads creating prosperity, how do they explain how we even got there? There were no paved roads in 1776. And there was no government either when we declared our independence from England. And yet all we did was thrive into the most prosperous nation in world history. It was businesses, without roads or government that paid the taxes which built the roads that you know obsess over like children with Down Symmdrome!
> 
> I know, I know....... "we have woads". That's all you can say and that is all you will respond with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and you're not everyone!  I'm not liberal.  I'm generally a moderate independent which means I don't have to agree with dumb concepts from "my party" just because I can't stray from that mantra.  I happen to agree with some conservative ideas and policies and some more to the middle or left.  This autonomous idiocy about being independent of government and others' help and assistance, their innovation and discoveries, etc. is nonsense.  Of course, successful people and businesses owe it to their individual initiative and hard work but not entirely!
Click to expand...


The main point is that "somebody else did that" is stupid.  Everybody did that...including the guy who "didn't do that"...in fact he probably did more than the load of Obama free-loaders who don't pay federal income tax.


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, man.  Bush left office with an approval rating of 29-30%.  He wasn't even carrying his own party at that point.
> 
> The REAL hypocrisy is watching Barack Obama double, triple, and quadruple down on everything you all claimed you hated about Bush... and you all lapping it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of issues I am disappointed with Obama on. He has continued the draconian 'war on drugs', he re-upped the Patriot Act and he refused to fight for a public option in the health care bill. But, NONE of those stances could be considered 'progressive', or liberal. They are conservative.
> 
> And the tea party who you right wingers worship LOVE George W. Bush.
> 
> Among all Americans, George W. Bush has 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among tea partiers he's viewed favorably, 57/27.
> 
> Among all Americans, the Bush administration takes the largest share -- 39 percent -- of the blame for the "current federal budget deficit." Only 6 percent of tea partiers blame Bush, while 24 percent blame President Obama and 37 percent blame Congress.
> 
> - Americans are fairly evenly split on whether they consider "reducing the budget deficit" more important than cutting taxes -- 47 percent say tax cuts, 45 percent say deficit reduction. Tea partiers lean more heavily toward tax cuts (49 percent) than deficit reduction (42 percent). But while Americans would prefer that the government "spend money to create jobs" by a 50/42 margin, only 17 percent of tea partiers agree -- 76 percent want to cut the deficit.
> 
> - Among all Americans, Glenn Beck is a divisive and not too well-known media figure. Only around half of them have heard of Beck, and those folks view him favorably, 18/17. Among tea partiers, Beck is wildly popular -- 59/6 favorable.
> 
> - Among all Americans, Sarah Palin is wildly unpopular -- her negative/favorable rating is 30/45. But tea partiers adore her and give her a 66/12 favorable rating. Yet here's something to watch -- only 40 percent of tea partiers say Palin could be an "effective president," compared to 47 percent who disagree. (Among all Americans the numbers are 26 percent and 63 percent.)
> 
> Right Now - Poll: Tea partiers miss Bush, like the GOP, don't want a third party, and wonder where Obama was born
> 
> Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude.  Obama has spent more taxpayer money than Bush, gone to war more than Bush, made more unilateral decisions than Bush.  There's just no getting around it.  Obama didn't bother getting Congressional approval for Libya.  He's got his own hit list of people he whacks with drones, doesn't bother with due process even if they're American citizens, and has signed legislation that allows him chuck us into Gitmo indefinitely if we're accused of terrorism.
> 
> The Tea Party might have some nostalgia for Bush, particularly in comparison to Obama, but what's that got to do with now?  You left-wingers might not have understood it, but G.W. is a likeable guy, and I think history will be kind to him in the end.
Click to expand...


*DUDE*, are you right wingers THAT disingenuous or that obtuse? 

EVERYTHING you accuse Obama of doing is what you people vehemently supported when Bush was president. Conservatives defended GITMO, rendition and you folks even supported and defended torture. Those are all conservative beliefs, not liberal beliefs. 

I was against them when Bush did them and I am against them when Obama does them. But you on the other hand are only against them when a Democrats does them, but you cheer when Bush did them? What that is is pure partisan hackery.


----------



## Murf76

courseofhistory said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, everyone who has a business got there totally on their own with no help from others who designed or discovered technology and who built roads and bridges, discovered better ways of doing things in medicine, etc. by the big bad government's NASA space flights.  Government stinks and should just go away.  Damnit!  If I want to start a business, I will build my own roads, bridges, technoloby, etc.  I don't need the stinkin' government to do it for me or contract it out to businesses to do it for me.  I am an island and the government can stick it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I drive nearly every day on unpaved, dirt paths. It doesn't effect my day in any capacity whether it's dirt or pavement and the idiot liberal has been incapable so far in explaining their obsession with pointing out "roads" as an excuse for their socialism.
> 
> 
> Liberals sound like children with Down Syndrome. "We have woads". Ok? Good. Good. But what does that have to do with a businesses success? "We have woads". Yes, I know we do. But what difference does that make? "We have woads". Look - your defeating yourself here. Since _everybody_ has access to those same roads, wouldn't everybody be successful multi-millionaire business owners if roads had _anything_ to do with _anything_?!? "We have woads". Ugh!!! Go watch Barney. "Otay.... We have woads".
> 
> 
> Liberals can't even understand that roads are built by local government with local taxes while we're discussing the federal government. Their argument is so weak and pathetic, they can't even make one for the level of government we're discussing.
> 
> 
> Liberals also can't imagine being self-reliant. If government doesn't care for and coddle them like an infant, they fear they would die (and they probably would as lazy as they are). It's beyond their capacity to comprehend us conservatives that are self-reliant and will succeed out of sheer will, regardless of the circumstances. We would never let a little thing like no road stop our prosperity. We'd just drive right over the grass/dirt/rocks/etc. (gasp! imagine _that_?!?!?)
> 
> 
> Liberals are killing themselves with the dumbest argument ever. If it wasn't for government and roads creating prosperity, how do they explain how we even got there? There were no paved roads in 1776. And there was no government either when we declared our independence from England. And yet all we did was thrive into the most prosperous nation in world history. It was businesses, without roads or government that paid the taxes which built the roads that you know obsess over like children with Down Symmdrome!
> 
> I know, I know....... "we have woads". That's all you can say and that is all you will respond with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and you're not everyone!  I'm not liberal.  I'm generally a moderate independent which means I don't have to agree with dumb concepts from "my party" just because I can't stray from that mantra.  I happen to agree with some conservative ideas and policies and some more to the middle or left.  This autonomous idiocy about being independent of government and others' help and assistance, their innovation and discoveries, etc. is nonsense.  Of course, successful people and businesses owe it to their individual initiative and hard work but not entirely!
Click to expand...


Yes.. "entirely".  Because they pay their way.  It's just that simple.   They pay for what they get.

Barack Obama has put this argument out there for the sole purpose of creating "class warfare".  It's a tactic which he hopes will result in votes.  The context of his argument is raising taxes on the so-called "rich".  But even if he got what he wanted it would only result in an estimated 28 billion per year.  That's nothing.  It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they're spending.

This is a campaign tactic and nothing more than that.  And he stepped in shit over it, offending the small business community.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> *DUDE*, are you right wingers THAT disingenuous or that obtuse?
> 
> EVERYTHING you accuse Obama of doing is what you people vehemently supported when Bush was president. Conservatives defended GITMO, rendition and you folks even supported and defended torture. Those are all conservative beliefs, not liberal beliefs.
> 
> I was against them when Bush did them and I am against them when Obama does them. But you on the other hand are only against them when a Democrats does them, but you cheer when Bush did them? What that is is pure partisan hackery.



You must be a Navy Seal.

Nobody I know can keep bleating the same crap over and over again who isn't mentally steeled against the way you've been schooled.


----------



## saveliberty

Vidi said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the same token, there is NO federal authority outside those enumerated powers granted by the U.S. Constitution.  The many depredations on that document over the years have resulted in the chaos and tumult we experience today.  The Constitution was the referee on the field; it was our common ground, the final arbitrator and unifier.  It might seem slick enough to twist it like a pretzel and sneak the popular whims of the moment past it, but the result is not worth the effort.  If there's no backstop, no final word on the subject, we're left perpetually divided.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the federal government has authory outside the enumerated powers. But we are now into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any power not enumerated was given to the states.
Click to expand...


I think your missing "and citizens".


----------



## courseofhistory

Listening said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I drive nearly every day on unpaved, dirt paths. It doesn't effect my day in any capacity whether it's dirt or pavement and the idiot liberal has been incapable so far in explaining their obsession with pointing out "roads" as an excuse for their socialism.
> 
> 
> Liberals sound like children with Down Syndrome. "We have woads". Ok? Good. Good. But what does that have to do with a businesses success? "We have woads". Yes, I know we do. But what difference does that make? "We have woads". Look - your defeating yourself here. Since _everybody_ has access to those same roads, wouldn't everybody be successful multi-millionaire business owners if roads had _anything_ to do with _anything_?!? "We have woads". Ugh!!! Go watch Barney. "Otay.... We have woads".
> 
> 
> Liberals can't even understand that roads are built by local government with local taxes while we're discussing the federal government. Their argument is so weak and pathetic, they can't even make one for the level of government we're discussing.
> 
> 
> Liberals also can't imagine being self-reliant. If government doesn't care for and coddle them like an infant, they fear they would die (and they probably would as lazy as they are). It's beyond their capacity to comprehend us conservatives that are self-reliant and will succeed out of sheer will, regardless of the circumstances. We would never let a little thing like no road stop our prosperity. We'd just drive right over the grass/dirt/rocks/etc. (gasp! imagine _that_?!?!?)
> 
> 
> Liberals are killing themselves with the dumbest argument ever. If it wasn't for government and roads creating prosperity, how do they explain how we even got there? There were no paved roads in 1776. And there was no government either when we declared our independence from England. And yet all we did was thrive into the most prosperous nation in world history. It was businesses, without roads or government that paid the taxes which built the roads that you know obsess over like children with Down Symmdrome!
> 
> I know, I know....... "we have woads". That's all you can say and that is all you will respond with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and you're not everyone!  I'm not liberal.  I'm generally a moderate independent which means I don't have to agree with dumb concepts from "my party" just because I can't stray from that mantra.  I happen to agree with some conservative ideas and policies and some more to the middle or left.  This autonomous idiocy about being independent of government and others' help and assistance, their innovation and discoveries, etc. is nonsense.  Of course, successful people and businesses owe it to their individual initiative and hard work but not entirely!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The main point is that "somebody else did that" is stupid.  Everybody did that...including the guy who "didn't do that"...in fact he probably did more than the load of Obama free-loaders who don't pay federal income tax.
Click to expand...


Yes, Obama said it very inartfully! But most people know what he meant if they really think about it and many obvisouly don't want to give him some slack.  (BTW, I hated Obama until a few months ago when this women's rights thing went crazy and it got me to thinking that Obama would be a much better steward in that regard and in some others related to social issues).


----------



## Murf76

Bfgrn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of issues I am disappointed with Obama on. He has continued the draconian 'war on drugs', he re-upped the Patriot Act and he refused to fight for a public option in the health care bill. But, NONE of those stances could be considered 'progressive', or liberal. They are conservative.
> 
> And the tea party who you right wingers worship LOVE George W. Bush.
> 
> Among all Americans, George W. Bush has 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among tea partiers he's viewed favorably, 57/27.
> 
> Among all Americans, the Bush administration takes the largest share -- 39 percent -- of the blame for the "current federal budget deficit." Only 6 percent of tea partiers blame Bush, while 24 percent blame President Obama and 37 percent blame Congress.
> 
> - Americans are fairly evenly split on whether they consider "reducing the budget deficit" more important than cutting taxes -- 47 percent say tax cuts, 45 percent say deficit reduction. Tea partiers lean more heavily toward tax cuts (49 percent) than deficit reduction (42 percent). But while Americans would prefer that the government "spend money to create jobs" by a 50/42 margin, only 17 percent of tea partiers agree -- 76 percent want to cut the deficit.
> 
> - Among all Americans, Glenn Beck is a divisive and not too well-known media figure. Only around half of them have heard of Beck, and those folks view him favorably, 18/17. Among tea partiers, Beck is wildly popular -- 59/6 favorable.
> 
> - Among all Americans, Sarah Palin is wildly unpopular -- her negative/favorable rating is 30/45. But tea partiers adore her and give her a 66/12 favorable rating. Yet here's something to watch -- only 40 percent of tea partiers say Palin could be an "effective president," compared to 47 percent who disagree. (Among all Americans the numbers are 26 percent and 63 percent.)
> 
> Right Now - Poll: Tea partiers miss Bush, like the GOP, don't want a third party, and wonder where Obama was born
> 
> Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude.  Obama has spent more taxpayer money than Bush, gone to war more than Bush, made more unilateral decisions than Bush.  There's just no getting around it.  Obama didn't bother getting Congressional approval for Libya.  He's got his own hit list of people he whacks with drones, doesn't bother with due process even if they're American citizens, and has signed legislation that allows him chuck us into Gitmo indefinitely if we're accused of terrorism.
> 
> The Tea Party might have some nostalgia for Bush, particularly in comparison to Obama, but what's that got to do with now?  You left-wingers might not have understood it, but G.W. is a likeable guy, and I think history will be kind to him in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *DUDE*, are you right wingers THAT disingenuous or that obtuse?
> 
> EVERYTHING you accuse Obama of doing is what you people vehemently supported when Bush was president. Conservatives defended GITMO, rendition and you folks even supported and defended torture. Those are all conservative beliefs, not liberal beliefs.
> 
> I was against them when Bush did them and I am against them when Obama does them. But you on the other hand are only against them when a Democrats does them, but you cheer when Bush did them? What that is is pure partisan hackery.
Click to expand...


And yet you're still shilling for Obama.  Go figure. 
Newsflash:  Bush isn't running in this election.


----------



## Murf76

courseofhistory said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and you're not everyone!  I'm not liberal.  I'm generally a moderate independent which means I don't have to agree with dumb concepts from "my party" just because I can't stray from that mantra.  I happen to agree with some conservative ideas and policies and some more to the middle or left.  This autonomous idiocy about being independent of government and others' help and assistance, their innovation and discoveries, etc. is nonsense.  Of course, successful people and businesses owe it to their individual initiative and hard work but not entirely!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main point is that "somebody else did that" is stupid.  Everybody did that...including the guy who "didn't do that"...in fact he probably did more than the load of Obama free-loaders who don't pay federal income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Obama said it very inartfully! But most people know what he meant if they really think about it and many obvisouly don't want to give him some slack.  (BTW, I hated Obama until a few months ago when this women's rights thing went crazy and it got me to thinking that Obama would be a much better steward in that regard and in some others related to social issues).
Click to expand...


Really?  Are you one of those folks who just can't be free unless Catholics are paying for other people's birth control and abortifacients against their will???


----------



## saveliberty

courseofhistory said:


> Yes, Obama said it very inartfully! But most people know what he meant if they really think about it and many obvisouly don't want to give him some slack.  (BTW, I hated Obama until a few months ago when this women's rights thing went crazy and it got me to thinking that Obama would be a much better steward in that regard and in some others related to social issues).



No, it was a speech about how to fix the economy.  Romney is going to go about it all wrong and Obama was laying out the argument for raising taxes.  He was deliberately targeting business owners, when he insulted us.


----------



## Listening

courseofhistory said:


> Yes, Obama said it very inartfully! But most people know what he meant if they really think about it and many obvisouly don't want to give him some slack.  (BTW, I hated Obama until a few months ago when this women's rights thing went crazy and it got me to thinking that Obama would be a much better steward in that regard and in some others related to social issues).



Oh hey,

That's great news.

Only thing is that your state likely has a bigger influence over social issues.

So go ahead and vote for the moron who will help you feel good all the while living out of a cardboard box.

Good luck with that one.


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude.  Obama has spent more taxpayer money than Bush, gone to war more than Bush, made more unilateral decisions than Bush.  There's just no getting around it.  Obama didn't bother getting Congressional approval for Libya.  He's got his own hit list of people he whacks with drones, doesn't bother with due process even if they're American citizens, and has signed legislation that allows him chuck us into Gitmo indefinitely if we're accused of terrorism.
> 
> The Tea Party might have some nostalgia for Bush, particularly in comparison to Obama, but what's that got to do with now?  You left-wingers might not have understood it, but G.W. is a likeable guy, and I think history will be kind to him in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DUDE*, are you right wingers THAT disingenuous or that obtuse?
> 
> EVERYTHING you accuse Obama of doing is what you people vehemently supported when Bush was president. Conservatives defended GITMO, rendition and you folks even supported and defended torture. Those are all conservative beliefs, not liberal beliefs.
> 
> I was against them when Bush did them and I am against them when Obama does them. But you on the other hand are only against them when a Democrats does them, but you cheer when Bush did them? What that is is pure partisan hackery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you're still shilling for Obama.  Go figure.
> Newsflash:  Bush isn't running in this election.
Click to expand...


I am not shilling for anyone. Are Republicans offering anything different, or something even worse, like invading Iran? 

As a matter of fact, I supported President Bush when he sent our troops into Afghanistan after 9/11. When he invaded Iraq is when I began to oppose him.

You folks are nothing but a bunch of right wing hacks who lick the ass of Bush and spit in the face of Obama when he does what you once supported.


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> I am not shilling for anyone. Are Republicans offering anything different, or something even worse, like invading Iran?
> 
> As a matter of fact, I supported President Bush when he sent our troops into Afghanistan after 9/11. When he invaded Iraq is when I began to oppose him.
> 
> You folks are nothing but a bunch of right wing hacks who lick the ass of Bush and spit in the face of Obama when he does what you once supported.



Some of us conservatives didn't want him going into Afghanistan.  It was and still is a mistake.

This country needs the full attention of a competent president.  It's to bad we haven't had one for a while.....a long while.


----------



## MeBelle

:d


----------



## saveliberty

We can't trust the Afghan military counterparts any more.  Time to leave.


----------



## courseofhistory

Murf76 said:


> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main point is that "somebody else did that" is stupid.  Everybody did that...including the guy who "didn't do that"...in fact he probably did more than the load of Obama free-loaders who don't pay federal income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Obama said it very inartfully! But most people know what he meant if they really think about it and many obvisouly don't want to give him some slack.  (BTW, I hated Obama until a few months ago when this women's rights thing went crazy and it got me to thinking that Obama would be a much better steward in that regard and in some others related to social issues).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Are you one of those folks who just can't be free unless Catholics are paying for other people's birth control and abortifacients against their will???
Click to expand...


Where does the Catholic church get its authority to impose its will and beliefs on others who don't believe the same way?  No one is forcing Catholics to go against their will.  They can personally do whatever they like but denying others is wrong.  What if every religion got to impose their beliefs through legislation or in other ways on people who don't share them?  I'm too old to need birth control or abortion but I care about other women.


----------



## chanel

Back to topic...


----------



## saveliberty

So every time Obama uses the words I did this or I will do that, its a lie, because somebody helped him.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> So every time Obama uses the words I did this or I will do that, its a lie, because somebody helped him.



Oh but he doesn't look at it that way.  He is the government!!!!   As such it is HE who creates all wealth and who will rescue us from the evil Republicans and drag us into a bright new future.  He apparently has no plan and no clue what works to do that, but we should trust him because the government loves us and will care for us and create businesses and jobs for us.  And then we will rightfully be so grateful that we will hand over more and more of any income we make so that government can be more and more benevolent to everybody.

The concept is so silly and so insulting if you really think about it, I can't believe anybody with a reasonably normal IQ buys into it.  But apparently a lot of people do.


----------



## saveliberty

Emotion turns normal people into idiots.


----------



## tjvh

saveliberty said:


> Emotion turns normal people into idiots.



Yes... The worst thing that happens in America is when people place their emotions above common sense, and rational thought... Casting votes for people because they act like Movie Stars is not exercising rational thinking.


----------



## Murf76

courseofhistory said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courseofhistory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Obama said it very inartfully! But most people know what he meant if they really think about it and many obvisouly don't want to give him some slack.  (BTW, I hated Obama until a few months ago when this women's rights thing went crazy and it got me to thinking that Obama would be a much better steward in that regard and in some others related to social issues).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Are you one of those folks who just can't be free unless Catholics are paying for other people's birth control and abortifacients against their will???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Catholic church get its authority to impose its will and beliefs on others who don't believe the same way?  No one is forcing Catholics to go against their will.  They can personally do whatever they like but denying others is wrong.  What if every religion got to impose their beliefs through legislation or in other ways on people who don't share them?  I'm too old to need birth control or abortion but I care about other women.
Click to expand...


You don't have a right to simply help yourself to some other citizen's property (money).  Particularly not when it offends their citizen rights to practice their private religious beliefs.

Catholics don't prevent anyone from using birth control or abortifacients.  Nothing they do results in the use of FORCE upon others for the sake of their religious beliefs.  The FORCE is being used against them, by virtue of being made to pay for what someone else's ideology thinks is correct.  Refusing to pay for some woman's contraception isn't committing a direct action against her.  It's a non-action.

Sometimes I'm just flabbergasted at the grotesque nature of the so-called "liberal" ideology, which has ZERO respect for individual citizens, viewing PEOPLE as little more than commodities.  You've got NO RIGHT to take from one citizen, against his conscience, and make him complicit in activities which he believes to be not only morally reprehensible but a sin against his God.  

If you people would bother yourselves for 15 measly minutes to actually contemplate the MEANING of Individual Liberty, maybe you wouldn't think we're all just property of the federal government, little different than Chinese peasants, to be ordered about on the state's arbitrary whims.  But  since you won't, you can't see the dividing line which was meant to protect the sovereignty of the citizen and LIMIT the power of government.

