Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
By all means, let's take a look at your argument then. Show us where Zombie is wrong.
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
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.
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"...
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?
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.
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.
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.
wow...not even close..my goodness
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I invested that money in shipping jobs overseas
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.
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.
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.
