|
|
On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help?
If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller.
|
On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business.
There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together.
On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller.
Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade?
|
On September 17 2012 07:23 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 06:55 kmillz wrote:On September 17 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 03:47 kmillz wrote:On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote:On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers. It applies to only adults 18+. Sorry for making you waste all that time typing that. Here's what you wrote: "Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK?". According to that definition of yours, kids would be included. Anyway, read what I wrote next time, you'll understand the argument better. Ok, and here is what you wrote: "If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers." I understand your argument to be irrelevant and unrelated to what I stated because I failed to mention that I am strictly referring to adults. The 8.1% unemployment rate does not account for adults who dropped out of the work force. I am not comparing unemployment rates. I am not comparing ANYTHING in fact. I am only stating WHAT the ACTUAL unemployment rate is NOT. It is NOT 8.1%. So my argument about the fact that there are different definitions and types of measures of unemployment is unrelated to your claim about what the so-called "actual" unemployment rate is? Let me repeat: the most common measure of unemployment is U3. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. According to how unemployment is defined by the ILO, which is what the U3 measure is based on, the current unemployment rate is 8.1%. That's the "actual unemployment rate" as defined by the ILO and as calculated by most states. Now, you're free to disagree with that definition, and you're free to prefer using other measures of unemployment, for example U4, U5 or U6. But it's idiotic to declare that the "actual unemployment rate is not 8.1%", when it clearly is according to the commonly-accepted definition of unemployment and the measure of unemployment universally used.
Unemployed adults in the United States is not 8.1%. It's idiotic to declare that adults who are not in the work force are NOT unemployed.
I am NOT in the work force and I AM unemployed, however I am NOT going to be in the 8.1% statistic, therefore I am not unemployed under the "commonly accepted definition" of unemployment? Really?
|
On September 17 2012 07:30 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:On September 17 2012 07:13 xDaunt wrote:
I really can't believe that the Obama administration is claiming that the attacks were not premeditated. It's such a stupid claim that it almost defies explanation....
Of course, the explanation that readily comes to mind is that the administration did, in fact, have "actionable" intelligence that the attacks were coming and ignored it. Wow. Now you're just making speculating and making stuff up now? Weakness. I know you want Obama to lose but you're grasping. I'm open to alternative theories of why the Obama administration is claiming that the attacks were not premeditated in the face of 1) overwhelming tactical evidence that they were, and 2) claims from numerous countries and journalistic outfits that the Obama administration was warned of the attacks ahead of time. I haven't read a report that they where warned of the attacks in Lybia ahead of time. I think your confusing Egypt and Lybia. Also, bear in mind there are multiple plots, every year since 9/11, to attack something on it's anniversary. Even if there was evidence, it might not be actionable. I haven't read anywhere that the administration is claiming that the attacks were not premeditated. They might be investigating it still. But links, plz.
Well, hell, pull your head out of the sand. I don't know where you get your news, but it took me about 2 seconds after reading your post to get this link.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
As for the Administration's claims:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/
You must rely on PMSNBC for your "news".
|
On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller.
You didn't answer the question, because the only answer is that every business in the country utilizes infrastructure supported by the government.
I bet Obama loves the revenue your lemonade stand generates, and the taxes you provide. You should probably enjoy the 1,000,000,000 other things that are supported by the government that allows you to have your lemonade stand.