There aren't even enough bad words to describe the WRONG of you people... grotesque, appalling, despicable don't do justice. 
 You have NO constitutional right to fuck with individual citizens in the pursuit of their happiness just so long as their exercise of it doesn't interfere with the like rights of any other individual citizen.  THAT is the meaning of guaranteed liberty.  There's no room in that for forcing people to engage in actions which insult their conscience.

This all leads back to Barack Obama's insane assertion that people don't build their own businesses.  It's the same disgusting insult to the ideals which FOUNDED this country... that people are endowed by God, or Nature if it pleases you, with certain unalienable rights inherent to our condition as human beings.  We're not cogs in some goddamn collectivist machine to serve people who are AFRAID to live their own lives.


----------



## saveliberty

What level of irresponsibility do you have to have in order to justify using other people's money to fund your recreational sex?  I'd prefer to pay for sterilizations for these folks.


----------



## Dick Tuck

saveliberty said:


> What level of irresponsibility do you have to have in order to justify using other people's money to fund your recreational sex?  I'd prefer to pay for sterilizations for these folks.








Did you hear that Romneycare covers abortion services?


----------



## saveliberty

Yep, all that crap shouldn't be on a plan either.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Dick Tuck said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> What level of irresponsibility do you have to have in order to justify using other people's money to fund your recreational sex? I'd prefer to pay for sterilizations for these folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hear that Romneycare covers abortion services?
Click to expand...

 

Well it's bad if it does, but I dont live in Massachusettes, so not the same thing. 
Interesting you brought up Viagra, I do believe it should be covered under it's original purpose (take a guess at what it is used for, and not ED).
Now if it's used for ED it should not be coverd.....The answer was Honest, consistant and kicking your ass


----------



## saveliberty

Pretty sad when the left has to use an Obamacare defense to cover for the major blunder of insulting all the small business owners.  So sad, they can't tell one disaster from another.


----------



## buckeye45_73

buckeye45_73 said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> What level of irresponsibility do you have to have in order to justify using other people's money to fund your recreational sex? I'd prefer to pay for sterilizations for these folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hear that Romneycare covers abortion services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's bad if it does, but I dont live in Massachusettes, so not the same thing.
> Interesting you brought up Viagra, I do believe it should be covered under it's original purpose (take a guess at what it is used for, and not ED).
> Now if it's used for ED it should not be coverd.....The answer was Honest, consistant and kicking your ass
Click to expand...

 

Oh I just checked out the abortion claim, misleading....hmmmm...how would I know that you would try and be misleading? Either you lied in your post or you just gobbled up the assertion like a good little liberal
In MAss the courts ruled stated subsidized health plans HAVE to cover abortion, so since Romneycare is a state plan, it is covered......Nice try and I disagree with Romneycare AND the ruling on abortions. MAybe we should boycott Mass, or maybe we should all have our wives give live bith there (smiliar to the kiss in of homos) just to show em (and yes Im mocking liberals that thought the kiss in was a good idea)


----------



## buckeye45_73

saveliberty said:


> Pretty sad when the left has to use an Obamacare defense to cover for the major blunder of insulting all the small business owners. So sad, they can't tell one disaster from another.


 

yeah they cant run on anything.


----------



## thereisnospoon

buckeye45_73 said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> What level of irresponsibility do you have to have in order to justify using other people's money to fund your recreational sex? I'd prefer to pay for sterilizations for these folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hear that Romneycare covers abortion services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's bad if it does, but I dont live in Massachusettes, so not the same thing.
> Interesting you brought up Viagra, I do believe it should be covered under it's original purpose (take a guess at what it is used for, and not ED).
> Now if it's used for ED it should not be coverd.....The answer was Honest, consistant and kicking your ass
Click to expand...

sildenafil..medicine, pulmonary hypertension (PH) is an increase in blood pressure in the pulmonary artery, pulmonary vein, or pulmonary capillaries, together known as the lung vasculature, leading to shortness of breath, dizziness, fainting, and other symptoms, all of which are exacerbated by exertion. Pulmonary hypertension can be a severe disease with a markedly decreased exercise tolerance and heart failure.


----------



## copsnrobbers

*You didn't get there on your own*

I most certainly did..........


----------



## Listening

Dick Tuck said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> What level of irresponsibility do you have to have in order to justify using other people's money to fund your recreational sex?  I'd prefer to pay for sterilizations for these folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hear that Romneycare covers abortion services?
Click to expand...


So what ?

Romneycare is a state law allowed by the constitution of the State of Mass.

They can do whatever they want.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vidi said:


> Any power not enumerated was given to the states.



If you recognize that, how can you vote for Barack Obama?


----------



## Listening

copsnrobbers said:


> *You didn't get there on your own*
> 
> I most certainly did..........



In spite of the government.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> *DUDE*, are you right wingers THAT disingenuous or that obtuse?



Has the Obama administration added more debt to the nation in 3 1/2 years than Bush, inclusive of wars, did in 8?

Yes or no, hack?



> EVERYTHING you accuse Obama of doing is what you people vehemently supported when Bush was president.



That is a lie, hack.  No one was supporting the merger of corporations like Chrysler, GM, Kaiser, Blue Cross, etc. with the federal government. 

But you leftists act like fascism is a gift from god, that Obama was brilliant to merge GM with the federal government on behalf of the UAW.

Mussolini did the same thing 80 years ago, hack. And the left was praising him, too. 



> Conservatives defended GITMO,



So?

Your little tinhorn dictator vowed to close it day one, why didn't he? 



> rendition and you folks even supported and defended torture. Those are all conservative beliefs, not liberal beliefs.



So why is Gitmo still open, hack?



> I was against them when Bush did them and I am against them when Obama does them.



You are for or against what the party tell you, hack.



> But you on the other hand are only against them when a Democrats does them, but you cheer when Bush did them? What that is is pure partisan hackery.



No one on the right has changed position, hack - we are simply noting the hypocrisy of your Messiah® - which doesn't bother you at all, because you hold party above everything, hack.


----------



## Uncensored2008

courseofhistory said:


> Yes, Obama said it very inartfully! But most people know what he meant



Yes, they sure do.

That's why you fluffers are having an impossible time blowing smoke and covering for him.



> if they really think about it and many obvisouly don't want to give him some slack.  (BTW, I hated Obama until a few months ago when this women's rights thing went crazy and it got me to thinking that Obama would be a much better steward in that regard and in some others related to social issues).



No greater act can one perform but to abort a baby.

Abortion is your god - I understand.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well for sure, none of us got here on our own.  For those of us who weren't aborted, Mom and Dad had to get the process started, Mom had to take total care of us for nine months of pregnancy, and we needed total support from her and others for the first years of our lives after we were born, and some support and help for many years.    Yes there were those who provided role models for us and the lucky among us were parented by competent parents and mentored by competent people.

We ALL share the human experience.  But the President seems to think that those of us who accomplish the most are obligated to all those who chose not to do that.

We don't ALL decide to take the risk--sometimes risking all that we have--to start a business.  We ALL have the choice to choose to do that however.   So for the President to assume that those who do are somehow obligated to everybody else more than anybody else is just ludicrous.


----------



## ConzHateUSA




----------



## American_Jihad

​


----------



## Foxfyre

American_Jihad said:


> ​



Well it's true that the kids didn't make the beach or maintain it for public use.  So I suppose, in the President's strange little world, we all shared in the sand castle.


----------



## Foxfyre

Again, the President is right that we all working together made this great nation what it is.  What he doesn't understand--what he seems incapable of seeing--that it is all of us doing our own thing for our own interests or purposes, more self serving purposes than not, that works together to make our society what it is.   That is the difference between the laizzez-faire economy created by a free people vs a government-controlled economy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> Again, the President is right that we all working together made this great nation what it is.  What he doesn't understand--what he seems incapable of seeing--that it is all of us doing our own thing for our own interests or purposes, more self serving purposes than not, that works together to make our society what it is.   That is the difference between the laizzez-faire economy created by a free people vs a government-controlled economy.



We all grasp that community is needed for prosperity. It is community that allows the specialization of individuals. What Obama cannot grasp, as he has never held a job, is that community is nothing more than the accumulation of individual interests in harmony.

Adam Smith said it best;

{But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. *It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.* We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages. }


----------



## Foxfyre

I use that Adam Smith quotation a lot, Uncensored, because it really does sum up what makes a healthy economy work.  Almost all of us work not to benefit others, but to put money in our own pocket to buy what we want to have.  Even those building the infrastructure aren't doing that out of the goodness of their hearts.  They are paid, with our money, to build it or to see that it is built.

President Obama simply doesn't understand that infrastructure happens because there are people already there who wanted it.  It doesn't happen the other way around.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Listening said:


> copsnrobbers said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You didn't get there on your own*
> 
> I most certainly did..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the government.
Click to expand...

BINGO!!!! Kudos...Adding rep for that comment. 100% spot on.


----------



## P@triot

Dick Tuck said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> What level of irresponsibility do you have to have in order to justify using other people's money to fund your recreational sex?  I'd prefer to pay for sterilizations for these folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hear that Romneycare covers abortion services?
Click to expand...


Vintage idiot liberal argument. Healthcare insurance is expressly for health issues. If you're penis doesn't work, that is a _legitimate_ issue. If you just want to whore around like Sandra Fluke and not get pregnant and not have to pay for it yourself, that is *not* legitimate.

Seriously, only an idiot liberal would require the explanantion of what health insurance is for....


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Rottweiler said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> What level of irresponsibility do you have to have in order to justify using other people's money to fund your recreational sex?  I'd prefer to pay for sterilizations for these folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hear that Romneycare covers abortion services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vintage idiot liberal argument. Healthcare insurance is expressly for health issues. If you're penis doesn't work, that is a _legitimate_ issue. If you just want to whore around like Sandra Fluke and not get pregnant and not have to pay for it yourself, that is *not* legitimate.
> 
> Seriously, only an idiot liberal would require the explanantion of what health insurance is for....
Click to expand...




Proof that filthy liberal women scum are all whores. All they want to do is spread their hairy legs for anyone to have their way with. Fucking whores. Reproduction does not equal health - sorry idiots.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> Again, the President is right that we all working together made this great nation what it is.  What he doesn't understand--what he seems incapable of seeing--that it is all of us doing our own thing for our own interests or purposes, more self serving purposes than not, that works together to make our society what it is.   That is the difference between the laizzez-faire economy created by a free people vs a government-controlled economy.



You are actually saying, what he said..

Go figure...


----------



## P@triot

Bfgrn said:


> I am not shilling for anyone. Are Republicans offering anything different, or something even worse, like invading Iran?
> 
> As a matter of fact, I supported President Bush when he sent our troops into Afghanistan after 9/11. When he invaded Iraq is when I began to oppose him.
> 
> You folks are nothing but a bunch of right wing hacks who lick the ass of Bush and spit in the face of Obama when he does what you once supported.



Sorry _stupid_, but I never supported Marxism. And that is ALL Obama has ever offered or implemented. It's just that you're an ignorant fuck who consciously chooses to close his eyes to the fact. You're a Nazi who blindly follows the Führer at all costs.

Obama wrote an autobiography called "Dreams From My Father". So that begs the question - what were his fathers dreams? Well, if you weren't a nazi following the Führer, you would ask this question and then look into the answer.

For those of you not an ignorant fuck nazi named bfgrn, the answer is: his father was a die-hard marxist who went around the world calling America "the great imperialist" and wrote that America needs to be punished for "extorting" the rest of the world. That to make things "right", America needs to give at least half of it's wealth to the rest of the world to raise them up, while dropping America down, so that all nations were equal (fucking stupid beyond words). He also wrote an article for a newspaper in which he stated government has the right to impose a 100% tax on the people (yes, 100% - you read that right) so long as they provide necessities for the people (again, fucking stupid beyond words).

So what has Obama done? Well, he's banned off shore drilling in the name of "environmentalism". But that's just a shrewd political claim to garner the vote of the tree huggers. The truth is, Obama could give a flying fuck about the environment. How do we know this? Well, because he has given $46 billion per year of American tax payer money to Brazil and other South American nations for off shore drilling. If you cared about the environment, you wouldn't support off shore drilling _anywhere_. But this is what Obama's father taught him - give billions of American money to poorer nations to punish the US and raise them up. Even more than that, this creates an energy surplus in these nations while creating an energy crisis in the US - which is worth far more than the $46 billions per year he's handing them (think trillions).

By the way, this can all be independently verified if you're not a nazi named bgfrn blindly following the Führer and you care to really look into what Obama is doing.... Do some actual research people. Don't take my word for it, and don't take anyone else word for it (I know liberals, this would actually take an effort on your part).


----------



## P@triot

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hear that Romneycare covers abortion services?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vintage idiot liberal argument. Healthcare insurance is expressly for health issues. If you're penis doesn't work, that is a _legitimate_ issue. If you just want to whore around like Sandra Fluke and not get pregnant and not have to pay for it yourself, that is *not* legitimate.
> 
> Seriously, only an idiot liberal would require the explanantion of what health insurance is for....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof that filthy liberal women scum are all whores. All they want to do is spread their hairy legs for anyone to have their way with. Fucking whores. Reproduction does not equal health - sorry idiots.
Click to expand...


And trying to avoid reproduction does not equal a legitimate healthcare issue. I respect the fact that liberals whores are trying to be responsible and not get pregnant. What I don't respect is what lazy, despicable fucking parasites they are expecting everyone else to pay for their whoring activities. If you want to sleep around - knock yourselves out liberal whores. But just learn to work and pay for your own contraception...


----------



## pete

So if you didnt get there or build this or that on your own ... then the piece of shit in office didnt earn the position or the honor of being the first black president. 
But we already knew this ... 
His grand parents didnt deserve the house in Hawaii etc etc this piece of shit is a hypocrite that will lose his unwarranted undeserving job!!


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. That is weird, why the huge give away to Brazil, the oil companies usually pay to get the oil.
2. They have the ocean rigs.
3. Why this hand out?
4. Fucking Obama that piece of shit, is doing what his father said to do.
5. Why is he still in office?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Foxfyre

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the President is right that we all working together made this great nation what it is.  What he doesn't understand--what he seems incapable of seeing--that it is all of us doing our own thing for our own interests or purposes, more self serving purposes than not, that works together to make our society what it is.   That is the difference between the laizzez-faire economy created by a free people vs a government-controlled economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually saying, what he said..
> 
> Go figure...
Click to expand...


No, sorry. I am saying pretty much 180 opposite of what he said.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the President is right that we all working together made this great nation what it is.  What he doesn't understand--what he seems incapable of seeing--that it is all of us doing our own thing for our own interests or purposes, more self serving purposes than not, that works together to make our society what it is.   That is the difference between the laizzez-faire economy created by a free people vs a government-controlled economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually saying, what he said..
> 
> Go figure...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sorry. I am saying pretty much 180 opposite of what he said.
Click to expand...


Funny how people see and hear what they want to, as opposed to what is actually being said...


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually saying, what he said..
> 
> Go figure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry. I am saying pretty much 180 opposite of what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how people see and hear what they want to, as opposed to what is actually being said...
Click to expand...


Correct.

He said...they didn't do that...somebody else built that.

That was what was said.

It's unfortunate the left can't listen because they have their heads up Debbie WS's ass.


----------



## American_Jihad

Foxfyre said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's true that the kids didn't make the beach or maintain it for public use.  So I suppose, in the President's strange little world, we all shared in the sand castle.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. That is weird, why the huge give away to Brazil, the oil companies usually pay to get the oil. *To prop up the rest of the world while bringing down America*
> 2. They have the ocean rigs. *Have no idea what this means (who doesn't have ocean rigs?)*
> 3. Why this hand out? *Again, to prop up the rest of the world while bringing down America*
> 4. Fucking Obama that piece of shit, is doing what his father said to do. *Yes - he was brainwashed to be a marxist. Funny, you'd think he would rebel against a father that abandoned him*
> 5. Why is he still in office? *Because his first term has not ended yet*
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas



See answers above...


----------



## P@triot

Listening said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry. I am saying pretty much 180 opposite of what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how people see and hear what they want to, as opposed to what is actually being said...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> He said...they didn't do that...somebody else built that.
> 
> That was what was said.
> 
> It's unfortunate the left can't listen because they have their heads up Debbie WS's ass.
Click to expand...


Good God that is a horrifying thought! Her face is 1,000x's worse than most people's ass. I can't imagine the horrors of having your face up that hideous creatures awful ass...


----------



## Dr Grump

Listening said:


> Correct.
> 
> He said...they didn't do that...somebody else built that.
> 
> That was what was said.
> 
> It's unfortunate the left can't listen because they have their heads up Debbie WS's ass.




No, he did not say that at all. Go back to the top of the thread and listen to the WHOLE thing. Not the bits that fit your POV....I'll even quote the bits you don't get, and put them in context for you if you like...


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> He said...they didn't do that...somebody else built that.
> 
> That was what was said.
> 
> It's unfortunate the left can't listen because they have their heads up Debbie WS's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that at all. Go back to the top of the thread and listen to the WHOLE thing. Not the bits that fit your POV....I'll even quote the bits you don't get, and put them in context for you if you like...
Click to expand...


Oh, I've enjoyed listening to the whole thing.

As they said...it's worse when you hear it all.

YOU'LL put them in context for me ????   Meaning you'll tell me what you think he said.

Can you even see what a liar you are ?


----------



## Listening

Rottweiler said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how people see and hear what they want to, as opposed to what is actually being said...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> He said...they didn't do that...somebody else built that.
> 
> That was what was said.
> 
> It's unfortunate the left can't listen because they have their heads up Debbie WS's ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good God that is a horrifying thought! Her face is 1,000x's worse than most people's ass. I can't imagine the horrors of having your face up that hideous creatures awful ass...
Click to expand...


It's probably better than kissing her !

blech.....


----------



## oreo

Dr Grump said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> He said...they didn't do that...somebody else built that.
> 
> That was what was said.
> 
> It's unfortunate the left can't listen because they have their heads up Debbie WS's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he did not say that at all. Go back to the top of the thread and listen to the WHOLE thing. Not the bits that fit your POV....I'll even quote the bits you don't get, and put them in context for you if you like...
Click to expand...


Obama stated EXACTLY:

"If you own a business, you didn't build that, someone else made that happen."--Barack Obama






*"If you have no record to run on, you need to paint your opponent as someone people need to run from"--Barack Obama*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Rottweiler said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vintage idiot liberal argument. Healthcare insurance is expressly for health issues. If you're penis doesn't work, that is a _legitimate_ issue. If you just want to whore around like Sandra Fluke and not get pregnant and not have to pay for it yourself, that is *not* legitimate.
> 
> Seriously, only an idiot liberal would require the explanantion of what health insurance is for....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof that filthy liberal women scum are all whores. All they want to do is spread their hairy legs for anyone to have their way with. Fucking whores. Reproduction does not equal health - sorry idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And trying to avoid reproduction does not equal a legitimate healthcare issue. I respect the fact that liberals whores are trying to be responsible and not get pregnant. What I don't respect is what lazy, despicable fucking parasites they are expecting everyone else to pay for their whoring activities. If you want to sleep around - knock yourselves out liberal whores. But just learn to work and pay for your own contraception...
Click to expand...



I agree. Obamacare is ridiculous in its requirement that insurance companies pay for birth control out of their own pockets instead of out of premiums. My wifes insurance pays for birth control but that's different, that money comes out of her premium.

Though I don't think health insurance companies should have to pay for erectile dysfunction for  single men. Single men ought not be having sex anyway, so they don't really need to get a hard on.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually saying, what he said..
> 
> Go figure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry. I am saying pretty much 180 opposite of what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how people see and hear what they want to, as opposed to what is actually being said...
Click to expand...


Not as funny as how people try to twist and turn what their hero said to make it more acceptable.  What he said was that the businessman prospers because of government, that the businessman cannot take credit for what he created, and he owes everybody else for his success.  Now you can try to convulute that any way you want to, but that is what I and most other business owners heard.


----------



## Article 15

Foxfyre said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry. I am saying pretty much 180 opposite of what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how people see and hear what they want to, as opposed to what is actually being said...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as funny as how people try to twist and turn what their hero said to make it more acceptable.  What he said was that the businessman prospers because of government, that the businessman cannot take credit for what he created, and he owes everybody else for his success.  Now you can try to convulute that any way you want to, but that is what I and most other business owners heard.
Click to expand...


Still peddling lies, huh?  Maybe someday you will find a shred of intellectual honesty.  

I'm sure the irony of you talking about people twisting and turning what Obama said is completely lost on you.

Grump is spot on.  

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

- Barack Obama


----------



## Foxfyre

Article 15 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how people see and hear what they want to, as opposed to what is actually being said...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as funny as how people try to twist and turn what their hero said to make it more acceptable.  What he said was that the businessman prospers because of government, that the businessman cannot take credit for what he created, and he owes everybody else for his success.  Now you can try to convulute that any way you want to, but that is what I and most other business owners heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still peddling lies, huh?  Maybe someday you will find a shred of intellectual honesty.
> 
> I'm sure the irony of you talking about people twisting and turning what Obama said is completely lost on you.
> 
> Grump is spot on.
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
> 
> - Barack Obama
Click to expand...


Spreading lies?  How is my interpretation more of a lie than your interpretation?  Go back and listen to the speech in full context.  What was the purpose of it.  1)  to exalt government as the reason businesses prosper and 2) to justify the businessman 'owing' to the government more of what he earns.  No concept of infrastructure and government services being made possible because the businessman was willing to take risks and thereby provided opportunity and jobs for others.  No, the emphasis was that the businessman owes his success to 'the village' i.e. to government.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVXlujHceiM]You Didn't Build That! President Obama Dismisses Individual Achievement - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Article 15

Foxfyre said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as funny as how people try to twist and turn what their hero said to make it more acceptable.  What he said was that the businessman prospers because of government, that the businessman cannot take credit for what he created, and he owes everybody else for his success.  Now you can try to convulute that any way you want to, but that is what I and most other business owners heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still peddling lies, huh?  Maybe someday you will find a shred of intellectual honesty.
> 
> I'm sure the irony of you talking about people twisting and turning what Obama said is completely lost on you.
> 
> Grump is spot on.
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
> 
> - Barack Obama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spreading lies?  How is my interpretation more of a lie than your interpretation?  Go back and listen to the speech into context.  What was the purpose of it.  1)  to exalt government as the reason businesses prosper and 2) to justify the businessman 'owing' to the government more of what he earns.  No concept of infrastructure and government services being made possible because the businessman was willing to take risks and thereby provided opportunity and jobs for others.  No, the emphasis was that the businessman owes his success to government.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVXlujHceiM]You Didn't Build That! President Obama Dismisses Individual Achievement - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I've listened to and read the entire speech a couple of times which is why I know you are full of shit.

Yes, you are lying...you are purposely contorting what he was saying.

But that's what you are.....a petty liar.

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

- Barack Obama


----------



## Foxfyre

Article 15 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still peddling lies, huh?  Maybe someday you will find a shred of intellectual honesty.
> 
> I'm sure the irony of you talking about people twisting and turning what Obama said is completely lost on you.
> 
> Grump is spot on.
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
> 
> - Barack Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spreading lies?  How is my interpretation more of a lie than your interpretation?  Go back and listen to the speech into context.  What was the purpose of it.  1)  to exalt government as the reason businesses prosper and 2) to justify the businessman 'owing' to the government more of what he earns.  No concept of infrastructure and government services being made possible because the businessman was willing to take risks and thereby provided opportunity and jobs for others.  No, the emphasis was that the businessman owes his success to government.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVXlujHceiM]You Didn't Build That! President Obama Dismisses Individual Achievement - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've listened to and read the entire speech a couple of times which is why I know you are full of shit.
> 
> Yes, you are lying...you are purposely contorting what he was saying.
> 
> But that's what you are.....a petty liar.
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
> 
> - Barack Obama
Click to expand...


You can cherry pick one line out of the speech all you want and it won't change the fact that he was telling business owners that they owe the government and therefore government is justified in telling business they need to pay more in taxes.

We don't succeed 'because we do things together'.  We succeed because everybody is free to do their own thing for their own self serving interests and purposes.  But because we have a society in which people are allowed to look after their own self serving interests and purposes, others prosper, have products and services they need, and have jobs so they can support their own families.  Few of us do any of this for the benefit of anybody but ourselves.  And the infrastructure and government services are made possible because we do it, not because government came first.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

*Obama Context Filter, Test #1*

Obama statement. "If youve got a businessyou didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Filter on. "I can't wait until I make the fucking Middle Class suffer and turn them into slaves to the government!  One more term!  Just one more term and I'll destroy this hateful, disgusting country!"

Test Fail

*Obama Context Filter, Test #2*

Obama statement. "If youve got a businessyou didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Filter on. "We are all in this together, by our shared sacrifice we move forward to a workers Paradise"

Test inconclusive

*Obama Context Filter, Test #3*

Obama statement. "If youve got a businessyou didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Filter on. "We are all in this together."

Test Successful


----------



## copsnrobbers

I decided I want to get there on my own again...... or is anyone here willing to invest in me?

I only need a million for this venture.. No guarantee's but a capital investment could return 25% in 24 months to investors. Any players in here or am I on my own again?


----------



## Foxfyre

copsnrobbers said:


> I decided I want to get there on my own again...... or is anyone here willing to invest in me?
> 
> I only need a million for this venture.. No guarantee's but a capital investment could return 25% in 24 months to investors. Any players in here or am I on my own again?



Depends on how good a risk you are, how reliable your projections, and whether an investor has the venture capital to invest in you.  I am pretty darn sure no venture capitalist worth his salt will invest in you if he thinks the odds are not strongly in his favor that he will profit himself by investing in you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Very few people are going to buy your product or use your service if they don't need them.  And despite people of conscience making an intentional effort to support what they considered a free speech issue with Chick-fil-a, most of us do not buy stuff to benefit the businessman.  They buy it for their own purposes.   Nor does the businessman provide a product or service for the benefit of the customer.  He provides it to put money in his own pocket.  The fact that he offers a product or service that others need is secondary to his primary motive, but helps him accomplish his primary motive.



> Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
> 
> 
> *If you have doubts about Adam Smith's prediction, ask yourself which areas of our lives are we the most satisfied and those with most complaints. Would they be profit motivated arenas such supermarkets, video or clothing stores, or be nonprofit motivated government-operated arenas such as public schools, postal delivery or motor vehicle registration? By the way, how many of you would be in favor of Congress running our supermarkets?* Walter Williams


----------



## American_Jihad

"You telling me I didn't plant this garden!"​


----------



## Foxfyre

American_Jihad said:


> "You telling me I didn't plant this garden!"​



LOL.  Funny, but not that great an illustration.  I'm pretty sure we the taxpayer paid for somebody to plot it out, rototill it, rake it out, and prepare the rows for planting.  I would bet my bottom dollar Michelle didn't do that.  I would be really surprised if she did the watering and weeding too.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

American_Jihad said:


> "You telling me I didn't plant this garden!"​



love your avie, kill any liberals today?

make a note


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Foxfyre said:


> Again, the President is right that we all working together made this great nation what it is.  What he doesn't understand--what he seems incapable of seeing--that it is all of us doing our own thing for our own interests or purposes, more self serving purposes than not, that works together to make our society what it is.   That is the difference between the laizzez-faire economy created by a free people vs a government-controlled economy.





What Mr Obama doesn't understand is, the government didn't build that business. A group of revolutionaries with a vision for a country, which desired each and every man a life with the freedom to persue their *own* *individual* dream (without the hindrance of a dictating all powerful government) did. They paid for it with their own blood, in a treasonist act during a time when a overdemanding tyrant of a King desired complete control over the colonists' lives.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

what is a shakle?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ConzHateUSA said:


> what is a shakle?



ask Joe Biden


----------



## Foxfyre

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the President is right that we all working together made this great nation what it is.  What he doesn't understand--what he seems incapable of seeing--that it is all of us doing our own thing for our own interests or purposes, more self serving purposes than not, that works together to make our society what it is.   That is the difference between the laizzez-faire economy created by a free people vs a government-controlled economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Mr Obama doesn't understand is, the government didn't build that business. A group of revolutionaries with a vision for a country, which desired each and every man a life with the freedom to persue their *own* *individual* dream (without the hindrance of a dictating all powerful government) did. They paid for it with their own blood, in a treasonist act during a time when a overdemanding tyrant of a King desired complete control over the colonists' lives.
Click to expand...


I actually didn't complete my thought up there.  I should have said that the President is right that we all working together in the same place made this great nation what it is - but - that is not the same thing as 'doing everything together'.  The baker doesn't go into business so that people can have bread and other baked goods.  He goes into business with the reasoned expectation (or maybe hope) that people will want and buy his bread and other baked goods and therefore prosper him,  the baker.

The notion that we 'all work together' so that the baker can have a bakery would indeed suggest that we all should share in his profits.  However, the President doesn't seem to think that we are all equally obligated to make it prosper, to maintain it, to pay the baker's bills, or meet the payroll, or, if the business fails, none of the rest of us are supposed to take the loss of his investment in a building, ovens, counters, equipment, display cases, or the seed money necessary to run the business before he started realizing profits.

The President seems to think we are entitled to a greater portion of his profits.  But if that should hasten him going out of business, the President doesn't seem to think we are responsibile for him losing everything he has.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

copsnrobbers said:


> I decided I want to get there on my own again...... or is anyone here willing to invest in me?
> 
> I only need a million for this venture.. No guarantee's but a capital investment could return 25% in 24 months to investors. Any players in here or am I on my own again?



LOL......good one.....

if according to Obama everybody did everything together then where is the damn help you need to create your....i mean "our"....new business.....?


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry. I am saying pretty much 180 opposite of what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how people see and hear what they want to, as opposed to what is actually being said...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as funny as how people try to twist and turn what their hero said to make it more acceptable.  *What he said was that the businessman prospers because of government, that the businessman cannot take credit for what he created, and he owes everybody else for his success*.  Now you can try to convulute that any way you want to, but that is what I and most other business owners heard.
Click to expand...


Actually, that wasn't what he was saying at all in the larger context of the speech. You see, context matters. You are just taking one part of his speech, highlighting it, and saying that is what the speech is about. That would be like somebody saying "I think a mother should be allowed to abort if her life is in danger" and then a partisan hack quoting that piece but cutting off the last six words.

But even then you are wrong. You don't even have the point of his speech right and isn't mentioned in the bolded part I have quoted from your post. Go back and listen to it again. The speech was about one of what Franklin called are two certainties in life. And it's not death he is talking about.

You see Foxy, posting something on these forums and having your circle jerk agree with you, doesn't mean you're right. It just means the right-wing schills agree with you. Colour me surprised. Just because they do, doesn't mean the lefties (obviously), centrists, normal and independents do.

And Obama is far from my hero. He is an Ok president, but a marked improvement on the below average Joe who was in the WH before him. I've already gone on record saying that Romney becoming president wouldn't be the end of the world. He might even be half decent....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Actually, that wasn't what he was saying at all in the larger context of the speech.



Still lying Gump?

For a sheep shagger, you sure have a big investment in getting that pile of shit Obama reelected.

 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! - Fucktard Obama.




> You see, context matters.



Yeah, it sure does. Context is what makes what the filthy demagogue Obama said have such impact.



> You are just taking one part of his speech, highlighting it, and saying that is what the speech is about. That would be like somebody saying "I think a mother should be allowed to abort if her life is in danger" and then a partisan hack quoting that piece but cutting off the last six words.



We've all listened to the speech in context, and seen Obama scold small business. You are desperately trying to spin this, but it isn't going away.



> But even then you are wrong. You don't even have the point of his speech right and isn't mentioned in the bolded part I have quoted from your post. Go back and listen to it again. The speech was about one of what Franklin called are two certainties in life. And it's not death he is talking about.
> 
> You see Foxy, posting something on these forums and having your circle jerk agree with you, doesn't mean you're right. It just means the right-wing schills agree with you. Colour me surprised. Just because they do, doesn't mean the lefties (obviously), centrists, normal and independents do.
> 
> And Obama is far from my hero. He is an Ok president, but a marked improvement on the below average Joe who was in the WH before him. I've already gone on record saying that Romney becoming president wouldn't be the end of the world. He might even be half decent....



Hey, at least that filthy demagogue Obama didn't accuse Romney of murder...

Oh, wait....


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that wasn't what he was saying at all in the larger context of the speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still lying Gump?
> 
> For a sheep shagger, you sure have a big investment in getting that pile of shit Obama reelected.
> 
> &#8220;I&#8217;m always struck by people who think &#8216;well, it must be because I was just so smart&#8217;. There are a lot of smart people out there!  &#8216;It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.&#8217; Let me tell you something&#8212;there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there!&#8221; - Fucktard Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, context matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it sure does. Context is what makes what the filthy demagogue Obama said have such impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just taking one part of his speech, highlighting it, and saying that is what the speech is about. That would be like somebody saying "I think a mother should be allowed to abort if her life is in danger" and then a partisan hack quoting that piece but cutting off the last six words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've all listened to the speech in context, and seen Obama scold small business. You are desperately trying to spin this, but it isn't going away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even then you are wrong. You don't even have the point of his speech right and isn't mentioned in the bolded part I have quoted from your post. Go back and listen to it again. The speech was about one of what Franklin called are two certainties in life. And it's not death he is talking about.
> 
> You see Foxy, posting something on these forums and having your circle jerk agree with you, doesn't mean you're right. It just means the right-wing schills agree with you. Colour me surprised. Just because they do, doesn't mean the lefties (obviously), centrists, normal and independents do.
> 
> And Obama is far from my hero. He is an Ok president, but a marked improvement on the below average Joe who was in the WH before him. I've already gone on record saying that Romney becoming president wouldn't be the end of the world. He might even be half decent....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, at least that filthy demagogue Obama didn't accuse Romney of murder...
> 
> Oh, wait....
Click to expand...


Hey Foxy: Exhibit A ^^^^^


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Hey Foxy: Exhibit A ^^^^^



After Obama unleashed this latest demagoguery, accusing Romney of murder, I have nothing but contempt for the pile of shit.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Article 15 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how people see and hear what they want to, as opposed to what is actually being said...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as funny as how people try to twist and turn what their hero said to make it more acceptable.  What he said was that the businessman prospers because of government, that the businessman cannot take credit for what he created, and he owes everybody else for his success.  Now you can try to convulute that any way you want to, but that is what I and most other business owners heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still peddling lies, huh?  Maybe someday you will find a shred of intellectual honesty.
> 
> I'm sure the irony of you talking about people twisting and turning what Obama said is completely lost on you.
> 
> Grump is spot on.
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
> 
> - Barack Obama
Click to expand...

Not a lie...It's what Obama SAID....You Obama sycophants have been scrambling and spinning since Obama vomited this quote.....". If youve got a businessyou didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."....
In other words entrepreneurs, government is responsible. 
SO please, go accuse someone else of distorting the truth. Look in the mirror.
Look, this is academic. Conservatives are pissed off and energized. 
Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania are huge swing states which all went to Obama in 2008. Those  states are now dead heats or toss ups.
WHy do you think the Obama camp is going the with the personal attack route instead of Obama's record and the issues?
Please. Wake up. Your side is losing the debate because they deserve to lose the debate.
Here's the fixes...Shitty economy. falling US Dollar, no appreciable job growth, sluggish GDP, rising gas and food prices, falling home values....
For the Romney camp, that's like having an arsenal of laser guided smart bombs.
Now, you will respond with some comment about how Obama is doing a wonderful job and all is well.


----------



## Dr Grump

thereisnospoon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as funny as how people try to twist and turn what their hero said to make it more acceptable.  What he said was that the businessman prospers because of government, that the businessman cannot take credit for what he created, and he owes everybody else for his success.  Now you can try to convulute that any way you want to, but that is what I and most other business owners heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still peddling lies, huh?  Maybe someday you will find a shred of intellectual honesty.
> 
> I'm sure the irony of you talking about people twisting and turning what Obama said is completely lost on you.
> 
> Grump is spot on.
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
> 
> - Barack Obama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a lie...It's what Obama SAID....You Obama sycophants have been scrambling and spinning since Obama vomited this quote.....". If you&#8217;ve got a business&#8212;you didn&#8217;t build that. Somebody else made that happen."....
> In other words entrepreneurs, government is responsible.
> SO please, go accuse someone else of distorting the truth. Look in the mirror.
> Look, this is academic. Conservatives are pissed off and energized.
> Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania are huge swing states which all went to Obama in 2008. Those  states are now dead heats or toss ups.
> WHy do you think the Obama camp is going the with the personal attack route instead of Obama's record and the issues?
> Please. Wake up. Your side is losing the debate because they deserve to lose the debate.
> Here's the fixes...Shitty economy. falling US Dollar, no appreciable job growth, sluggish GDP, rising gas and food prices, falling home values....
> For the Romney camp, that's like having an arsenal of laser guided smart bombs.
> Now, you will respond with some comment about how Obama is doing a wonderful job and all is well.
Click to expand...


Where is that "blah, blah, blah" emoticon when you need it.  Oh, here is is:


----------



## thereisnospoon

Dr Grump said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still peddling lies, huh?  Maybe someday you will find a shred of intellectual honesty.
> 
> I'm sure the irony of you talking about people twisting and turning what Obama said is completely lost on you.
> 
> Grump is spot on.
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
> 
> - Barack Obama
> 
> 
> 
> Not a lie...It's what Obama SAID....You Obama sycophants have been scrambling and spinning since Obama vomited this quote.....". If youve got a businessyou didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen."....
> In other words entrepreneurs, government is responsible.
> SO please, go accuse someone else of distorting the truth. Look in the mirror.
> Look, this is academic. Conservatives are pissed off and energized.
> Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania are huge swing states which all went to Obama in 2008. Those  states are now dead heats or toss ups.
> WHy do you think the Obama camp is going the with the personal attack route instead of Obama's record and the issues?
> Please. Wake up. Your side is losing the debate because they deserve to lose the debate.
> Here's the fixes...Shitty economy. falling US Dollar, no appreciable job growth, sluggish GDP, rising gas and food prices, falling home values....
> For the Romney camp, that's like having an arsenal of laser guided smart bombs.
> Now, you will respond with some comment about how Obama is doing a wonderful job and all is well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that "blah, blah, blah" emoticon when you need it.  Oh, here is is:
Click to expand...

And there ya have it. No rebuttal. 
Just you sticking your unwashed digits in your ears and yelling LA LA LA...
Ok. Fine. But don't say you we'rent warned when you wake up in early November and realize Obama lost the election.


----------



## Dr Grump

thereisnospoon said:


> And there ya have it. No rebuttal.
> Just you sticking your unwashed digits in your ears and yelling LA LA LA...
> Ok. Fine. But don't say you we'rent warned when you wake up in early November and realize Obama lost the election.



Most of my posts on this thread are not only rebuttal, but factually based. Not some partisan hackery like you and the peanut gallery.

As I said, the only people convinced of your POV are those that think like you. IOW, other conservative neocon whackjobs....shrug


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Foxfyre said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the President is right that we all working together made this great nation what it is.  What he doesn't understand--what he seems incapable of seeing--that it is all of us doing our own thing for our own interests or purposes, more self serving purposes than not, that works together to make our society what it is.   That is the difference between the laizzez-faire economy created by a free people vs a government-controlled economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Mr Obama doesn't understand is, the government didn't build that business. A group of revolutionaries with a vision for a country, which desired each and every man a life with the freedom to persue their *own* *individual* dream (without the hindrance of a dictating all powerful government) did. They paid for it with their own blood, in a treasonist act during a time when a overdemanding tyrant of a King desired complete control over the colonists' lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually didn't complete my thought up there.  I should have said that the President is right that we all working together in the same place made this great nation what it is - but - that is not the same thing as 'doing everything together'.  The baker doesn't go into business so that people can have bread and other baked goods.  He goes into business with the reasoned expectation (or maybe hope) that people will want and buy his bread and other baked goods and therefore prosper him,  the baker.
> 
> The notion that we 'all work together' so that the baker can have a bakery would indeed suggest that we all should share in his profits.  However, the President doesn't seem to think that we are all equally obligated to make it prosper, to maintain it, to pay the baker's bills, or meet the payroll, or, if the business fails, none of the rest of us are supposed to take the loss of his investment in a building, ovens, counters, equipment, display cases, or the seed money necessary to run the business before he started realizing profits.
> 
> The President seems to think we are entitled to a greater portion of his profits.  But if that should hasten him going out of business, the President doesn't seem to think we are responsibile for him losing everything he has.
Click to expand...



The problem is that our Founders created a nation where each individual would have the same opportunity to achieve this "American dream". Now Obama wants to punish those who work hard, put in all the excess hours (over a 40 year week) that most wouldn't put forth themselves to create a business and keep it afloat . . . . then turn around a reward those who don't put in the effort for themselves. 

There was a time "hobos" were looked down upon, and those looking for work would do anything possible to find a way to provide for themselves without a "hand-out". Back then those who struggled and WORKED were deemed to have more _character_ and become a better example for their kids when YOU earned your own way, rather than collect what you didn't work for. What was once considered shameful in the eyes of others, has become an encouraging pat-on-the-back "nice try" check from the Federal Government. The hobos of old really missed out on something good from this ideology way of thinking, under this administrative government.


----------



## Dr Grump

Yet another poster lost in the past..


----------



## Patriot555

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Mr Obama doesn't understand is, the government didn't build that business. A group of revolutionaries with a vision for a country, which desired each and every man a life with the freedom to persue their *own* *individual* dream (without the hindrance of a dictating all powerful government) did. They paid for it with their own blood, in a treasonist act during a time when a overdemanding tyrant of a King desired complete control over the colonists' lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually didn't complete my thought up there.  I should have said that the President is right that we all working together in the same place made this great nation what it is - but - that is not the same thing as 'doing everything together'.  The baker doesn't go into business so that people can have bread and other baked goods.  He goes into business with the reasoned expectation (or maybe hope) that people will want and buy his bread and other baked goods and therefore prosper him,  the baker.
> 
> The notion that we 'all work together' so that the baker can have a bakery would indeed suggest that we all should share in his profits.  However, the President doesn't seem to think that we are all equally obligated to make it prosper, to maintain it, to pay the baker's bills, or meet the payroll, or, if the business fails, none of the rest of us are supposed to take the loss of his investment in a building, ovens, counters, equipment, display cases, or the seed money necessary to run the business before he started realizing profits.
> 
> The President seems to think we are entitled to a greater portion of his profits.  But if that should hasten him going out of business, the President doesn't seem to think we are responsibile for him losing everything he has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that our Founders created a nation where each individual would have the same opportunity to achieve this "American dream". Now Obama wants to punish those who work hard, put in all the excess hours (over a 40 year week) that most wouldn't put forth themselves to create a business and keep it afloat . . . . then turn around a reward those who don't put in the effort for themselves.
> 
> There was a time "hobos" were looked down upon, and those looking for work would do anything possible to find a way to provide for themselves without a "hand-out". Back then those who struggled and WORKED were deemed to have more _character_ and become a better example for their kids when YOU earned your own way, rather than collect what you didn't work for. What was once considered shameful in the eyes of others, has become an encouraging pat-on-the-back "nice try" check from the Federal Government. The hobos of old really missed out on something good from this ideology way of thinking, under this administrative government.
Click to expand...



Well said. Whatever happened to WORKING for your money? No more handouts.


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> Yet another poster lost in the past..



Better than living in a fantasy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Yet another poster lost in the past..