|
On September 17 2012 07:35 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:23 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 06:55 kmillz wrote:On September 17 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 03:47 kmillz wrote:On September 16 2012 05:39 kwizach wrote:On September 16 2012 04:30 kmillz wrote:On September 15 2012 16:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 15 2012 15:46 smarty pants wrote:On September 15 2012 14:51 paralleluniverse wrote:No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, I see what you've done now. You've used the change from a year ago, not percentage change. But that's completely wrong. And it goes to show that you have no idea what a CPI is. CPI is an index that measures percentage change from the last period, as such percentage changes are scale invariant, whereas the change is not. For example if an apple costs $5 and changed to $6, a 20% increase, then an index for apples that was 100 last year would increase to 120, an increase of 20. But if the scale had been changed due to inflation 20 years ago, so that the index was 1000 last year, then the increase would be 200. This is wrong, the increase is neither. The change in price is actually scale invariant and it's 20%. Moreover, inflation is measured by year on year percentage change, not year on year change in the CPI value. Further, the way that CPI is actually calculated is that BLS works out the percentage change for each item group and multiplies it with the previous period index value so that the absolute change is a meaningless, scale dependent quantity. Don't just take it from me: Here's the BLS's headline CPI release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htmThey use percentage change, not change. Cool ad hominem attack. It was a drop down menu error. By the way, the CPI uses a percent change FROM the "the average change over time" which is just a slope. They compare last periods by the slope, not from direct period to period intervals using a percentage change. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about as my graph is perfectly correct. The correct calculation is year on year percentage change of the CPI. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#MeasuresOf course not too surprising coming from someone who once claimed that the REAL unemployment rate is 15%. The REAL unemployment rate is U3, and it's 8.1%. The other unemployment rate known as U6 has never once fallen below 7.9% in the last decade, not even at levels that are about consistent with long run maximum employment. The REAL unemployment rate is definitely NOT 8.1% by the definition of unemployed. Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK? Unless you are disputing the definition, the ACTUAL unemployment rate is over 11%, I do not know about 15%, but it is definitely at least 11% maybe over 12% when you factor in all of the people who simply dropped out of the work force (given that they are now receiving more benefits) If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers. It applies to only adults 18+. Sorry for making you waste all that time typing that. Here's what you wrote: "Are you going to dispute that someone who is unemployed is somebody who is without employment? Someone who does not WORK?". According to that definition of yours, kids would be included. Anyway, read what I wrote next time, you'll understand the argument better. Ok, and here is what you wrote: "If you simply define unemployment as "people who do not work", then kids and retired people should also be taken into account. That's why unemployment is more strictly defined (see p. 4), and that's why U3 is, as paralleluniverse said, the measure used worldwide. The unemployment rate is, therefore, 8.1%. If you're going to be using a different measure, then you need to make your comparisons among rates using the same measure and not, for example, compare the 2004 U3 unemployment numbers to the 2012 U6 unemployment numbers." I understand your argument to be irrelevant and unrelated to what I stated because I failed to mention that I am strictly referring to adults. The 8.1% unemployment rate does not account for adults who dropped out of the work force. I am not comparing unemployment rates. I am not comparing ANYTHING in fact. I am only stating WHAT the ACTUAL unemployment rate is NOT. It is NOT 8.1%. So my argument about the fact that there are different definitions and types of measures of unemployment is unrelated to your claim about what the so-called "actual" unemployment rate is? Let me repeat: the most common measure of unemployment is U3. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. According to how unemployment is defined by the ILO, which is what the U3 measure is based on, the current unemployment rate is 8.1%. That's the "actual unemployment rate" as defined by the ILO and as calculated by most states. Now, you're free to disagree with that definition, and you're free to prefer using other measures of unemployment, for example U4, U5 or U6. But it's idiotic to declare that the "actual unemployment rate is not 8.1%", when it clearly is according to the commonly-accepted definition of unemployment and the measure of unemployment universally used. Unemployed adults in the United States is not 8.1%. It's idiotic to declare that adults who are not in the work force are NOT unemployed.
According to the most commonly used definition of unemployment, and according to the most commonly used measure of unemployment, the rate of unemployment in the United States is 8.1%.
|
On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade?
Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take.
|
On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples?
Sure,
Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism"
Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits"
"fat cats" on wall st
Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share"
Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee
Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout
NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to
The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry.
|
On September 17 2012 07:37 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. You didn't answer the question, because the only answer is that every business in the country utilizes infrastructure supported by the government. I bet Obama loves the revenue your lemonade stand generates, and the taxes you provide. You should probably enjoy the 1,000,000,000 other things that are supported by the government that allows you to have your lemonade stand.
I don't know what country you live in. But here in the gold ol' U.S. of A, the government doesn't "allow us" to have lemonade stands. We are free to have lemonade stands. If the government ever tried to take away that freedom, there would be a problem. A big one.
edit: about the infrastructure "supported by the government". We the People own the government in this Country.
|
Let this be the conclusive post on why the 8.1% reported unemployment rate is garbage.