 

What about you, sheep shagger? You keep trying to turn the clock back to 1917 Moscow.


----------



## Listening

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another poster lost in the past..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about you, sheep shagger? You keep trying to turn the clock back to 1917 Moscow.
Click to expand...


Sheep Shagger ??????


----------



## Oddball

Didn&#39;t Build That - YouTube


----------



## thereisnospoon

Dr Grump said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there ya have it. No rebuttal.
> Just you sticking your unwashed digits in your ears and yelling LA LA LA...
> Ok. Fine. But don't say you we'rent warned when you wake up in early November and realize Obama lost the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my posts on this thread are not only rebuttal, but factually based. Not some partisan hackery like you and the peanut gallery.
> 
> As I said, the only people convinced of your POV are those that think like you. IOW, other conservative neocon whackjobs....shrug
Click to expand...


"Where is that "blah, blah, blah" emoticon when you need it. Oh, here is is:  "

THAT is a factual rebuttal?.....You are one interesting individual. And I do not mean that in a good way.
What's really amusing is how you imply that you are NOT partisan....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Most of my posts on this thread are not only rebuttal, but factually based.



Most of your posts on this board are complete idiocy, sheep shagger.

Occasional, you fall short of the mark and fail to complete.



> Not some partisan hackery like you and the peanut gallery.



ROFL

Yep, that's you, just as likely to critique Obama - I mean you would, except he's just so damned perfect, right bah bah boi?



> As I said, the only people convinced of your POV are those that think like you. IOW, other conservative neocon whackjobs....shrug



And the only ones finding you moderately intelligible are leftist whackjobs.

Honestly Gump, you're an idiot.

True story.


----------



## kaz

Article 15 said:


> I'm sure the irony of you talking about people twisting and turning what Obama said is completely lost on you.
> 
> Grump is spot on.
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
> 
> - Barack Obama



It wasn't government.  As a multiple business owner I can tell you that I succeed with the support of my family, buy in from my staff and with God's help.  But government is there every step of the way trying to trip me and bleed me dry.


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> Most of my posts on this thread are not only rebuttal, but factually based. Not some partisan hackery like you and the peanut gallery.
> 
> As I said, the only people convinced of your POV are those that think like you. IOW, other conservative neocon whackjobs....shrug



The only facts you post are the ones you pull from your ass.


----------



## Katzndogz

kaz said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the irony of you talking about people twisting and turning what Obama said is completely lost on you.
> 
> Grump is spot on.
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
> 
> - Barack Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't government.  As a multiple business owner I can tell you that I succeed with the support of my family, buy in from my staff and with God's help.  But government is there every step of the way trying to trip me and bleed me dry.
Click to expand...


You noticed that as soon as you comply with one government regulation, they find another one.

That's what I found out too and why I just closed the damn business.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

kaz said:


> It wasn't government.  As a multiple business owner I can tell you that I succeed with the support of my family, buy in from my staff and with God's help.  But government is there every step of the way trying to trip me and bleed me dry.



liar
bullshit
liar


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't government.  As a multiple business owner I can tell you that I succeed with the support of my family, buy in from my staff and with God's help.  But government is there every step of the way trying to trip me and bleed me dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liar
> bullshit
> liar
Click to expand...


Outstanding !

Compelling !

So well put together !

How can anyone argue with such deep and complete logic ?

I tip my hat to you, sir.


----------



## ConzHateUSA

Listening said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't government.  As a multiple business owner I can tell you that I succeed with the support of my family, buy in from my staff and with God's help.  But government is there every step of the way trying to trip me and bleed me dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liar
> bullshit
> liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outstanding !
> 
> Compelling !
> 
> So well put together !
> 
> How can anyone argue with such deep and complete logic ?
> 
> I tip my hat to you, sir.
Click to expand...


puke

blah

i hate Black people

puke

Blah

Obama is a socialist

puke

blah

Obama is a commie

puke

blah


----------



## Listening

ConzHateUSA said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> 
> liar
> bullshit
> liar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outstanding !
> 
> Compelling !
> 
> So well put together !
> 
> How can anyone argue with such deep and complete logic ?
> 
> I tip my hat to you, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> puke
> 
> blah
> 
> i hate Black people
> 
> puke
> 
> Blah
> 
> Obama is a socialist
> 
> puke
> 
> blah
> 
> Obama is a commie
> 
> puke
> 
> blah
Click to expand...


I would guess you are a college professor that teaches philosophy (advanced logic).

You are just too good !


----------



## Foxfyre

Katzndogz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the irony of you talking about people twisting and turning what Obama said is completely lost on you.
> 
> Grump is spot on.
> 
> "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
> 
> - Barack Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't government.  As a multiple business owner I can tell you that I succeed with the support of my family, buy in from my staff and with God's help.  But government is there every step of the way trying to trip me and bleed me dry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You noticed that as soon as you comply with one government regulation, they find another one.
> 
> That's what I found out too and why I just closed the damn business.
Click to expand...


The regulations weren't so much the onerous part of our business, but the sheer volume of paperwork required by government can crush a small business.  And because we were dependent on the success of others for our success, the crushing regulations that affected other small businesses also affected us.  As the economy compressed and collapsed on some fronts, our bottom line was also affected.   When Obama policies continued to make it almost impossible for a steady recovery to happen, it was no longer fun.  And because it just wasn't profitable enough to continue our business when it wasn't fun, we suspended all operations and have effectively retired.

So how about that Mr. President?   If you want the credit for us starting up our business, do you also accept the credit for us closing it down?


----------



## kaz

ConzHateUSA said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't government.  As a multiple business owner I can tell you that I succeed with the support of my family, buy in from my staff and with God's help.  But government is there every step of the way trying to trip me and bleed me dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liar
> bullshit
> liar
Click to expand...


You are obviously not a business owner


----------



## amrchaos

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't government.  As a multiple business owner I can tell you that I succeed with the support of my family, buy in from my staff and with God's help.  But government is there every step of the way trying to trip me and bleed me dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You noticed that as soon as you comply with one government regulation, they find another one.
> 
> That's what I found out too and why I just closed the damn business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The regulations weren't so much the onerous part of our business, but the sheer volume of paperwork required by government can crush a small business.  And because we were dependent on the success of others for our success, the crushing regulations that affected other small businesses also affected us.  As the economy compressed and collapsed on some fronts, our bottom line was also affected.   When Obama policies continued to make it almost impossible for a steady recovery to happen, it was no longer fun.  And because it just wasn't profitable enough to continue our business when it wasn't fun, we suspended all operations and have effectively retired.
> 
> So how about that Mr. President?   If you want the credit for us starting up our business, do you also accept the credit for us closing it down?
Click to expand...


Given the amount of paperwork and regulations that affect your small business, how would you feel about a progressive regulatory scale on regulations such as

The smaller the company, the less regulations that should be placed on it??

(This is only a theoretical question on governmental policies.  A mere hypothetical that could, if applied, help allow small business to flourish in our economy.)


----------



## Katzndogz

amrchaos said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You noticed that as soon as you comply with one government regulation, they find another one.
> 
> That's what I found out too and why I just closed the damn business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The regulations weren't so much the onerous part of our business, but the sheer volume of paperwork required by government can crush a small business.  And because we were dependent on the success of others for our success, the crushing regulations that affected other small businesses also affected us.  As the economy compressed and collapsed on some fronts, our bottom line was also affected.   When Obama policies continued to make it almost impossible for a steady recovery to happen, it was no longer fun.  And because it just wasn't profitable enough to continue our business when it wasn't fun, we suspended all operations and have effectively retired.
> 
> So how about that Mr. President?   If you want the credit for us starting up our business, do you also accept the credit for us closing it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the amount of paperwork and regulations that affect your small business, how would you feel about a progressive regulatory scale on regulations such as
> 
> The smaller the company, the less regulations that should be placed on it??
> 
> (This is only a theoretical question on governmental policies.  A mere hypothetical that could, if applied, help allow small business to flourish in our economy.)
Click to expand...


It might help small business to flourish, but it would prevent that business from growing.   A small business would grow right up to the point where it reached the government stonewall of regulations and paperwork, then stop.


----------



## Listening

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't government.  As a multiple business owner I can tell you that I succeed with the support of my family, buy in from my staff and with God's help.  But government is there every step of the way trying to trip me and bleed me dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You noticed that as soon as you comply with one government regulation, they find another one.
> 
> That's what I found out too and why I just closed the damn business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The regulations weren't so much the onerous part of our business, but the sheer volume of paperwork required by government can crush a small business.  And because we were dependent on the success of others for our success, the crushing regulations that affected other small businesses also affected us.  As the economy compressed and collapsed on some fronts, our bottom line was also affected.   When Obama policies continued to make it almost impossible for a steady recovery to happen, it was no longer fun.  And because it just wasn't profitable enough to continue our business when it wasn't fun, we suspended all operations and have effectively retired.
> 
> So how about that Mr. President?   If you want the credit for us starting up our business, do you also accept the credit for us closing it down?
Click to expand...


I've worked with some small businesses that were out in the hinterlands.

They just blow off the regulations.

One had a rather large warehouse constructed with NO building permits.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ConzHateUSA said:


> liar
> bullshit
> liar



Fuck off, troll.


----------



## Uncensored2008

kaz said:


> You are obviously not a business owner



He's not out of Jr. High yet. He's only 35 and living in moms basement. Give him time!


----------



## Foxfyre

amrchaos said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You noticed that as soon as you comply with one government regulation, they find another one.
> 
> That's what I found out too and why I just closed the damn business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The regulations weren't so much the onerous part of our business, but the sheer volume of paperwork required by government can crush a small business.  And because we were dependent on the success of others for our success, the crushing regulations that affected other small businesses also affected us.  As the economy compressed and collapsed on some fronts, our bottom line was also affected.   When Obama policies continued to make it almost impossible for a steady recovery to happen, it was no longer fun.  And because it just wasn't profitable enough to continue our business when it wasn't fun, we suspended all operations and have effectively retired.
> 
> So how about that Mr. President?   If you want the credit for us starting up our business, do you also accept the credit for us closing it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the amount of paperwork and regulations that affect your small business, how would you feel about a progressive regulatory scale on regulations such as
> 
> The smaller the company, the less regulations that should be placed on it??
> 
> (This is only a theoretical question on governmental policies.  A mere hypothetical that could, if applied, help allow small business to flourish in our economy.)
Click to expand...


In the past I have had employees who refused a small raise because it would put them just over the line into the next graduated tax bracket and cost them more in taxes than the amount of their raise.  They preferred to wait until they would be eligible for a larger raise and therefore would enjoy increased income.

It is the same with government regulaltion.   I have run into employers who have 40 or more employees but fewer than 50 who are not now willing to hire that 50th employee for fear of falling under Obamacare requirements for employers with 50 or more employees.  That limits the employer's willingness to grow and no doubt is preventing some people from having jobs.

Unless the rules, regs, and taxes are reasonable and even across the board, there will be incentives for some NOT to grow, not to expand, not to prosper beyond a given level.


----------



## American_Jihad

http://didntbuildthat.com/

*CNN's Acosta Tries to Put Obama's 'You Didn't Build That' In Context*

By Matt Hadro
August 28, 2012


CNN's Jim Acosta tried to add some context to President Obama's infamous "you didn't build that" comment, during Tuesday's GOP convention coverage.

"But wasn't he talking about you need roads, you need bridges, get the supplies to your business," Acosta pressed Newt Gingrich, who scoffed at the Obama campaign's explanation as "total baloney." [Video below the break.]


Acosta had first asked about Tuesday night's GOP Convention theme of "We Built It," giving the Obama campaign's response.

"The theme tonight is 'We Built It.' There's a sign behind you that says it, it's on the walls here. The Obama campaign says 'Hey wait a minute, you took that out of context. That's taken out of context'," Acosta pressed Gingrich. "I think that's such total baloney," sounded Gingrich.

A transcript of the exchange, which aired during CNN's Republican National Convention coverage on August 28 at 8:42 p.m. EDT, is as follows:

---



Read more: CNN's Acosta Tries to Put Obama's 'You Didn't Build That' In Context | NewsBusters.org

http://didntbuildthat.com/

...


----------



## bucs90

If people truly dont need ANYONE to aid or help them.........then why is the GOP trying so hard to convince us how much we need them?


----------



## Meister

bucs90 said:


> If people truly dont need ANYONE to aid or help them.........then why is the GOP trying so hard to convince us how much we need them?



When you were a "hard right conservative", how would you have answered your question?


----------



## thereisnospoon

American_Jihad said:


> *CNN's Acosta Tries to Put Obama's 'You Didn't Build That' In Context*
> 
> By Matt Hadro
> August 28, 2012
> 
> 
> CNN's Jim Acosta tried to add some context to President Obama's infamous "you didn't build that" comment, during Tuesday's GOP convention coverage.
> 
> "But wasn't he talking about you need roads, you need bridges, get the supplies to your business," Acosta pressed Newt Gingrich, who scoffed at the Obama campaign's explanation as "total baloney." [Video below the break.]
> 
> 
> Acosta had first asked about Tuesday night's GOP Convention theme of "We Built It," giving the Obama campaign's response.
> 
> "The theme tonight is 'We Built It.' There's a sign behind you that says it, it's on the walls here. The Obama campaign says 'Hey wait a minute, you took that out of context. That's taken out of context'," Acosta pressed Gingrich. "I think that's such total baloney," sounded Gingrich.
> 
> A transcript of the exchange, which aired during CNN's Republican National Convention coverage on August 28 at 8:42 p.m. EDT, is as follows:
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: CNN's Acosta Tries to Put Obama's 'You Didn't Build That' In Context | NewsBusters.org


The more the Obama supporters try to spin this, the worse it gets for Obama.


----------



## Foxfyre

After two nights of the GOP convention in which speech after speech after speech is peppered with "And yes, Mr. President, he/she/I DID build that!!!", I'm guessing that President Obama is sore from kicking himself for giving the GOP that line.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> After two nights of the GOP convention in which speech after speech after speech is peppered with "And yes, Mr. President, he/she/I DID build that!!!", I'm guessing that President Obama is sore from kicking himself for giving the GOP that line.


Every time the GOP tells that lie it shows the American people just how little Willard Mitt THE Twit thinks they are able to see through his lies.


----------



## Sactowndog

CrusaderFrank said:


> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> Dems are the American't Party



What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.  

I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."


----------



## Foxfyre

Sactowndog said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> Dems are the American't Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
Click to expand...


Several speakers did address that.  And pointed out that government infrastructure exists because private enterprise is successful. and pays for that infrastructure.  It simply does not happen the other way around.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> Dems are the American't Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Several speakers did address that*.  And pointed out that government infrastructure exists because private enterprise is successful. and pays for that infrastructure.  It simply does not happen the other way around.
Click to expand...

And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Several speakers did address that*.  And pointed out that government infrastructure exists because private enterprise is successful. and pays for that infrastructure.  It simply does not happen the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.
Click to expand...


A tax payer funded stadium built with taxes by private businesses and the people they employ.


----------



## Sactowndog

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Several speakers did address that*.  And pointed out that government infrastructure exists because private enterprise is successful. and pays for that infrastructure.  It simply does not happen the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A tax payer funded stadium built with taxes by private businesses and the people they employ.
Click to expand...


Because in previous generations the wealthy realized they had an obligation to pay taxes and sustain and enhance a system for the next generation.  Obama is right, none of them did it on their own.  All of us stood on the shoulders of generations that came before us and funded a system and infrastructure that allowed us (and my friend) to do what they have done.  

Obama is right.  This statement shouldn't even be a debate.  It discredits those who came before us.  We should be acting the same and not pushing to eliminate capital gains taxes completely when we know the gains are coming from overseas portfolios and do benefit the US with jobs at all.  The wealthy currently carry the lowest tax burden since 1900.  

This debate is as much a referendum of who we want to be.  Do we want to be like or forefathers or do we want to be like a Latin American banana republic where the successful look out for themselves and their families and that is where it stops.


----------



## Listening

Sactowndog said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A tax payer funded stadium built with taxes by private businesses and the people they employ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in previous generations the wealthy realized they had an obligation to pay taxes and sustain and enhance a system for the next generation.  Obama is right, none of them did it on their own.  All of us stood on the shoulders of generations that came before us and funded a system and infrastructure that allowed us (and my friend) to do what they have done.
> 
> Obama is right.  This statement shouldn't even be a debate.  It discredits those who came before us.  We should be acting the same and not pushing to eliminate capital gains taxes completely when we know the gains are coming from overseas portfolios and do benefit the US with jobs at all.  The wealthy currently carry the lowest tax burden since 1900.
> 
> This debate is as much a referendum of who we want to be.  Do we want to be like or forefathers or do we want to be like a Latin American banana republic where the successful look out for themselves and their families and that is where it stops.
Click to expand...


Bull.  He made the statement because he believes it.  If he is so confident why does he keep running from it.  He should say it everytime he gets up and talks.  But he won't.

We don't want to be like the failed nations of Europe that are collapsing under their own unwillingness to own up to the fact that they can't sustain 2/3 of the people living on government help.

The only Banana Republic is Chicago....there, it seems like your chances are not so good.


----------



## bripat9643

bucs90 said:


> If people truly dont need ANYONE to aid or help them.........then why is the GOP trying so hard to convince us how much we need them?



Because that's the only way we can get rid of Obama and the Dims.


----------



## bripat9643

edthecynic said:


> Every time the GOP tells that lie it shows the American people just how little Willard Mitt THE Twit thinks they are able to see through his lies.



Yeah, and we know how Democrats are always giving the voters credit for having the ability to see through pathetic lieas and propaganda!


----------



## bripat9643

Sactowndog said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> Dems are the American't Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
Click to expand...


The problem is that 90% of your taxes are poured down the welfare sewer.  They don't help anyone get ahead.  People in this country were "getting ahead," long before public universities existed.


----------



## bripat9643

Listening said:


> Bull.  He made the statement because he believes it.  If he is so confident why does he keep running from it.  He should say it everytime he gets up and talks.  But he won't.
> 
> We don't want to be like the failed nations of Europe that are collapsing under their own unwillingness to own up to the fact that they can't sustain 2/3 of the people living on government help.
> 
> The only Banana Republic is Chicago....there, it seems like your chances are not so good.



Libturds keep saying he didn't say it, and then they defend the statement!

The fact is they all believe the statement exactly as Obama's critics have interpreted it.


----------



## Barb

bripat9643 said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> Dems are the American't Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that *90% of your taxes* are poured down the welfare sewer.  They don't help anyone get ahead.  People in this country were "getting ahead," long before public universities existed.
Click to expand...


WTF. These are the misstatements and the misinformation that produce meat heads like you. 


As of 2000, 24% of the welfare state funds education, and 47% pays for Social Security, 22% finances Medicare, 11% supports public employee retirement, 8% accounts for what is spent for workers compensation, and 3% provides for unemployment insurance.(156) Means tested cash welfare benefits remain the most criticized and resented, even though needs tested welfare only made up 17% of the welfare state, and only 1.7% of the national budget. (157)

156 Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16 157 Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16

more recently:


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Several speakers did address that*.  And pointed out that government infrastructure exists because private enterprise is successful. and pays for that infrastructure.  It simply does not happen the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A tax payer funded stadium built with taxes by private businesses and the people they employ.
Click to expand...

But CON$ habitually say that businesses do not pay taxes, they pass them on to their customers in the price they charge for their goods and services!


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> After two nights of the GOP convention in which speech after speech after speech is peppered with "And yes, Mr. President, he/she/I DID build that!!!", I'm guessing that President Obama is sore from kicking himself for giving the GOP that line.



The Obamatons continue to ignore the facts and have circled the wagons.
Obama:..."You didn't build that"..
Obamatons: "He didn't say that"


----------



## thereisnospoon

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A tax payer funded stadium built with taxes by private businesses and the people they employ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But CON$ habitually say that businesses do not pay taxes, they pass them on to their customers in the price they charge for their goods and services!
Click to expand...


Cut the shit.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Barb said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that *90% of your taxes* are poured down the welfare sewer.  They don't help anyone get ahead.  People in this country were "getting ahead," long before public universities existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF. These are the misstatements and the misinformation that produce meat heads like you.
> 
> 
> As of 2000, 24% of the welfare state funds education, and 47% pays for Social Security, 22% finances Medicare, 11% supports public employee retirement, 8% accounts for what is spent for workers compensation, and 3% provides for unemployment insurance.(156) Means tested cash welfare benefits remain the most criticized and resented, even though needs tested welfare only made up 17% of the welfare state, and only 1.7% of the national budget. (157)
> 
> 156 Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16 157 Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16
> 
> more recently:
Click to expand...

2007..Ok...Note the $342 billion for "discretionary spending".
The pie chart is not accurate.
The problem is not social spending in and of itself.
The objection to social spending is that for every dollar collected, 40 cents is spent on administration of social programs. The other problem is the lack of oversight and the existence of legislation which makes it illegal for those who monitor these programs to actually vet the people applying for benefits.
This is how we get so many people who game the system.
Lastly, the most important issue is the largest part of the US federal budget goes to social spending. The condition is absurd.


----------



## Listening

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A tax payer funded stadium built with taxes by private businesses and the people they employ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But CON$ habitually say that businesses do not pay taxes, they pass them on to their customers in the price they charge for their goods and services!
Click to expand...


Liar.

What is said that is in a balanced business....any tax increase is generally going to be passed along.

There is a big difference.   Of course, you knew that.  You only post to look stupid.


----------



## Sactowndog

bripat9643 said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> Dems are the American't Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem pUaying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that 90% of your taxes are poured down the welfare sewer.  They don't help anyone get ahead.  People in this country were "getting ahead," long before public universities existed.
Click to expand...


This shows a complete and utter disregard for the budget and how it is broken out.  The numbers are on line.  Why don't you look them up and see where the tax money really goes.  Once you are educated I would be happy to talk with you about it.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Sactowndog said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> Dems are the American't Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
Click to expand...

The reality is he did not understand that it was not the US Government which helped his business. It was had he stayed in Taiwan and attempted the same thing, the government has rules that PREVENT success.
His reality is what he brought with him from his home country.
Where he comes from, government rules are restrictive.
So when he comes here to the US he sees an absence of those restrictions. His reaction would be to believe he is receiving assistance. He is not. Our government is simply less restrictive. He equates this to 'active' assistance.
He will soon find that our government is not all fun and games.


----------



## Sactowndog

bripat9643 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  He made the statement because he believes it.  If he is so confident why does he keep running from it.  He should say it everytime he gets up and talks.  But he won't.
> 
> We don't want to be like the failed nations of Europe that are collapsing under their own unwillingness to own up to the fact that they can't sustain 2/3 of the people living on government help.
> 
> The only Banana Republic is Chicago....there, it seems like your chances are not so good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libturds keep saying he didn't say it, and then they defend the statement!
> 
> The fact is they all believe the statement exactly as Obama's critics have interpreted it.
Click to expand...


Absolutely I defend it and only today's Republicans would be so small minded to say they did it all on their own.


----------



## Sactowndog

thereisnospoon said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only resonates with the people who never had exposure to American free enterprise, the ones who embrace this are the losers, the slackers, the Mommy's basement resident, the feeble-minded who are convinced that they failed because America is so darn mean-spirited. It's not just an unAmerican attitude, it's anti-American
> 
> Dems are the American't Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality is he did not understand that it was not the US Government which helped his business. It was had he stayed in Taiwan and attempted the same thing, the government has rules that PREVENT success.
> His reality is what he brought with him from his home country.
> Where he comes from, government rules are restrictive.
> So when he comes here to the US he sees an absence of those restrictions. His reaction would be to believe he is receiving assistance. He is not. Our government is simply less restrictive. He equates this to 'active' assistance.
> He will soon find that our government is not all fun and games.
Click to expand...


Are you insinuating he was stupid?  I don't think so.  And yes the government being less restrictive was part of it but certainly not all of it.  I find it amazing you meat heads are so programmed to think the government had no role in your success.


----------



## Sactowndog

thereisnospoon said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that *90% of your taxes* are poured down the welfare sewer.  They don't help anyone get ahead.  People in this country were "getting ahead," long before public universities existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF. These are the misstatements and the misinformation that produce meat heads like you.
> 
> 
> As of 2000, 24% of the welfare state funds education, and 47% pays for Social Security, 22% finances Medicare, 11% supports public employee retirement, 8% accounts for what is spent for workers compensation, and 3% provides for unemployment insurance.(156) Means tested cash welfare benefits remain the most criticized and resented, even though needs tested welfare only made up 17% of the welfare state, and only 1.7% of the national budget. (157)
> 
> 156 Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16 157 Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16
> 
> more recently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2007..Ok...Note the $342 billion for "discretionary spending".
> The pie chart is not accurate.
> The problem is not social spending in and of itself.
> The objection to social spending is that for every dollar collected, 40 cents is spent on administration of social programs. The other problem is the lack of oversight and the existence of legislation which makes it illegal for those who monitor these programs to actually vet the people applying for benefits.
> This is how we get so many people who game the system.
> Lastly, the most important issue is the largest part of the US federal budget goes to social spending. The condition is absurd.
Click to expand...


Again you just show your ignorance if you think discretionary spending is mostly welfare for the poor.  Corporate welfare maybe but much of it is what it takes to run the non DoD part of the government. 

The budget is on line.  Why don't one of you right wing apologists actually try reading, go on-line and report back actual numbers on where the money goes.  Maybe you will learn something in the process


----------



## Uncensored2008

bucs90 said:


> If people truly dont need ANYONE to aid or help them.........then why is the GOP trying so hard to convince us how much we need them?



Vacuous Obamabot is vacuous.


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.



Government can't "fund" anything. Government only has funds taken from private citizens.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government can't "fund" anything. Government only has funds taken from private citizens.
Click to expand...


Well, gentle correction here.  Because government got away from the gold standard and the concept of balanced budgets, government DOES fund a lot of things by printing more paper money that devalues the money in circulation and by borrowing money a lot of which comes from countries that do not have our interests at heart.  So we and those who follow us are saddled with the very real effects of inflation plus a crushing debt that we will be generations paying off.  A debt that will compromise America's sovereignty if we do not bring it under control now.

But almost all infrastructure is built with tax dollars paid.

It was the willingness of the individual to risk whatever capital they had and/or to gamble their credit rating and their future on loans that depended on their personal success to be repaid that 'built that'.  Whatever previous generations have done, the guy who takes the plunge and risks everything he has to open an automotive repair shop or open up a bakery or start a janitorial service are the people who 'built that' and who are 'building that'.  It is because they risk, they gamble on themselves, then and now, that people have jobs, that taxes are paid, and that infrastructure exists.

I watch new infrastructure going in all the time and in every case it is because new businesses and new housing projects are being built, not because government is making it happen.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sactowndog said:


> Absolutely I defend it and only today's Republicans would be so small minded to say they did it all on their own.



I sometimes like to watch cooking shows. One I particularly enjoy is called "Chopped." The basic premise is that 4 chefs compete using a "Mystery Basket" of ingredient. Each has to make a dish from the ingredients in the basket, and have it judged by the panel.

These chefs all use supplied ingredients, cooked on the stoves of the studio.

So do you think the judges should look at the food and shout "You didn't make that, someone else did?"

Fucking libtards - stupidest creatures in creation.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government can't "fund" anything. Government only has funds taken from private citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, gentle correction here.  Because government got away from the gold standard and the concept of balanced budgets, government DOES fund a lot of things by printing more paper money that devalues the money in circulation and by borrowing money a lot of which comes from countries that do not have our interests at heart.  So we and those who follow us are saddled with the very real effects of inflation plus a crushing debt that we will be generations paying off.  A debt that will compromise America's sovereignty if we do not bring it under control now.
> 
> But almost all infrastructure is built with tax dollars paid.
> 
> It was the willingness of the individual to risk whatever capital they had and/or to gamble their credit rating and their future on loans that depended on their personal success to be repaid that 'built that'.  Whatever previous generations have done, the guy who takes the plunge and risks everything he has to open an automotive repair shop or open up a bakery or start a janitorial service are the people who 'built that' and who are 'building that'.  It is because they risk, they gamble on themselves, then and now, that people have jobs, that taxes are paid, and that infrastructure exists.
> 
> I watch new infrastructure going in all the time and in every case it is because new businesses and new housing projects are being built, not because government is making it happen.
Click to expand...


Fair points; 

However, each of these creates an encumbrance on the tax payer, so I would still say that government didn't fund anything, they just stole your credit card...


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> After two nights of the GOP convention in which speech after speech after speech is peppered with "And yes, Mr. President, he/she/I DID build that!!!", I'm guessing that President Obama is sore from kicking himself for giving the GOP that line.
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the GOP tells that lie it shows the American people just how little Willard Mitt THE Twit thinks they are able to see through his lies.
Click to expand...



How does a President who advocates Big Government as the answer to what voters need to solve their problems, and Big Government control  . .  find his supporters saying he is taken out of context. *When* has Obama supported "_individualism_", allowing people to choose their OWN goals, succeed and fail on their own, allowing for business owners to build their dreams on their own, without the President stepping his Big Government foot into private business affairs and digging his greedy fingers into it?


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government can't "fund" anything. Government only has funds taken from private citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, gentle correction here.  Because government got away from the gold standard and the concept of balanced budgets, government DOES fund a lot of things by printing more paper money that devalues the money in circulation and by borrowing money a lot of which comes from countries that do not have our interests at heart.  So we and those who follow us are saddled with the very real effects of inflation plus a crushing debt that we will be generations paying off.  A debt that will compromise America's sovereignty if we do not bring it under control now.
> 
> But almost all infrastructure is built with tax dollars paid.
> 
> It was the willingness of the individual to risk whatever capital they had and/or to gamble their credit rating and their future on loans that depended on their personal success to be repaid that 'built that'.  Whatever previous generations have done, the guy who takes the plunge and risks everything he has to open an automotive repair shop or open up a bakery or start a janitorial service are the people who 'built that' and who are 'building that'.  It is because they risk, they gamble on themselves, then and now, that people have jobs, that taxes are paid, and that infrastructure exists.
> 
> I watch new infrastructure going in all the time and in every case it is because new businesses and new housing projects are being built, not because government is making it happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair points;
> 
> However, each of these creates an encumbrance on the tax payer, so I would still say that government didn't fund anything, they just stole your credit card...
Click to expand...


Yes.  Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity.  It doesn't create it.  Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses.  If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.

I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.


----------



## GoneBezerk

Obamination's stupid words against business owners and the snide way he said it to his ghetto voters in that crowd is the main reason why he is toast.

There were Americans that were so-so about Obamacare, so-so about him going after rich people's money, so he was getting a pass with them.....but he crossed the line when he showed his socialist colors while trashing people that work hard to build their business.

He is going to get his ass kicked in November because of his stupidity and arrogance.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Several speakers did address that*.  And pointed out that government infrastructure exists because private enterprise is successful. and pays for that infrastructure.  It simply does not happen the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they said that while speaking in a government funded stadium.
Click to expand...




Government didn't do it. A group of Founding Fathers and believers who risked treason, standing up to dictating tyrant who wanted more control over their lives, did.  They created a system of a "limited" government system, whose job was to work FOR [and to be completely under the control of] "the people", not the other way around. We have a President who, if he doesn't like the current legislative process to his satisfaction, feels free to violate the established Constitution founding regarding "separation of powers", through establishing "executive" laws that bypass Congress.


----------



## Barb

thereisnospoon said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that *90% of your taxes* are poured down the welfare sewer.  They don't help anyone get ahead.  People in this country were "getting ahead," long before public universities existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF. These are the misstatements and the misinformation that produce meat heads like you.
> 
> 
> As of 2000, 24% of the welfare state funds education, and 47% pays for Social Security, 22% finances Medicare, 11% supports public employee retirement, 8% accounts for what is spent for workers compensation, and 3% provides for unemployment insurance.(156) Means tested cash welfare benefits remain the most criticized and resented, even though needs tested welfare only made up 17% of the welfare state, and only 1.7% of the national budget. (157)
> 
> 156 Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16 157 Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, figures 1.1, 16
> 
> more recently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2007..Ok...Note the $342 billion for "discretionary spending".
> The pie chart is not accurate.
> The problem is not social spending in and of itself.
> The objection to social spending is that for every dollar collected, 40 cents is spent on administration of social programs. *The other problem is the lack of oversight and the existence of legislation which makes it illegal for those who monitor these programs to actually vet the people applying for benefits.*
> This is how we get so many people who game the system.
> Lastly, the most important issue is the largest part of the US federal budget goes to social spending. The condition is absurd.
Click to expand...


CEO&#8217;s are administrators; you pay for administration in the market just as you pay for it to government agencies. The only difference is that you pay vastly more in the market. 

Those who believe that government would run better as a business resist the idea that government employees should be guaranteed rights to carry out their own capitalist activity and contract negotiations through collective bargaining. They don&#8216;t view civil servant pay and benefits packages in the same rosy glow that they see CEO compensation, although that CEO compensation not only drives up costs, it also drives down service because of the expense. The idea that contracted benefits of government, local, and state employees are an obscenity is swallowed whole in the same breath that that excuses, even applauds, private industry for raising your prices based on the last dime the largest demographic has to spend. 

Their bureaucrats enjoy substantially more in pay and benefits than our civil servants do, even the dreaded "administrators."

Most rank-and-file civil servants make at best an average income, work their tails off, and currently face massive and career-ending layoffs whenever a screw needs to turn in penance for a quarter of a percent tax hike on corporations and bazillionairs. The members of every state and federal employee union are members of their community, patrons of local businesses, taxpayers... productive and contributing members of society. As your neighbors, they would call the fire department if they saw your house on fire, you might see them at your firehouse picnic, and they might even plow your mother's driveway. These are the people who have become the latest scapegoats for an economic mess that was the logical result of the ridiculous excesses that began in the 1980s.

Many people currently advocate for a balance between public and private sector wages and benefits, but it would not be a "balance," it would rather be a leveling of wages and benefits, and the only direction privately owned industry will ever level wages and benefits is down. Meanwhile, prices continue to rise, and because corporations got rid of the people who once provided the service they charge such high prices for, customer service continues to deteriorate. Whenever the ugly and inevitable results become evident, the advocates of supply side policies point to their handiwork as proof of the &#8213;inefficiency&#8214; of government bureaucracy and claim that the private sector can do the job better, they&#8216;ll also claim that they can do it cheaper. And oh, by the way, they just so happen to know a guy. 

Every bureaucrat, large or small, who makes their living administering welfare programs are paid to do so because there are people who need these programs, and these bureaucrats also support every other industry imaginable with the taxes they pay and the consumer spending they engage in. Because of the programs that they administer, people are able to pay their bills and buy needed goods and services. We rarely, if ever hear a word from media or politicians about how these programs benefit big business. All of this is economic activity that fuels the consumer economy, adds to the tax revenues, and in spite of claims to the contrary, the welfare state most certainly does bear a substantial relation to the economy in ways that are a benefit to everyone, even for neoconservatives most favored "people": the corporations.

When Republican politicians and individuals that write for conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation publicly discuss the &#8213;welfare state,&#8214; they gloss over details about what percentages go to which programs, or even the enormity of what the term &#8213;welfare state&#8214; covers, and in so doing tacitly implicate means tested welfare as the whole of it. As a result, the poor who receive means tested aid, and who are already blamed for their own condition, also foot the public perception bill for the entire welfare state.

Because of the local nature of most of Education funding, the US education system primarily subsidizes the middle classes and the wealthy.(129) Students attending schools in poor communities receive lower shares of funding, work with poorer supplies, uncertified and fewer teachers, outdated technologies, and low expectations of reward for hard work.(130)

129 Gilens, Martin, Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, 15 130 Schiller, Bradley R. The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination, 198-202

There is a host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.

Honorable mention must also go to the US military, which is used to control and &#8213;stabilize&#8214; the world for global trade, the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom (160)

160 Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69

*And where in the Sam Hell did you come up with that little bit of twaddle?*


----------



## Foxfyre

However much you want to give government the praise, credit, and applause, Barb, the fact is that the federal government has become so big, so bloated, so expensive, and so inefficient and ineffective, that much if not most of the tax dollars it takes in are swallowed up to feed the monster itself and/or are wasted on what it funds.  For every person who is actually helped out of poverty by government, ten others are encouraged to stay in poverty so that they will be eligible for government freebies.

None of that is the fault of private enterprise.  When you look at the welfare state and the ever swelling debt that will sooner or later impoverish all of us if it is not brought under control, President Obama can honestly look at that and say, "Government did build that."


----------



## Barb

Foxfyre said:


> However much you want to give government the praise, credit, and applause, Barb, the fact is that the federal government has become so big, so bloated, so expensive, and so inefficient and ineffective, that much if not most of the tax dollars it takes in are swallowed up to feed the monster itself and/or are wasted on what it funds.  For every person who is actually helped out of poverty by government, ten others are encouraged to stay in poverty so that they will be eligible for government freebies.
> 
> None of that is the fault of private enterprise.  When you look at the welfare state and the ever swelling debt that will sooner or later impoverish all of us if it is not brought under control, President Obama can honestly look at that and say, "Government did build that."



Citizens deserve a government that responsibly stewards the economy and squares the rules between people and corporations to provide achievable opportunity and protection from the predatory claws of a capitalism that would have all of the power, the rights, the profits, and none of the responsibility. This is what you ignore, and this is what you struggle against all the while claiming that you're advocating for the "people." You're not, you're advocating for what amounts to an American aristocracy. 

Once Upon a Time
The likelihood of corporate grasping and abuse is why corporations originally ran under state and national charters. As planned by the founding fathers, a state granted corporate charters, which did not grant rights to corporations, but instead granted them limited dispensation to operate their businesses until or unless they abused the terms of their contract, in which case the state revoked the charter and the privilege it conveyed.171 These charters limited corporate ability (rather than liability) to avoid responsibility for their actions, set limits on what they could damage, and regulated how they could operate in order to make sure that what they did, at the very least, did not damage the fabric of a decent society.(172)

172 Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 99-101

After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, &#8213;the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations. (173) The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.(174)

173 Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100 174 Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100-101

The we want our county back "small government" folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.

Government is the collective voice of the actual people in action through policy, or it should be. Unfortunately, people like you have been led through a mass media run and paid for by your _Gentleman's Quarterly_ and _Fortune 500_ heroes, your *masters*, to believe that their economic interests not only don't clash with your own, but that they compliment your endeavors. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Sactowndog said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is un-American about saying the system which is certainly funded by the government plays a part in success.
> 
> I know a man who runs an $80m company.  He immigrated here from Taiwan and got his Masters degree in EE from Long Beach State (just the kind of person we send home today).  When we talked about taxes and estate planning his comment to me I will never forget.  He said, " I have no problem paying taxes.  I could never have done this in Taiwan.  I am happy to pay the money so the next poor kid has the same chance."
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is he did not understand that it was not the US Government which helped his business. It was had he stayed in Taiwan and attempted the same thing, the government has rules that PREVENT success.
> His reality is what he brought with him from his home country.
> Where he comes from, government rules are restrictive.
> So when he comes here to the US he sees an absence of those restrictions. His reaction would be to believe he is receiving assistance. He is not. Our government is simply less restrictive. He equates this to 'active' assistance.
> He will soon find that our government is not all fun and games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you insinuating he was stupid?  I don't think so.  And yes the government being less restrictive was part of it but certainly not all of it.  I find it amazing you meat heads are so programmed to think the government had no role in your success.
Click to expand...

To answer your question, NO.
He's not stupid.
Each of us is programmed by our experiences. 
Government has done NOTHING for me. I like it that way.
As a matter of fact, most small businesses received no help and more accurately when the owners wade through the mountains of paperwork and red tape, those hoops through which government requires them to leap, government gets in the way of success.
"Meat head"? I did not insult you. If you want to go down that road, let me know.


----------



## Foxfyre

Barb said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> However much you want to give government the praise, credit, and applause, Barb, the fact is that the federal government has become so big, so bloated, so expensive, and so inefficient and ineffective, that much if not most of the tax dollars it takes in are swallowed up to feed the monster itself and/or are wasted on what it funds.  For every person who is actually helped out of poverty by government, ten others are encouraged to stay in poverty so that they will be eligible for government freebies.
> 
> None of that is the fault of private enterprise.  When you look at the welfare state and the ever swelling debt that will sooner or later impoverish all of us if it is not brought under control, President Obama can honestly look at that and say, "Government did build that."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens deserve a government that responsibly stewards the economy and squares the rules between people and corporations to provide achievable opportunity and protection from the predatory claws of a capitalism that would have all of the power, the rights, the profits, and none of the responsibility. This is what you ignore, and this is what you struggle against all the while claiming that you're advocating for the "people." You're not, you're advocating for what amounts to an American aristocracy.
> 
> Once Upon a Time
> The likelihood of corporate grasping and abuse is why corporations originally ran under state and national charters. As planned by the founding fathers, a state granted corporate charters, which did not grant rights to corporations, but instead granted them limited dispensation to operate their businesses until or unless they abused the terms of their contract, in which case the state revoked the charter and the privilege it conveyed.171 These charters limited corporate ability (rather than liability) to avoid responsibility for their actions, set limits on what they could damage, and regulated how they could operate in order to make sure that what they did, at the very least, did not damage the fabric of a decent society.(172)
> 
> 172 Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 99-101
> 
> After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, &#8213;the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations. (173) The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
> Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.(174)
> 
> 173 Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100 174 Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100-101
> 
> The &#8220;we want our county back&#8221; "small government" folks might want to revisit these parts of our vainglorious past.
> 
> Government is the collective voice of the actual people in action through policy, or it should be. Unfortunately, people like you have been led through a mass media run and paid for by your _Gentleman's Quarterly_ and _Fortune 500_ heroes, your *masters*, to believe that their economic interests not only don't clash with your own, but that they compliment your endeavors.
> 
> Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...


The government you defend courts the big corporations for the big bucks that helps keep them in office, in power, and allows them (the politicians) to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth.  It isn't about to do anything to rock that boat.

And all that is irrelevent to the thesis of this thread which points to the individual initiative of the person risking all that he has to start up a new business or expand an existing one in order to better himself/herself and his/her family.   The President, in that fateful speech, dismissed his intelligence, his willingness to work hard, his initiative, his courage, his ability to do that in favor of the collective and suggested that he would be nothing without everybody making it happen for him. 

The President did have one throwaway line when he included individual initiative, but that was quickly diminished in the concept of government being the catalyst to 'make things happen'.  And he won't see that it is a small fraction of those with the courage to try who actually do start businesses that allow everybody else to prosper.  And everybody, those in business and those who receive their incomes because businesses are in business, benefitted from the exact same society.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> he would be nothing without everybody making it happen for him.



yes Barry is like a cancer on our country. Its similar to  when he says  consumers create jobs by being consumers. In truth, Steve Jobs created jobs and consumers merely bought the products then produced.

Did Henry Ford create jobs in his factories or did the people who bought his cars??

More importantly, who do we want to incent most, the rare geniuses like Jobs and Ford who got us from the stone age to here or consumers who exist in the billions, naturally?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> he would be nothing without everybody making it happen for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes Barry is like a cancer on our country. Its similar to  when he says  consumers create jobs by being consumers. In truth, Steve Jobs created jobs and consumers merely bought the products then produced.
> 
> Did Henry Ford create jobs in his factories or did the people who bought his cars??
> 
> More importantly, who do we want to incent most, the rare geniuses like Jobs and Ford who got us from the stone age to here or consumers who exist in the billions, naturally?
Click to expand...


Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.  
But Ford also received a lot of criticism from other business owners that called Ford's raise social welfare, and that Ford had wrongfully brought biblical and spiritual principles into a field where they do not belong.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.



of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.

if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.

Do you understand???


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.
> 
> if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.
> 
> Do you understand???
Click to expand...


Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is  liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.


----------



## P@triot

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.
> 
> if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.
> 
> Do you understand???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is  liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.
Click to expand...


Actually, he is right and your logic is severely flawed at least and flat out insane at worst. Just answer once question: when Ford paid his employees, what guaranteed him they would buy a Ford with their salaries and not something else? Exactly.


----------



## regent

Rottweiler said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.
> 
> if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.
> 
> Do you understand???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is  liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, he is right and your logic is severely flawed at least and flat out insane at worst. Just answer once question: when Ford paid his employees, what guaranteed him they would buy a Ford with their salaries and not something else? Exactly.
Click to expand...


He didn't. But Ford's cars, and few others, were in his employee's price range. Actually Ford had it pretty well figured out economically and sociologically. Ford also hated labor unions and enlightened managment was one way to keep unions away.   
Are you saying Ford's logic was insane or mine? In any case the logic be it Ford's or  Lee's, seemed to have worked-for a time. Except for the Edsel of course.


----------



## P@triot

regent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is  liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, he is right and your logic is severely flawed at least and flat out insane at worst. Just answer once question: when Ford paid his employees, what guaranteed him they would buy a Ford with their salaries and not something else? Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't. But Ford's cars, and few others, were in his employee's price range. Actually Ford had it pretty well figured out economically and sociologically. Ford also hated labor unions and enlightened managment was one way to keep unions away.
> Are you saying Ford's logic was insane or mine? In any case the logic be it Ford's or  Lee's, seemed to have worked-for a time. Except for the Edsel of course.
Click to expand...


I'm saying anyone who believes their product will sell based on what they pay employees is a moron. In fact, the more he paid them, the less likely they are to purchase a Ford. Be honest for a moment - if GM today paid each employee $400,000 a year, do you think _*any*_ employee would purchase a GM? Or do you think they would be out purchasing Ferrari's, BMW's, and Lamborghini's?

The fact is, once an employee leaves their place of employment, they are free to spend their pay check any way they choose. And it would be suicide for any business owner to assume that their employees will just spend it on their product. Ford's success had NOTHING to do with what he paid his employees, and everything to do with efficiency (assembly line, things you mentioned about unions, etc.)


----------



## regent

Rottweiler said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, he is right and your logic is severely flawed at least and flat out insane at worst. Just answer once question: when Ford paid his employees, what guaranteed him they would buy a Ford with their salaries and not something else? Exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't. But Ford's cars, and few others, were in his employee's price range. Actually Ford had it pretty well figured out economically and sociologically. Ford also hated labor unions and enlightened managment was one way to keep unions away.
> Are you saying Ford's logic was insane or mine? In any case the logic be it Ford's or  Lee's, seemed to have worked-for a time. Except for the Edsel of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying anyone who believes their product will sell based on what they pay employees is a moron. In fact, the more he paid them, the less likely they are to purchase a Ford. Be honest for a moment - if GM today paid each employee $400,000 a year, do you think _*any*_ employee would purchase a GM? Or do you think they would be out purchasing Ferrari's, BMW's, and Lamborghini's?
> 
> The fact is, once an employee leaves their place of employment, they are free to spend their pay check any way they choose. And it would be suicide for any business owner to assume that their employees will just spend it on their product. Ford's success had NOTHING to do with what he paid his employees, and everything to do with efficiency (assembly line, things you mentioned about unions, etc.)
Click to expand...


Well, I gotta admit, that sounds pretty good, but still, here you are on a board posting about Ford's lack of business acumen while Ford made billions. I think I'll go with Ford's reasoning.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.
> 
> if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even a million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.
> 
> Do you understand???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is  liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.
Click to expand...


too stupid!!! You said Ford was smart to pay his workers enough so his workers could buy the cars they made!!

I said, now pay attention little boy,  if Ford was so smart others would have seen it and copied him!!!! It takes a brilliant engineer to perfect a turbo charged engine but no brains at all to see your little secret: just pay higher wages!!

You in effect tell us how slow you are with such a simplistic solutions. It is similar to  the stupid liberals saying the way to cure poverty is with welfare!! Everything has to be dirt simple when the liberal IQ is involved.

Why not write a letter to to every CEO and tell him you're a consultant who gets $500,000 for 3 minutes work during which you  reveal your little liberal secret about how to save companies!!! Are you a Harvard MBA??


----------



## Bfgrn

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.
> 
> if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even a million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.
> 
> Do you understand???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is  liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! You said Ford was smart to pay his workers enough so his workers could buy the cars they made!!
> 
> I said, now pay attention little boy,  if Ford was so smart others would have seen it and copied him!!!! It takes a brilliant engineer to perfect a turbo charged engine but no brains at all to see your little secret: just pay higher wages!!
> 
> You in effect tell us how slow you are with such a simplistic solutions. It is similar to  the stupid liberals saying the way to cure poverty is with welfare!! Everything has to be dirt simple when the liberal IQ is involved.
> 
> Why not write a letter to to every CEO and tell him you're a consultant who gets $500,000 for 3 minutes work during which you  reveal your little liberal secret about how to save companies!!! Are you a Harvard MBA??
Click to expand...


Let's hear what the former CEO of Ford had to say before the 2008 election, OK?

*2007*

*Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.*






Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. *Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. *And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill


----------



## GuyPinestra

Bfgrn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is  liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! You said Ford was smart to pay his workers enough so his workers could buy the cars they made!!
> 
> I said, now pay attention little boy,  if Ford was so smart others would have seen it and copied him!!!! It takes a brilliant engineer to perfect a turbo charged engine but no brains at all to see your little secret: just pay higher wages!!
> 
> You in effect tell us how slow you are with such a simplistic solutions. It is similar to  the stupid liberals saying the way to cure poverty is with welfare!! Everything has to be dirt simple when the liberal IQ is involved.
> 
> Why not write a letter to to every CEO and tell him you're a consultant who gets $500,000 for 3 minutes work during which you  reveal your little liberal secret about how to save companies!!! Are you a Harvard MBA??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's hear what the former CEO of Ford had to say before the 2008 election, OK?
> 
> *2007*
> 
> *Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. *Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. *And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.
> 
> Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.
> 
> I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.
> 
> Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill
Click to expand...


And with that the kid's arm gets set for $6,000 instead of 8, but Granny's hip replacement get cancelled...

Helluva tradeoff, right?


----------



## Foxfyre

The cost to treat a broken arm is exactly the same regardless of who pays for it.  If the patient pays only $8 and it costs $8,000, somebody else is paying $7,992.  You cannot eliminate the cost of anything simply by shuffling around who the payee is going to be.


----------



## Listening

We didn't build those health care costs on our own.....our government did that.

Are we still debating whether or not Obama is looking for a reason to soak the haves in order to buy votes from the have nots ?

Or are we now just debating whether or not Sanda Fluke will give John Kerry a blowjob before his speech to calm him down ?


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> We didn't build those health care costs on our own.....our government did that.
> 
> Are we still debating whether or not Obama is looking for a reason to soak the haves in order to buy votes from the have nots ?
> 
> Or are we now just debating whether or not Sanda Fluke will give John Kerry a blowjob before his speech to calm him down ?



Actually, hospitals, doctors and insurance corporations build those health care costs.


Medicare vs. private insurance in one graph


----------



## Listening

Bfgrn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't build those health care costs on our own.....our government did that.
> 
> Are we still debating whether or not Obama is looking for a reason to soak the haves in order to buy votes from the have nots ?
> 
> Or are we now just debating whether or not Sanda Fluke will give John Kerry a blowjob before his speech to calm him down ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hospitals, doctors and insurance corporations build those health care costs.
> 
> 
> Medicare vs. private insurance in one graph
Click to expand...


As has already been demonstrated...the private stuff carries the shortcomings of medicare.

I hope you really don't believe the stuff you post.


----------



## Bfgrn

Listening said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't build those health care costs on our own.....our government did that.
> 
> Are we still debating whether or not Obama is looking for a reason to soak the haves in order to buy votes from the have nots ?
> 
> Or are we now just debating whether or not Sanda Fluke will give John Kerry a blowjob before his speech to calm him down ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hospitals, doctors and insurance corporations build those health care costs.
> 
> 
> Medicare vs. private insurance in one graph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has already been demonstrated...the private stuff carries the shortcomings of medicare.
> 
> I hope you really don't believe the stuff you post.
Click to expand...


Two questions:

1) IF Medicare is the reason prices are so high, then why aren't all the doctors flocking to take on Medicare patients?

2) Are you allowed to cross the street without adult supervision?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Listening said:


> We didn't build those health care costs on our own.....our government did that.
> 
> Are we still debating whether or not Obama is looking for a reason to soak the haves in order to buy votes from the have nots ?
> 
> Or are we now just debating whether or not Sanda Fluke will give John Kerry a blowjob before his speech to calm him down ?



Another sign of the desperation of the democrats.
Sandra Flund...I mean Fluke is scheduled to speak at the DNC.
What a fuckin joke.
Really, Who the fuck cares what she has to say.
Great... So in her mind, the taxpayers should be responsible for her birth control due to her promiscuous behavior..


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> The cost to treat a broken arm is exactly the same regardless of who pays for it.  If the patient pays only $8 and it costs $8,000, somebody else is paying $7,992.  You cannot eliminate the cost of anything simply by shuffling around who the payee is going to be.



No it does not. Costs can vary from hospital to hospital, state to state..


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> The cost to treat a broken arm is exactly the same regardless of who pays for it.  If the patient pays only $8 and it costs $8,000, somebody else is paying $7,992.  You cannot eliminate the cost of anything simply by shuffling around who the payee is going to be.



Oh no!!! With Obama care, the _government _will pay for the care.
Didn't you know that?
Throughout Obama;s sales pitch for ACA, he made the case for controlling "cost"...Not true. ACA controls the "price" not the cost. 
ACA is nothing but a government mandated price control for medical care. And that applies only to certain individuals. For the rest of us, the price of care rises. And rises dramatically. We all end up with the same care. Rationed care. While half of the population will pay nothing, the rest of us foot the entire bill..
Now, the price may be one thing. But the cost of medical care, research and development of new technologies, medicines and procedures continues to rise. There is nothing that can be done to prevent that. ACA will also attempt top control the flow of money into medicine. Essentially the entire medical industry will fall under control of the federal government. And when that happens, we will end up with Western European style socialized medicine. Which is GARBAGE.


----------



## KGB

tinydancer said:


> The "Class warfare strategy" isn't working. The latest Gallup poll is a testament to Obama's failure to make Romney's wealth an issue.
> 
> And other polls show that the average blue collar working is not going to be cheering The O on like they did last time. His popularity is dropping like a stone.
> 
> *"An overwhelming majority of voters  75 percent  say that Mitt Romneys $200 million net worth makes no difference in their choice between him and President Barack Obama, according to a new Gallup poll.
> 
> Meanwhile, 20 percent of voters say Romneys wealth makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.
> 
> Breaking it down by party affiliation, among Republicans, 89 percent say Romneys riches make no difference, 8 percent say they are a reason to vote for him, and 4 percent say they are a reason to vote against him. Among Democrats, 62 percent dont care about Romneys wealth, 37 percent say its a negative factor, and 1 percent say its positive.
> 
> The sentiment of independents may be most important, as they are likely to decide the elections outcome. In this demographic 76 are indifferent to Romneys wealth, 19 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him, and 4 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him.
> 
> Read more on Newsmax.com: Gallup: Majority Say Romneys Wealth Wont Affect Their Vote
> 
> *Gallup: Majority Say Romney?s Wealth Won?t Affect Their Vote
> 
> *Insert links, not just references or posts will be deleted. Thanks.*



the reason why people don't care about Romney's wealth is that they are too concerned about protecting their own....


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.
> 
> if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even a million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.
> 
> Do you understand???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is  liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! You said Ford was smart to pay his workers enough so his workers could buy the cars they made!!
> 
> I said, now pay attention little boy,  if Ford was so smart others would have seen it and copied him!!!! It takes a brilliant engineer to perfect a turbo charged engine but no brains at all to see your little secret: just pay higher wages!!
> 
> You in effect tell us how slow you are with such a simplistic solutions. It is similar to  the stupid liberals saying the way to cure poverty is with welfare!! Everything has to be dirt simple when the liberal IQ is involved.
> 
> Why not write a letter to to every CEO and tell him you're a consultant who gets $500,000 for 3 minutes work during which you  reveal your little liberal secret about how to save companies!!! Are you a Harvard MBA??
Click to expand...


I don't think Ford had an MBA from any school, nor did he equip his 1913 models with turbo charged engines, just a simple four cylinder.  Maybe Ford realized that the route to success may vary at different times with different methods, and 1913 was the right time to give a raise and better working conditions.  
But the following quote is from the Ford internet site: 

"Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever."


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, gentle correction here.  Because government got away from the gold standard and the concept of balanced budgets, government DOES fund a lot of things by printing more paper money that devalues the money in circulation and by borrowing money a lot of which comes from countries that do not have our interests at heart.  So we and those who follow us are saddled with the very real effects of inflation plus a crushing debt that we will be generations paying off.  A debt that will compromise America's sovereignty if we do not bring it under control now.
> 
> But almost all infrastructure is built with tax dollars paid.
> 
> It was the willingness of the individual to risk whatever capital they had and/or to gamble their credit rating and their future on loans that depended on their personal success to be repaid that 'built that'.  Whatever previous generations have done, the guy who takes the plunge and risks everything he has to open an automotive repair shop or open up a bakery or start a janitorial service are the people who 'built that' and who are 'building that'.  It is because they risk, they gamble on themselves, then and now, that people have jobs, that taxes are paid, and that infrastructure exists.
> 
> I watch new infrastructure going in all the time and in every case it is because new businesses and new housing projects are being built, not because government is making it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair points;
> 
> However, each of these creates an encumbrance on the tax payer, so I would still say that government didn't fund anything, they just stole your credit card...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity.  It doesn't create it.  Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses.  If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.
> 
> I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.
Click to expand...

Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.


----------



## Foxfyre

thereisnospoon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair points;
> 
> However, each of these creates an encumbrance on the tax payer, so I would still say that government didn't fund anything, they just stole your credit card...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity.  It doesn't create it.  Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses.  If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.
> 
> I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
> In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.
Click to expand...


Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home.  It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that  allows people to have jobs.  And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs.  And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.

Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are.  The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.

So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes.  And I also built my business.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity.  It doesn't create it.  Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses.  If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.
> 
> I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
> In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home.  It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that  allows people to have jobs.  And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs.  And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.
> 
> *Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. * The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.
> 
> So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes.  And I also built my business.
Click to expand...


No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.

Location, location, location.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> I don't think Ford had an MBA from any school, nor did he equip his 1913 models with turbo charged engines, just a simple four cylinder.  Maybe Ford realized that the route to success may vary at different times with different methods, and 1913 was the right time to give a raise and better working conditions.
> But the following quote is from the Ford internet site:
> 
> "Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever."



I doubt that is from the Ford website.  Ford never made such a claim.  He raised wages to $5 day so his he could get dependable workers to show up every day.  

Do you have a link?


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.



Wrong.  It's done all the time.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Ford had an MBA from any school, nor did he equip his 1913 models with turbo charged engines, just a simple four cylinder.  Maybe Ford realized that the route to success may vary at different times with different methods, and 1913 was the right time to give a raise and better working conditions.
> But the following quote is from the Ford internet site:
> 
> "Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that is from the Ford website.  Ford never made such a claim.  He raised wages to $5 day so his he could get dependable workers to show up every day.
> 
> Do you have a link?
Click to expand...


Henry Ford's $5-a-Day Revolution - Press Release

Next...


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
> In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home.  It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that  allows people to have jobs.  And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs.  And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.
> 
> *Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. * The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.
> 
> So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes.  And I also built my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.
Click to expand...


But the infrastructure that exists does so because others took the risk to start their businesses and then others and then others.  And as an area becomes more crowded with more traffic and more drain on public services, expanded and new infrastructure becomes necessary.  It really is not a chicken and egg thng.  It is first the people come, and then the infrastructure is developed.

First the farmers and ranchers dug in and created homesteads for themselves without benefit of any government infrastructure.  And when there were enough of them, they built a church and then a school.  Somebody put in a general store; somebody else a saloon; somebody else a telegraph shop, somebody else  set up shop as a blacksmith, etc. and this brought more commerce to the town so there was a need for a livery stable and a small hotel.  Eventually the town incorporated and created offices of mayor, sherriff, a jmagistrate court, county clerk to record deeds, etc.   Such western towns were totally self contained with no state or federal services.

It was later to connect all these new towns that state governments and eventually the federal government used some tax dollars to connect with better roads.  Even the first transcontinental railroads were mostly privately funded with the federal government getting involved by issuing bonds and counting on the increase in value of government lands to offset the outlay of tax dollars.

Again, except in big government projects such as Los Alamos NM, no infrastructure happens until there is a need for it created by commerce and industry and the resulting residential properties that go in because there are jobs to support the people buying the homes.


----------



## copsnrobbers

thereisnospoon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair points;
> 
> However, each of these creates an encumbrance on the tax payer, so I would still say that government didn't fund anything, they just stole your credit card...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity.  It doesn't create it.  Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses.  If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.
> 
> I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
> In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.
Click to expand...


Just another step toward the agenda's end game. You vote for a Democrat you vote for loss of freedom and opportunity. Absolute Misery.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home.  It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that  allows people to have jobs.  And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs.  And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.
> 
> *Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. * The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.
> 
> So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes.  And I also built my business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the infrastructure that exists does so because others took the risk to start their businesses and then others and then others.  And as an area becomes more crowded with more traffic and more drain on public services, expanded and new infrastructure becomes necessary.  It really is not a chicken and egg thng.  It is first the people come, and then the infrastructure is developed.
> 
> First the farmers and ranchers dug in and created homesteads for themselves without benefit of any government infrastructure.  And when there were enough of them, they built a church and then a school.  Somebody put in a general store; somebody else a saloon; somebody else a telegraph shop, somebody else  set up shop as a blacksmith, etc. and this brought more commerce to the town so there was a need for a livery stable and a small hotel.  Eventually the town incorporated and created offices of mayor, sherriff, a jmagistrate court, county clerk to record deeds, etc.   Such western towns were totally self contained with no state or federal services.
> 
> It was later to connect all these new towns that state governments and eventually the federal government used some tax dollars to connect with better roads.  Even the first transcontinental railroads were mostly privately funded with the federal government getting involved by issuing bonds and counting on the increase in value of government lands to offset the outlay of tax dollars.
> 
> Again, except in big government projects such as Los Alamos NM, no infrastructure happens until there is a need for it created by commerce and industry and the resulting residential properties that go in because there are jobs to support the people buying the homes.
Click to expand...


Not all infrastructure is for businesses. NOW what???


----------



## Londoner

Obama shows a weakness of the Left. They've been asleep for 30 years. While the Right has spent the last 30 years paying smart people to describe the power of markets to create the most efficient and morally upright outcomes, the Left can't explain the Hoover Dam, nor its multiplier effect


----------



## copsnrobbers

One Trillion Dollar Stimulus and nothing but more debt and misery.

No they didn't get there on there own.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home.  It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that  allows people to have jobs.  And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs.  And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.
> 
> *Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. * The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.
> 
> So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes.  And I also built my business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the infrastructure that exists does so because others took the risk to start their businesses and then others and then others.  And as an area becomes more crowded with more traffic and more drain on public services, expanded and new infrastructure becomes necessary.  It really is not a chicken and egg thng.  It is first the people come, and then the infrastructure is developed.
> 
> *First the farmers and ranchers dug in and created homesteads for themselves without benefit of any government infrastructure.*  And when there were enough of them, they built a church and then a school.  Somebody put in a general store; somebody else a saloon; somebody else a telegraph shop, somebody else  set up shop as a blacksmith, etc. and this brought more commerce to the town so there was a need for a livery stable and a small hotel.  Eventually the town incorporated and created offices of mayor, sherriff, a jmagistrate court, county clerk to record deeds, etc.   Such western towns were totally self contained with no state or federal services.
> 
> It was later to connect all these new towns that state governments and eventually the federal government used some tax dollars to connect with better roads.  Even the first transcontinental railroads were mostly privately funded with the federal government getting involved by issuing bonds and counting on the increase in value of government lands to offset the outlay of tax dollars.
> 
> Again, except in big government projects such as Los Alamos NM, no infrastructure happens until there is a need for it created by commerce and industry and the resulting residential properties that go in because there are jobs to support the people buying the homes.
Click to expand...

First the American military conquered the native Indian population to make it safe for the homesteaders to settle the new lands.


----------



## edthecynic

copsnrobbers said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Actually infrastructure is a legitimate function of government, but it has to follow economic activity.  It doesn't create it.  Infrastructure begins crumbling when economic activity diminishes, becomes stagnant, when people are no longer willing to risk starting up new businesses.  If you drive through many small towns that were once thriving communities, but are now fast becoming ghost towns because no new businesses and people are moving in, you see the infrastructure crumbling away.
> 
> I notice that our fearless leader hasn't mentioned that and probably wouldn't want government to take credit for 'dismantling that'.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
> In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another step toward the agenda's end game. You vote for a Democrat you *vote for loss of freedom* and opportunity. Absolute Misery.
Click to expand...

*RUBIO: We chose more GOVERNMENT instead of more FREEDOM.*      RUBIO: We chose Mitt Romney


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Ford had an MBA from any school, nor did he equip his 1913 models with turbo charged engines, just a simple four cylinder.  Maybe Ford realized that the route to success may vary at different times with different methods, and 1913 was the right time to give a raise and better working conditions.
> But the following quote is from the Ford internet site:
> 
> "Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that is from the Ford website.  Ford never made such a claim.  He raised wages to $5 day so his he could get dependable workers to show up every day.
> 
> Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Henry Ford's $5-a-Day Revolution - Press Release
> 
> Next...
Click to expand...