Now the depressing details of the [August] jobs report:
– Nonfarm payrolls increased by only 96,000 in August, the Labor Department said, versus expectations of 125,000 jobs or more. The manufacturing sector, much touted by the president in his convention speech, lost 15,000 jobs.
– Since the start of the year, job growth has averaged 139,000 per month vs. an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011.
– As the chart at the top shows, the unemployment rate remains far above the rate predicted by Team Obama if Congress passed the stimulus. (This is the Romer-Bernstein chart.)
– While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% from 8.3% in July, it was due to a big drop in the labor force participation rate (the share of Americans with a job or looking for one). If fewer Americans hadn’t given up looking for work, the unemployment rate would have risen.
– Reuters notes that the participation rate is now at its lowest level since September 1981.
– If the labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11.2%.
– If the participation rate had just stayed the same as last month, the unemployment rate would be 8.4%.
Source.
|
Okay... so Mitt was just saying that America has a high standard of living? Still when he says 95% of your success is already there, or whatever... I don't get it. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Because honestly that almost sounds like he's proud that America is a 'welfare state'. Man, I feel really dumb right now about that Mitt Romney clip. I seriously can't understand what he was trying to say. Baffles me.
On September 17 2012 04:52 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. There was a "crackdown" under Bush but it only targeted a handful of people so I'm not sure how much of a chilling effect it had. I believe the only person to go to jail was Max Hardcore. Quite notably, a woman was convicted of writing obscene stories. Everyone who talks about how America has free speech compared to other countries quite conveniently ignores how the government in America can arrest you for writing stories deemed too inappropriate. True, it was only one person, and she accepted a plea bargain for house arrest and probation, in part to avoid a trial because she is an agoraphobe (which is suppose also makes house arrest a bit less harsh? Still unacceptable, however).
Whoa. I don't believe this. Do you have some article or anything to back you up? America is totally obsessed with free speech. Much moreso than a lot of other countries. It's one of the coolest things about America. So I have to be skeptical that "writing stories deemed too inappropriate" is all there was to it. Possibly a libel charge or something?
|
On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America.
This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take.
Who the hell is "claiming ownership" of your stand?! What kind of crazy strawman of the point Obama was making is this?! All he's saying is that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum, and that we should therefore recognize the importance of both individual initiative and the fact that we live in a society and do some things together. As long as you recognize that some of the things that allow you to sell lemonade were not built by you (for example the roads that bring potential customers to your stand and more generally the infrastructure that allow humans to live in its relative vicinity), it means you agree with him.
|
On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? Sure, Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism" Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits" "fat cats" on wall st Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry.
I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise.
|
On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America.
This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take.
Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business.
|
On September 17 2012 07:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
No and no.
95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale.
'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Who the hell is "claiming ownership" of your stand?! What kind of crazy strawman of the point Obama was making is this?! All he's saying is that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum, and that we should therefore recognize the importance of both individual initiative and the fact that we live in a society and do some things together. As long as you recognize that some of the things that allow you to sell lemonade were not built by you (for example the roads that bring potential customers to your stand and more generally the infrastructure that allow humans to live in its relative vicinity), it means you agree with him.
Do you have difficulty in separating the need for roads and infrastructure, in general, from irresponsible government spending and control ? Nobody thinks we should live in a society without the basic infrastructure that promotes commerce among us. However, using that basic premise as a rallying cry for morons to support economic policies they don't understand because they get free Obamaphones, for example, is disgusting to me. Disgusting on one level that our President engages in that rhetoric, but so much moreso that it actually works on so many people. $16 trillion in debt and counting. The younger generation is so obsessed with "making history" they do and support some really stupid shit, with no thought of the consequences. Well, there will be consequences, for sure, and it will be that very generation that bears the brunt of it.
|
On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
No and no.
95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale.
'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business.
Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered.
edit: To your "without government, you have no business" comment. Without business, what do you think we have, since it's business that funds the government.
|
On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 16 2012 23:36 DoubleReed wrote:
Have there been serious crackdowns on porn in states or anything?
Sorry, I should have been more clear on the China thing. What was Mitt Romney trying to say? I assume he wasn't talking about how awesome government is. He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America. This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
No and no.
95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale.
'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business.
Chicken or egg? Without business government has no tax revenue to build all that.
Regardless, Obama is not running against the anarchy party so they point that some government stuff is good is pointless.
|
On September 17 2012 07:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:45 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America.