There's no quote of Henry Ford saying that.  Your article also states that the reason for the wage increase was to reduce worker attrition.



> While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attritionlabor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high


----------



## Barb

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that is from the Ford website.  Ford never made such a claim.  He raised wages to $5 day so his he could get dependable workers to show up every day.
> 
> Do you have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Ford's $5-a-Day Revolution - Press Release
> 
> Next...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no quote of Henry Ford saying that.  Your article also states that the reason for the wage increase was to reduce worker attrition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attritionlabor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




> In 1913, to help meet the growing demand for the Model T, Henry Ford turned his attention to improving the manufacturing processes. The business model Ford developedproduction on a grand scale, *performed by well-paid workers*spread throughout the world and became the manufacturing standard for everything from vacuum sweepers to cars, and more.





> The $5-a-day Workday
> 
> After the success of the moving assembly line, Henry Ford had another transformative idea: in January 1914, he startled the world by announcing that Ford Motor Company would pay $5 a day to its workers. *The pay increase would also be accompanied by a shorter workday (from nine to eight hours).* While this rate didn't automatically apply to every worker,* it more than doubled the average autoworker's wage.*
> 
> While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attritionlabor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was highnewspapers from all over the world reported the story as an extraordinary gesture of goodwill.





> *Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. *The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever.


 duh


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's "you didn't build that" implies infrastructure is the catalyst for the entrpreneur.
> In other words, on Planet Obama, government is the business. They just let the private sector have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home.  It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that  allows people to have jobs.  And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs.  And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.
> 
> *Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. * The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.
> 
> So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes.  And I also built my business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. Probably out of ignorance of the facts. 
First, most businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. The fact that there is a road in place is happenstance of development which takes place in the natural progress of growth. 
Water and sewer are easily replaced by wells and septic tanks. No need for government utilities. Electricity? Most power is supplied by private entities. Same with natural gas for heat. There are lots of ways to marginalize government involvement in the development of business and infrastructure. So much so that government sets up regulations where it can collect fees for "business permits"...This is a money grab. 
In nearby Charlotte, NC it is illegal for private property owners to use wells and/or septic tanks. Instead the law states they MUST connect to the city water and sewer system. IMO that is unjust. 
In any event, government pays for nothing. Constructs nothing. Maintains nothing WITHOUT taxpayer dollars. 
You libs will NEVER convince the majority of the people here of your idea that government should be worshiped as you worship it.
Without the private sector, NOTHING GETS DONE....
Lately it appears that the job of government is not to serve, but to grow the size of government. We're quite sick of it. And this election should we become successful, will send that message to Washington.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home.  It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that  allows people to have jobs.  And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs.  And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.
> 
> *Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. * The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.
> 
> So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes.  And I also built my business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the infrastructure that exists does so because others took the risk to start their businesses and then others and then others.  And as an area becomes more crowded with more traffic and more drain on public services, expanded and new infrastructure becomes necessary.  It really is not a chicken and egg thng.  It is first the people come, and then the infrastructure is developed.
> 
> First the farmers and ranchers dug in and created homesteads for themselves without benefit of any government infrastructure.  And when there were enough of them, they built a church and then a school.  Somebody put in a general store; somebody else a saloon; somebody else a telegraph shop, somebody else  set up shop as a blacksmith, etc. and this brought more commerce to the town so there was a need for a livery stable and a small hotel.  Eventually the town incorporated and created offices of mayor, sherriff, a jmagistrate court, county clerk to record deeds, etc.   Such western towns were totally self contained with no state or federal services.
> 
> It was later to connect all these new towns that state governments and eventually the federal government used some tax dollars to connect with better roads.  Even the first transcontinental railroads were mostly privately funded with the federal government getting involved by issuing bonds and counting on the increase in value of government lands to offset the outlay of tax dollars.
> 
> Again, except in big government projects such as Los Alamos NM, no infrastructure happens until there is a need for it created by commerce and industry and the resulting residential properties that go in because there are jobs to support the people buying the homes.
Click to expand...


The development of the City of Las Vegas is the perfect example of private money building something out of nothing.
Now, we will see the excuses fly. Starting with "But that..."...Watch.


----------



## Bfgrn

thereisnospoon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I keep trying to drive that point home.  It is because peoplke are willing to take the considerable risks to start up a new business or expand an existing one that  allows people to have jobs.  And it is because there are jobs that new housing developments go in to provide homes for the workers of those jobs.  And that increases the tax base which allows infrastructure to be installed or improved where these new businesses and homes are going in.
> 
> *Nobody goes out and installs a water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure whereno people are. * The government receives the funds and mandate to install or increase the infrastructure where people already are.
> 
> So yes, Mr. President, if I have a business I DID buld that infrastructure with my productivity and with my taxes.  And I also built my business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point. Probably out of ignorance of the facts.
> First, most businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. The fact that there is a road in place is happenstance of development which takes place in the natural progress of growth.
> Water and sewer are easily replaced by wells and septic tanks. No need for government utilities. Electricity? Most power is supplied by private entities. Same with natural gas for heat. There are lots of ways to marginalize government involvement in the development of business and infrastructure. So much so that government sets up regulations where it can collect fees for "business permits"...This is a money grab.
> In nearby Charlotte, NC it is illegal for private property owners to use wells and/or septic tanks. Instead the law states they MUST connect to the city water and sewer system. IMO that is unjust.
> In any event, government pays for nothing. Constructs nothing. Maintains nothing WITHOUT taxpayer dollars.
> You libs will NEVER convince the majority of the people here of your idea that government should be worshiped as you worship it.
> Without the private sector, NOTHING GETS DONE....
> Lately it appears that the job of government is not to serve, but to grow the size of government. We're quite sick of it. And this election should we become successful, will send that message to Washington.
Click to expand...


I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde

First, *SOME* businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. And that is a very recent development. BUT, even an internet only business would not be able to deliver goods to customers without infrastructure. And the efficiency or lack of efficiency of that infrastructure factors in the costs we ALL pay for goods and services. You folks on the right take for granted what We, the People have built, maintained and improved.

Ironic you mention Charlotte, because a recent national assessment of the 50 states ranked North Carolina 48th nationwide on urban interstate congestion, at 75.6 percent
congested.

Traffic congestion is a pervasive and growing problem. Congestion is caused by urban growth, rising private mobility and longer-distance commuting, along with limited expansion of road capacity and competition for road space. Although the states largest regions (Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham) have the highest current congestion, other cities are likely to show more rapid growth in congestion. Congestion will more than double over the next 25 years, threatening the economic future of the state. _ref._


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point. Probably out of ignorance of the facts.
> First, most businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. The fact that there is a road in place is happenstance of development which takes place in the natural progress of growth.
> Water and sewer are easily replaced by wells and septic tanks. No need for government utilities. Electricity? Most power is supplied by private entities. Same with natural gas for heat. There are lots of ways to marginalize government involvement in the development of business and infrastructure. So much so that government sets up regulations where it can collect fees for "business permits"...This is a money grab.
> In nearby Charlotte, NC it is illegal for private property owners to use wells and/or septic tanks. Instead the law states they MUST connect to the city water and sewer system. IMO that is unjust.
> In any event, government pays for nothing. Constructs nothing. Maintains nothing WITHOUT taxpayer dollars.
> You libs will NEVER convince the majority of the people here of your idea that government should be worshiped as you worship it.
> Without the private sector, NOTHING GETS DONE....
> Lately it appears that the job of government is not to serve, but to grow the size of government. We're quite sick of it. And this election should we become successful, will send that message to Washington.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not young enough to know everything.
> Oscar Wilde
> 
> First, *SOME* businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. And that is a very recent development. BUT, even an internet only business would not be able to deliver goods to customers without infrastructure. And the efficiency or lack of efficiency of that infrastructure factors in the costs we ALL pay for goods and services. You folks on the right take for granted what We, the People have built, maintained and improved.
> 
> Ironic you mention Charlotte, because a recent national assessment of the 50 states ranked North Carolina 48th nationwide on urban interstate congestion, at 75.6 percent
> congested.
> 
> Traffic congestion is a pervasive and growing problem. Congestion is caused by urban growth, rising private mobility and longer-distance commuting, along with limited expansion of road capacity and competition for road space. Although the states largest regions (Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham) have the highest current congestion, other cities are likely to show more rapid growth in congestion. Congestion will more than double over the next 25 years, threatening the economic future of the state. _ref._
Click to expand...


Nobody is arguing that infrastructure is not useful or even necessary for business to function these days.  What many of us ARE arguing is that infrastructure exists because people have been willing to take the risk to invest in commerce and industry and have paid taxes that fund the infrastructure.  And the more people who take the risk to invest in commerce and industry, the more resources are available to expand and improve existing infrastructure as well as develop new infrastructure.

Business and commerce make infrastructure possible and precede infrastructure.  It is not the other way around.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Bfgrn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point. Probably out of ignorance of the facts.
> First, most businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. The fact that there is a road in place is happenstance of development which takes place in the natural progress of growth.
> Water and sewer are easily replaced by wells and septic tanks. No need for government utilities. Electricity? Most power is supplied by private entities. Same with natural gas for heat. There are lots of ways to marginalize government involvement in the development of business and infrastructure. So much so that government sets up regulations where it can collect fees for "business permits"...This is a money grab.
> In nearby Charlotte, NC it is illegal for private property owners to use wells and/or septic tanks. Instead the law states they MUST connect to the city water and sewer system. IMO that is unjust.
> In any event, government pays for nothing. Constructs nothing. Maintains nothing WITHOUT taxpayer dollars.
> You libs will NEVER convince the majority of the people here of your idea that government should be worshiped as you worship it.
> Without the private sector, NOTHING GETS DONE....
> Lately it appears that the job of government is not to serve, but to grow the size of government. We're quite sick of it. And this election should we become successful, will send that message to Washington.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not young enough to know everything.
> Oscar Wilde
> 
> First, *SOME* businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. And that is a very recent development. BUT, even an internet only business would not be able to deliver goods to customers without infrastructure. And the efficiency or lack of efficiency of that infrastructure factors in the costs we ALL pay for goods and services. You folks on the right take for granted what We, the People have built, maintained and improved.
> 
> Ironic you mention Charlotte, because a recent national assessment of the 50 states ranked North Carolina 48th nationwide on urban interstate congestion, at 75.6 percent
> congested.
> 
> Traffic congestion is a pervasive and growing problem. Congestion is caused by urban growth, rising private mobility and longer-distance commuting, along with limited expansion of road capacity and competition for road space. Although the states largest regions (Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham) have the highest current congestion, other cities are likely to show more rapid growth in congestion. Congestion will more than double over the next 25 years, threatening the economic future of the state. _ref._
Click to expand...


Adding 30 million illegals to the population has really helped with that congestion problem across the US, too. Continuing to allow unfettered immigration will go a long way to making things better, don't you think?
/sarcasm


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point. Probably out of ignorance of the facts.
> First, most businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. The fact that there is a road in place is happenstance of development which takes place in the natural progress of growth.
> Water and sewer are easily replaced by wells and septic tanks. No need for government utilities. Electricity? Most power is supplied by private entities. Same with natural gas for heat. There are lots of ways to marginalize government involvement in the development of business and infrastructure. So much so that government sets up regulations where it can collect fees for "business permits"...This is a money grab.
> In nearby Charlotte, NC it is illegal for private property owners to use wells and/or septic tanks. Instead the law states they MUST connect to the city water and sewer system. IMO that is unjust.
> In any event, government pays for nothing. Constructs nothing. Maintains nothing WITHOUT taxpayer dollars.
> You libs will NEVER convince the majority of the people here of your idea that government should be worshiped as you worship it.
> Without the private sector, NOTHING GETS DONE....
> Lately it appears that the job of government is not to serve, but to grow the size of government. We're quite sick of it. And this election should we become successful, will send that message to Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not young enough to know everything.
> Oscar Wilde
> 
> First, *SOME* businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. And that is a very recent development. BUT, even an internet only business would not be able to deliver goods to customers without infrastructure. And the efficiency or lack of efficiency of that infrastructure factors in the costs we ALL pay for goods and services. You folks on the right take for granted what We, the People have built, maintained and improved.
> 
> Ironic you mention Charlotte, because a recent national assessment of the 50 states ranked North Carolina 48th nationwide on urban interstate congestion, at 75.6 percent
> congested.
> 
> Traffic congestion is a pervasive and growing problem. Congestion is caused by urban growth, rising private mobility and longer-distance commuting, along with limited expansion of road capacity and competition for road space. Although the states largest regions (Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham) have the highest current congestion, other cities are likely to show more rapid growth in congestion. Congestion will more than double over the next 25 years, threatening the economic future of the state. _ref._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody is arguing that infrastructure is not useful or even necessary for business to function these days. * What many of us ARE arguing is that infrastructure exists because people have been willing to take the risk to invest in commerce and industry and have paid taxes that fund the infrastructure.  And the more people who take the risk to invest in commerce and industry, the more resources are available to expand and improve existing infrastructure as well as develop new infrastructure.
> 
> Business and commerce make infrastructure possible and precede infrastructure.  It is not the other way around.
Click to expand...


Actually YOU are and have been, along with the rest of the butt hurt conservatives on this thread. The President stated facts. But they don't jive with your Ayn Rand dogmatic contempt for anything that is Public or the commons.

I know a lot about how infrastructure because I sold the equipment that builds the roads and bridges for 20 years. I talked to thousands of contractors, businessmen and women, and politicians. 

It is a joint enterprise between government, the people and business. If you remove any of the 3, it will collapse. Those are just facts.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point. Probably out of ignorance of the facts.
> First, most businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. The fact that there is a road in place is happenstance of development which takes place in the natural progress of growth.
> Water and sewer are easily replaced by wells and septic tanks. No need for government utilities. Electricity? Most power is supplied by private entities. Same with natural gas for heat. There are lots of ways to marginalize government involvement in the development of business and infrastructure. So much so that government sets up regulations where it can collect fees for "business permits"...This is a money grab.
> In nearby Charlotte, NC it is illegal for private property owners to use wells and/or septic tanks. Instead the law states they MUST connect to the city water and sewer system. IMO that is unjust.
> In any event, government pays for nothing. Constructs nothing. Maintains nothing WITHOUT taxpayer dollars.
> You libs will NEVER convince the majority of the people here of your idea that government should be worshiped as you worship it.
> Without the private sector, NOTHING GETS DONE....
> Lately it appears that the job of government is not to serve, but to grow the size of government. We're quite sick of it. And this election should we become successful, will send that message to Washington.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not young enough to know everything.
> Oscar Wilde
> 
> First, *SOME* businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. And that is a very recent development. BUT, even an internet only business would not be able to deliver goods to customers without infrastructure. And the efficiency or lack of efficiency of that infrastructure factors in the costs we ALL pay for goods and services. You folks on the right take for granted what We, the People have built, maintained and improved.
> 
> Ironic you mention Charlotte, because a recent national assessment of the 50 states ranked North Carolina 48th nationwide on urban interstate congestion, at 75.6 percent
> congested.
> 
> Traffic congestion is a pervasive and growing problem. Congestion is caused by urban growth, rising private mobility and longer-distance commuting, along with limited expansion of road capacity and competition for road space. Although the states largest regions (Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham) have the highest current congestion, other cities are likely to show more rapid growth in congestion. Congestion will more than double over the next 25 years, threatening the economic future of the state. _ref._
Click to expand...


Typical of you to deftly evade the FACT that without the private sector NOTHING gets done. 
Traffic studies? Another lib deflection. Don't change the subject.
However, since you opened the door. 
NC has these issues despite the fact that we pay the fifth highest per gallon fuel tax in the nation. 39.6 CPG. http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-gasoline-tax-rates-january-1-2012...To illustrate the falsehood of Obama's point, the inefficiency and waste of NC's state government over the last four decades has left NC with one of the worst road systems in the nation. How is this possible with all that money supposedly earmarked for road construction and maintenance? They STEAL from the road fund. Then those bastards have the gall to tell us "there's no money for that". Then they raise the tax. 
So please spare me the "government is my hero" shit. 
Note..Under NC law, fuel taxes are recalculated each Jan 1st and July 1st. A formula is used to determine the amount of increase. The increase is relative to the average retail price around the state. Ironically, if fuel prices rise, so does the tax. We get a double whammy.
Again, if government is the sole source of infrastructure then why is it the state government can't build a 68 mile loop around Charlotte in under 30 years? 
The best thing government does is fuck up everything it gets it's grubby paws on.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not young enough to know everything.
> Oscar Wilde
> 
> First, *SOME* businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. And that is a very recent development. BUT, even an internet only business would not be able to deliver goods to customers without infrastructure. And the efficiency or lack of efficiency of that infrastructure factors in the costs we ALL pay for goods and services. You folks on the right take for granted what We, the People have built, maintained and improved.
> 
> Ironic you mention Charlotte, because a recent national assessment of the 50 states ranked North Carolina 48th nationwide on urban interstate congestion, at 75.6 percent
> congested.
> 
> Traffic congestion is a pervasive and growing problem. Congestion is caused by urban growth, rising private mobility and longer-distance commuting, along with limited expansion of road capacity and competition for road space. Although the states largest regions (Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham) have the highest current congestion, other cities are likely to show more rapid growth in congestion. Congestion will more than double over the next 25 years, threatening the economic future of the state. _ref._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody is arguing that infrastructure is not useful or even necessary for business to function these days. * What many of us ARE arguing is that infrastructure exists because people have been willing to take the risk to invest in commerce and industry and have paid taxes that fund the infrastructure.  And the more people who take the risk to invest in commerce and industry, the more resources are available to expand and improve existing infrastructure as well as develop new infrastructure.
> 
> Business and commerce make infrastructure possible and precede infrastructure.  It is not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually YOU are and have been, along with the rest of the butt hurt conservatives on this thread. The President stated facts. But they don't jive with your Ayn Rand dogmatic contempt for anything that is Public or the commons.
> 
> I know a lot about how infrastructure because I sold the equipment that builds the roads and bridges for 20 years. I talked to thousands of contractors, businessmen and women, and politicians.
> 
> It is a joint enterprise between government, the people and business. If you remove any of the 3, it will collapse. Those are just facts.
Click to expand...

You sold....Were you an employee of government? Or did you work in the private sector? Where are the federal and state employees that build the roads?
It is in no way a "joint enterprise"...The government is simply the vessel by which money is collected and spent.
The private sector is wholly responsible for building the country.
Stop insisting your correct. You are not. 
Joint enterprise my ass. Christ.
Obama is WRONG...No entrepreneurs, no business. Period. 

Oh, can you point out the government delicatessen, government restaurant, government landscape company, government home builder?
This should be fun.


----------



## Bfgrn

thereisnospoon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody is arguing that infrastructure is not useful or even necessary for business to function these days. * What many of us ARE arguing is that infrastructure exists because people have been willing to take the risk to invest in commerce and industry and have paid taxes that fund the infrastructure.  And the more people who take the risk to invest in commerce and industry, the more resources are available to expand and improve existing infrastructure as well as develop new infrastructure.
> 
> Business and commerce make infrastructure possible and precede infrastructure.  It is not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually YOU are and have been, along with the rest of the butt hurt conservatives on this thread. The President stated facts. But they don't jive with your Ayn Rand dogmatic contempt for anything that is Public or the commons.
> 
> I know a lot about how infrastructure because I sold the equipment that builds the roads and bridges for 20 years. I talked to thousands of contractors, businessmen and women, and politicians.
> 
> It is a joint enterprise between government, the people and business. If you remove any of the 3, it will collapse. Those are just facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sold....Were you an employee of government? Or did you work in the private sector? Where are the federal and state employees that build the roads?
> It is in no way a "joint enterprise"...The government is simply the vessel by which money is collected and spent.
> The private sector is wholly responsible for building the country.
> Stop insisting your correct. You are not.
> Joint enterprise my ass. Christ.
> Obama is WRONG...No entrepreneurs, no business. Period.
> 
> Oh, can you point out the government delicatessen, government restaurant, government landscape company, government home builder?
> This should be fun.
Click to expand...


I suggest you start with a Civics course, because you really don't have a clue how anything is built, and you certainly don't have a clue how infrastructure is built. The steps required from the drawing board to the paving mostly involve government. Private contractors only get involved if the road construction is put out to bid. And if ABC Construction is the successful bidder, he has government inspectors on the job that have to inspect and approve every step of the construction. 

Some government agencies do all the work themselves. Mostly towns and some counties. And most roads are maintained by government highway departments, and public works departments.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one goes out and starts a business where there is no water system, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Unless they are growing pot.
> 
> Location, location, location.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point. Probably out of ignorance of the facts.
> First, most businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. The fact that there is a road in place is happenstance of development which takes place in the natural progress of growth.
> Water and sewer are easily replaced by wells and septic tanks. No need for government utilities. Electricity? Most power is supplied by private entities. Same with natural gas for heat. There are lots of ways to marginalize government involvement in the development of business and infrastructure. So much so that government sets up regulations where it can collect fees for "business permits"...This is a money grab.
> In nearby Charlotte, NC it is illegal for private property owners to use wells and/or septic tanks. Instead the law states they MUST connect to the city water and sewer system. IMO that is unjust.
> In any event, government pays for nothing. Constructs nothing. Maintains nothing WITHOUT taxpayer dollars.
> You libs will NEVER convince the majority of the people here of your idea that government should be worshiped as you worship it.
> Without the private sector, NOTHING GETS DONE....
> Lately it appears that the job of government is not to serve, but to grow the size of government. We're quite sick of it. And this election should we become successful, will send that message to Washington.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not young enough to know everything.
> Oscar Wilde
> 
> First, *SOME* businesses do not require a fixed location such as a store front or other commercial building. And that is a very recent development. BUT, even an internet only business would not be able to deliver goods to customers without infrastructure. And the efficiency or lack of efficiency of that infrastructure factors in the costs we ALL pay for goods and services. You folks on the right take for granted what We, the People have built, maintained and improved.
> 
> Ironic you mention Charlotte, because a recent national assessment of the 50 states ranked North Carolina 48th nationwide on urban interstate congestion, at 75.6 percent
> congested.
> 
> Traffic congestion is a pervasive and growing problem. Congestion is caused by urban growth, rising private mobility and longer-distance commuting, along with limited expansion of road capacity and competition for road space. Although the states largest regions (Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham) have the highest current congestion, other cities are likely to show more rapid growth in congestion. Congestion will more than double over the next 25 years, threatening the economic future of the state. _ref._
Click to expand...


You just watch what happens in North Dakota over the next 5 years. Folks there are riding ATVs to work and the Shale Oil/Gas folks are building SCHOOLS because the govt is still gonna be trying to get it's pants on --- LONG AFTER this boom is out and succeeding. This whole CONCEPT of all that Collective Preparation for success as being INDISPENSABLE is a complete trailer load of manure...


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgm's resume seems to be expanding all the time.  It is amazing how much personal experience he has in just about every facet of big government.

The bottom line is that commerce and industry got started just fine in this country with NO government help and NO government infrastructure of any kind.  It was only because people were willing to risk their own resources to create commerce and industry that it became practical to form government and begin sharing some services.

When business and commerce comes to town, the tax base broadens, and government has more resources to utilize in shared services WHEN the people vote the bonds to create those shared services.  Shared services keeps each of us from having to reinvent the wheel in everything we do.  The more people and commerce and industry there is in a place, the more infrastructure there will be.

When people are out of work, business and commerce suffers, and if the people start moving away so that business and commerce can no longer make a profit, businesses close.  And when that happens, the infrastructure begins to deteriorate and crumble.

Business and commerce precedes infrastructure every single time.  Rather than a civics class, I think some here would benefit from a basic economics course.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgm's resume seems to be expanding all the time.  It is amazing how much personal experience he has in just about every facet of big government.
> 
> The bottom line is that commerce and industry got startted just fine in this country with NO government help and NO government infrastructure of any kind.  It was only because people were willing to risk their own resources to create commerce and industry that it became practical to form government and begin sharing some services.
> 
> When business and commerce comes to town, the tax base broadens, and government has more resources to utilize in shared services WHEN the people vote the bonds to create those shared services.  Shared services keeps each of us from having to reinvent the wheel in everything we do.  The more people and commerce and industry there is in a place, the more infrastructure there will be.
> 
> When people are out of work, business and commerce suffers, and if the people start moving away so that business and commerce can no longer make a profit, businesses close.  And when that happens, the infrastructure begins to deteriorate and crumble.
> 
> Business and commerce precedes infrastructure every single time.  Rather than a civics class, I think some here would benefit from a basic economics course.



I think you could learn from what you just said...Business can't survive without consumers.

There is no single entity that can do it alone. Not business, not government and not consumers. They all play a vital role. But you want to put ideology before logic.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.



Ford did a hell of a lot more than that. 

Yes, Ford raised wages, the $5 is a myth, he wasn't a Communist who set a fixed wage for all, but rather an entry wage. The Ford worker would START at $5 a day.

What is ironic is that Ford did this largely to block unionization of the Ford plants.

But what Ford mostly did was drive the cost out of automobile production. Ford demanded that the Model T sell for $500; the Chevrolet Brothers were selling their car for $4,000. 

Ford missed his goal and the Model T originally sold for $825 - but still a fraction of what the competition charged. By 1916 the price had dropped to $360. 

What Ford did was to make the automobile affordable. He did something you of the left cannot fathom, he offered consumers  VALUE. He traded not wants, or needs, but value.



> But Ford also received a lot of criticism from other business owners that called Ford's raise social welfare, and that Ford had wrongfully brought biblical and spiritual principles into a field where they do not belong.



Far less, in fact very little was said about wages. The controversy was about the low sales price, which R.E. Olds (of Oldsmobile) stated was "unfair competition, undercutting the price to corner the market."


----------



## lukelk

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Obama is taking an interesting and dangerous approach on the campaign trail, telling successful business owners that they "didn't get there on their own", that their success is predicated in part on the labor and efforts (and taxes) of others.  This gives the GOP an opening to say, "see, he hates business owners, we told you so."
> 
> On the other hand, it opens up a national conversation that I've never seen before, building on Elizabeth Warren's comments as she runs for office.
> 
> This tactic is flying right into the teeth of the GOP's strength, that business and employers are the key to economic success.  He's betting that the GOP, so controlled by absolutists right now, is going to look anti-ALL workers, not just union.
> 
> Pretty brave, and I think it's a good conversation to have.
> 
> *Obama Mocks Rich: 'You Didn't Get There On Your Own'*
> 
> .



Better yet. taking that out of context and spinning it as the truth is awefull, everyone who has half a brain knows exactly what he meant by it. its simple, the infasrtucture of the united states, roads, schools, dams, the military, local and federal police agencies and first responders.......that is what makes it possible for our country to thrive. Now pick a product, any product and I will show you a little magic trick......


----------



## Uncensored2008

GuyPinestra said:


> And with that the kid's arm gets set for $6,000 instead of 8, but Granny's hip replacement get cancelled...
> 
> Helluva tradeoff, right?



Granny doesn't need a hip replacement; the death panel ruled that she is a burden on the system and will be put to rest.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bfgrn said:


> Henry Ford's $5-a-Day Revolution - Press Release
> 
> Next...



You DO realize that your cite confirms Bripat's contention, doncha?

Did you even read it before posting it?


----------



## lukelk

Uncensored2008 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with that the kid's arm gets set for $6,000 instead of 8, but Granny's hip replacement get cancelled...
> 
> Helluva tradeoff, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granny doesn't need a hip replacement; the death panel ruled that she is a burden on the system and will be put to rest.
Click to expand...


You truly dont understand the affordable care act do you?


----------



## Katzndogz

Unfortunately we understand it all too well.   obama understands how it works.  That's why he said that a woman who needs a pacemaker should just get a pill instead, and given the pill until she died because she needed a pacemaker.


----------



## Uncensored2008

lukelk said:


> You truly dont understand the affordable care act do you?



Obama's fascist care is over 2,700 pages in length. It is a law with no defined parameters. As governments who seek to avoid accountability are wont to do, fascist care is written in a way that it means whatever the government wants it to mean at any given moment.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.
> But Ford also received a lot of criticism from other business owners that called Ford's raise social welfare, and that Ford had wrongfully brought biblical and spiritual principles into a field where they do not belong.



Actually, that's not smart.  It's stupid.  Any company that thinks it's going to make a profit by selling its products to its employees is certifiably insane.  they can never be more than a small fraction of the customer base.

Do you think Rolls Royce would make a profit if it raised wages to the point where its employees could afford to buy one?  How about Lear Jet?

The theory you enunciated above is a liberal myth.  It simply isn't true.


----------



## lukelk

Uncensored2008 said:


> lukelk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You truly dont understand the affordable care act do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's fascist care is over 2,700 pages in length. It is a law with no defined parameters. As governments who seek to avoid accountability are wont to do, fascist care is written in a way that it means whatever the government wants it to mean at any given moment.
Click to expand...


Well to start you say fascist, and then I have seen your posts where you call it communist, which one is it, CAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT! more importantly, you are then calling romney a fascist cause Romney care is Obama care, just on a state level, and you are calling Regan a fascist cause both Romney&Obama care are modeled after what the Regan admin. proposed doing which was the mandate. so I doubt you have read the whole thing, and from what you have been saying you dont understand pretty much anything about it.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ford was smart enough to know that conumers, and Ford employees were consumers, needed enough money to buy a Ford so Ford gave his employees a raise to five dollars a day so they could buy Fords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course perfectly stupid and 100% liberal.
> 
> if that made sense I'd go into the car business or somebody else would, pay the workers more or even million and get rich!! A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so should not comment here.
> 
> Do you understand???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can ever understand what you're trying to say? But you can start by trying to tell us what is  liberal about Ford's reasoning? Ford could make a million cars but if there were no consumers what happens? A number of auto manufacturers, Hudson, Reo, Studebaker, Nash, Rambler, Essex, and many others might give you a clue.
Click to expand...


It's not Ford's reasoning.  It's a myth liberals invented as an argument to support their "living wage" idiocy.

If Ford has 10,000 employees and makes a million cars in a year, how is it going to make a profit by doubling the wages of its employees?  If every employee buys one, Ford is only going to increase sales by 1%.  Meanwhile, Fords costs of production will have increased by 50% or 100%.

Vast wage increases only make sense if production increases by an equal amount.  It has nothing to do with the ability of workers to buy the product.


----------



## bripat9643

Iacoca was the kind of CEO who succeeded by farming the government rather than by running his company efficiently.  He's a blood sucking parasite.



Bfgrn said:


> Let's hear what the former CEO of Ford had to say before the 2008 election, OK?
> 
> *Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.*
> 
> Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. *Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. *And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.
> 
> Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.
> 
> I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.


----------



## bripat9643

Government shifted those costs onto private hospitals and private insurance companies.



Bfgrn said:


> Actually, hospitals, doctors and insurance corporations build those health care costs.
> 
> 
> Medicare vs. private insurance in one graph


----------



## bripat9643

Barb said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no quote of Henry Ford saying that.  Your article also states that the reason for the wage increase was to reduce worker attrition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. *The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> duh
Click to expand...


Nope.  The author of the article said that, not Henry Ford.  When you see something Henry Ford actually said it will have these (") thingies on either side of it.


----------



## lukelk

2000-2009 hmmmm bush years


----------



## Uncensored2008

lukelk said:


> Well to start you say fascist, and then I have seen your posts where you call it communist, which one is it, CAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT!



Unfortunately, the left is abysmally ignorant. Drones reciting mantras who lack the capacity of thought.

{The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State--a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values--interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)

Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)} - Benito Mussolini.

Fascism is the incorporation of the central government with corporations. Where government decides trends and production goals, with business executing to the requirements of the state.

Obama's fascist care is exactly that, fascist. It is the merger of corporate interests and the state. Fascist care literally entangles well connected corporations such as Blue Cross and Kaiser with the state, making the IRS the bill collector and setting the production goals for these psuedo-private concerns by the federal government.

Look, you're an Obamabot - you lack the IQ points to grasp even rudimentary concepts, relying on emotion to drive your worship of Obama. But terms have meanings to the sentient beings.



> more importantly, you are then calling romney a fascist cause Romney care is Obama care, just on a state level, and you are calling Regan a fascist cause both Romney&Obama care are modeled after what the Regan admin. proposed doing which was the mandate. so I doubt you have read the whole thing, and from what you have been saying you dont understand pretty much anything about it.



Yawn.

Your little world revolves around "my god is better than yours." And no sparky, the Reagan administration did not propose state run health care. You are fouling your hating points again, taking an old Cato article and trying to shove it up Reagan's ass.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> Iacoca was the kind of CEO who succeeded by farming the government rather than by running his company efficiently.  He's a blood sucking parasite.



Who cut corners on the Pinto, and damned near destroyed the company.


----------



## thereisnospoon

lukelk said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with that the kid's arm gets set for $6,000 instead of 8, but Granny's hip replacement get cancelled...
> 
> Helluva tradeoff, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granny doesn't need a hip replacement; the death panel ruled that she is a burden on the system and will be put to rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You truly dont understand the affordable care act do you?
Click to expand...


So be our teacher and tell us how it works.
And if you use terms such as "efficiency" or "lowers cost", I will know you haven't a clue.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay folks, let's drag this train back onto the tracks.  It should be the focus of every American who wants to get our economy back on track and start reversing some of the damage that has been done over the past three years.

Now I ask you.  How was Obama's "You didn't build that" speech any different than the satricial spoof in this You Tube clip?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZQvSCGaJI]Honey, You Didn&#39;t Build That - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn

thereisnospoon said:


> lukelk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Granny doesn't need a hip replacement; the death panel ruled that she is a burden on the system and will be put to rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You truly dont understand the affordable care act do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So be our teacher and tell us how it works.
> And if you use terms such as "efficiency" or "lowers cost", I will know you haven't a clue.
Click to expand...


I just did answer your lack of knowledge on the 2 lies you posted. And instead of hitting the 'Quote' button, you cut that part of my answer out.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Uncensored2008 said:


> Obama's fascist care is exactly that, fascist. It is the merger of corporate interests and the state. .



yes but our liberals imagine themselves to be good fascists.

We see what BS it is when we read that 70% of Barry's Solyndra green energy  money went to his bundlers, not to those who had the best shot at new green energy products!!

Anyone more interested can read "Liberal Fascism" for 400 pages of it. Here are some quote from the book. 

W.E.B DuBois: (the most important black leader in the first half of the 20th Century) "Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th Century approach his stature. The formation of the Nazi dictatorship was absolutely necessary to get the state in order." In 1937 he proclaimed: "there is today more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past." (page 10)

-Guy Tugwell: (FDR Brain Trust) said of fascism: "It's the cleanest, neatest piece...of social machinery I've ever seen." ( page 11)

-Walter Lippman: called on FDR to be a "dictator." (page 11)

-H.G. Wells: "progressives must become "liberal fascists and enlightened Nazis" ( page 21)

-Wallace Stevens: "I am pro-Mussolini." ( page 27)

-Isaac F. Marcosson: in the NY Times, "Mussolini is a Latin Teddy
Roosevelt." ( page 27)

-American Legion: "do not forget, Fascists are to Italy what the American Legion is to America." ( page 27)

-Will Rogers: "I'm pretty high on Mussolini 'Dictatorship' is the right form of gov't if you have the right dictator." ( page 27)

-Saturday Evening Post: gave Mussolini biggest advance ever on article he wrote about himself. (page 32)

-Winston Churchill: dubbed Mussolini the world's greatest lawgiver (page 27)

-Freud and Einstein: called Mussolini the hero of Culture (Page 29)

-Puccini and Toscanini: both were pioneering Fascists of Mussolini (page 32)

-Ida Tarbell: called Mussolini the "despot with a dimple." ( page 28)

-Lincoln Steffens: about Russia -"I have seen the future and it works"
(page 28)

-McClures magazine: "Fascism is a 'great step forward' and the first new idea in govt' since the founding of the American Republic" ( page 28)

-John Patrick Duggins: Columbia University is "Fascism's veritable home in America and a school house for budding fascists ideologues." ( page 32)

-Nicholas Butler: (President of Columbia University) received a signed photo from Mussolini thanking him for his, "most valuable contribution to the promotion of understanding between Fascist Italy and the United States" ( page 29)

-James Farrell: (head of US Steel) Mussolini is the "greatest living man"

-Lowell Thomas: "he (Mussolini) stands out like a Modern Caesar - the answer to America's needs" (page 30)

-Jonah Goldberg; "communists and Nazis tended to vote together in the Reichstag" (page 77)

-Jonah Goldberg: "More dissidents were arrested under...Woodrow Wilson than Mussolini" ( page 80)

-Jonah Goldberg: "In Italy they were called Fascists; in Germany they were called Nazis; in America they were called progressives" (page 81)

-Woodrow Wilson: "The State does..whatever the times demand" (page 86)

-Jane Adams: "the individual must lose the sense of personal achievement" (page 87)

-Walter Rauschenbusch: "individualism means tyranny" (page 87)

-Woodrow Wilson: "our problem...to make kids as unlike their fathers as we can" (page 92)

-Woodrow Wilson: "Jefferson has passed...American is not a place for unrestricted individual enterprise" ( page 93).

-Woodrow Wilson: "Bismark's welfare state is the most perfected in the world" ( page 95)

-Charles Beard: "fascism is an amazing experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism" (page 100)

-Stuart Chase: "Communist Party officials...create a new heaven on earth" (page 102)

-W.E.B. Dubois: "I stand in wonder...I am a Bolshevik"

-Arthur Bullard: "Any citizen who did not put the state first is merely dead weight" ( page 110)

-Stuart Chase: "why should Russia have all the fun of remaking a world?" ( page 131)

-H.G. Wells : called for "a 'Phoenix Rebirth' of Liberalism under the banner of Liberal Fascism" ( page 134)

-George Orwell: (met FDR at White House often) "Much of what H.G. Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany"(page 135)

-Father Coughlin: "capitalism is doomed" (138)

-Nazi newspaper: described Roosevelt as a man of irreproachable, extremely responsible character and immovable will... with a profound understanding of social needs...with nationalist socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies" ( page 147)

-Mussolini: "America has a dictator in FDR" ( page 148)

-Rexford Tugwell: in 1934 "I find Italy doing many of the things which seem to me necessary" (page 156)

-NRA Study: "The Fascist principles are very similar to those which have been evolving in America and are of particular interest at this time" (page 156)

-Washington Post: headline -"Reagan Still Sure Some In New Deal Espoused Fascism" (page 157)

-Harry Hopkins: (new deal Communist) "that we (those in FDR Administration) are not afraid of exploring anything within the law, and we have lawyers who will declare anything you want to do legal" ( page 159)

-Jonah Goldberg: "in the 1960's Mao Tse-Tung's Little Red Book of revolutionary maxims became a best seller in America"

-Irving Louis Horowitz: "Fascism will return to the United States not as right wing ideology but almost as a quasi-leftist ideology" (page 198)

-John F Kennedy: "political labels and ideological approaches are irrelevant to the solution of today's challenges" ( page 211)

-Jonah Goldberg: "The Marxist explanation of Fascism was that it was the capitalist ruling classes' reaction to the treat of the ascendancy of the working class." (page 223)

-Sidney Webb: "no socialist eugenicist can be a Laissez Faire individualist... the result is this country gradually falling to the Jews and Irish" (page 249)

-H.G. Wells: "eugenics must be the central tenant of any true successful socialism" (page 249)

-Jonah Goldberg: "George Bernard Shaw was not only an ardent socialist but totally committed to eugenics" (page 249)

-John Maynard Keynes: "eugenics is the most important significant..and genuine branch of sociology" (page 250)

-Harold Laski: ( friend to FDR and other American Democrats) "Socialists have to inculcate that spirit which would give offenders against the state short shrift and the nearest lampost" (page 251)

-Charles Van Hise: "we know enough about eugenics so that if the knowledge were applied the defective classes would disappear within a generation" (page 256)

-Jonah Goldberg: "when the Nazi took over they replaced the traditional infrastructure of the state and churches with a Nazi monopoly on charity" (page 267)

-Jonah Goldberg: "Mein Kamph is replete with attacks on dividend hungry businessman whose greed, ruthlessness and short sighted narrow mindedness were ruining the economy. The Nazi Party labor union threatened to put business leaders in concentration camps if they didn't increase workers' wages" (page 288)

-Fortune Magazine: "the corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt" (page 293)

-Foreign Affairs: "The Italian (fascist) system treated workers better" ( page 295)

-Adolf Hitler: "Christianity will disappear from Germany just it has done in Russia" (page 365)

-Lawrence Tribe (Harvard Law School): religious views were inherently superstitious and hence less legitimate then secular ones" (page 366)

So then, if you were surprised to discover that American Democrats had a natural love affair with Communism, Socialism, and Fascism you have to wonder why. Was it due to your own failings or perhaps a liberal conspiracy in the schools and media to keep the information from you, or both. In any case, if you are still tempted to imagine that the caring, big gov't programs you support could not possibly lead to the horrors of Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin then you have to wonder how it is that Jefferson knew they would - 150 years earlier. What exactly did Jefferson know. Simple: he knew men and he knew human history. But, despite his wisdom, and the country he gave us base on that wisdom, the Democrats made the 20th Century the bloodiest of all centuries. Try to imagine what would be left of the world if Jeffersonian Republicans hadn't been there the whole time as the last best hope for freedom on earth.


----------



## Wolfmoon

"I did too built it!"


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lukelk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You truly dont understand the affordable care act do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So be our teacher and tell us how it works.
> And if you use terms such as "efficiency" or "lowers cost", I will know you haven't a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just did answer your lack of knowledge on the 2 lies you posted. And instead of hitting the 'Quote' button, you cut that part of my answer out.
Click to expand...


Hey fucko....I changed NOTHING....Here is the thread chain...
Don't ever fucking accuse me of changing or cutting out anything again.
And don't go thinking to you get to tell me what to do.



Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: mid south
Posts: 7,406
Thanks: 595
Thanked 1,562 Times in 1,227 Posts
Rep Power: 287


Quote: Originally Posted by lukelk 
Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008 
Quote: Originally Posted by GuyPinestra 
And with that the kid's arm gets set for $6,000 instead of 8, but Granny's hip replacement get cancelled...

Helluva tradeoff, right?
Granny doesn't need a hip replacement; the death panel ruled that she is a burden on the system and will be put to rest.
You truly dont understand the affordable care act do you?
So be our teacher and tell us how it works.
And if you use terms such as "efficiency" or "lowers cost", I will know you haven't a clue.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bfgrn said:


> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
> John Kenneth Galbraith




For example, who can forget his (Galbraith's) infamous 1984 quote that the communist system in the former Soviet Union was superior to capitalism because, according to Galbraith, the communists somehow made better and more efficient use of its "manpower" than did the West? Indeed, to the very end, Galbraith was a socialist impersonating an economist.


John Kenneth Galbraith, an intellectual icon of the Old Left and New Left, said of the Soviets overtaking of Poland after World War II: Russia should be permitted to absorb Poland, the Balkans, and the whole of Eastern Europe in order to spread the benefits of Communism (Emphasis added).


----------