This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:
[quote]
How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane).
Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Who the hell is "claiming ownership" of your stand?! What kind of crazy strawman of the point Obama was making is this?! All he's saying is that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum, and that we should therefore recognize the importance of both individual initiative and the fact that we live in a society and do some things together. As long as you recognize that some of the things that allow you to sell lemonade were not built by you (for example the roads that bring potential customers to your stand and more generally the infrastructure that allow humans to live in its relative vicinity), it means you agree with him. Do you have difficulty in separating the need for roads and infrastructure, in general, from irresponsible government spending and control ? Nobody thinks we should live in a society without the basic infrastructure that promotes commerce among us.
Then you agree with the point he was making in that speech. The end.
|
On September 17 2012 07:54 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:53 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:45 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
No and no.
95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale.
'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made.
The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Who the hell is "claiming ownership" of your stand?! What kind of crazy strawman of the point Obama was making is this?! All he's saying is that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum, and that we should therefore recognize the importance of both individual initiative and the fact that we live in a society and do some things together. As long as you recognize that some of the things that allow you to sell lemonade were not built by you (for example the roads that bring potential customers to your stand and more generally the infrastructure that allow humans to live in its relative vicinity), it means you agree with him. Do you have difficulty in separating the need for roads and infrastructure, in general, from irresponsible government spending and control ? Nobody thinks we should live in a society without the basic infrastructure that promotes commerce among us. Then you agree with the point he was making in that speech. The end.
You seem to have real trouble reading posts. Nobody disputes that we ... eh - forget it, just scroll up, I'm not typing it again ...
|
On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 00:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
He's basically saying that 95% of your success is because you live in America.
This contradicts his "you didn't build that" argument. No and no. 95% of your well-being comes from being in America as the standard of living here is extremely high compared to the 3rd world. That doesn't make it any easier to be successful though, since everyone defines success in relation to their peers. No one thinks that someone in America making $10k/yr is successful, yet you'd be well off on a global scale. 'You didn't build that' just represents the idea (and a correct one IMO) that Obama doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses. Saying that the US has a good standard of living doesn't refute that. How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane). Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. There's really not much to say in response to this except that it's just not true. The only thing Obama is guilty of here is a grammatical error, since he indeed should have used "those" instead of "that", but any intellectually-honest person will in fact conclude that he was referring to the "roads and bridges" that he had mentioned in the previous sentence (and by the way, fact-checkers like politifact.com clearly recognized that Obama's words had been distorted by Romney). The context of the speech very clearly confirms this, since in it Obama underlines the importance of both individual initiative and doing things together. On September 17 2012 07:32 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:20 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:
[quote]
How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane).
Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? It's only a distortion to avid supporters of Obama, no matter what. Listening to the entire context, as objectively as one reasonably can, leads an intellectually honest person to conclude that Obama was referring to a business as 'that'. Roads and bridges are 'those', not 'that', as well. So, it doesn't matter how many times it's denied (or explained per your word choice), it doesn't make it so. Honest people can listen to the actual context and fairly conclude that he was not referring to roads and bridges, but to the business. Similarly, Obama apologists can "explain" the reasons for current violence across the world as being from one Youtube video, until they are blue in the face, however evidence exists that the attack(s) was(were) planned in advance. Obama's administration is doing everything it can to blame the Youtube video because any other cause hurts his re-election chances. Debate on what 'that' was specifically referring aside, do you think that your average business owner built his or her business on their own? Without any outside help? If I start a lemonade stand today. I purchase the lemonade. I pay for the permits to operate my lemonade stand. I spend my $$ marketing my product. I am liable for anyone who gets sick from the lemonade I serve. I can get sued, if somebody slips in front of my lemonade stand because the customer in front of them dropped their lemonade on the floor, which of course, I have to replace for fear that I will receive bad press from some self-entitled brat who deserves to drink a lemonade, even though they dropped the first. I have to fill out all the government forms and tax returns, remitting sales taxes collected, and deal with government regulators since I'm serving a food product to the public. If my lemonade stand doesn't make a profit, then not only do I net get paid for the time I spend selling lemonade and preparing it, and doing all the b.s. compliance tasks, but I am still out of pocket. My neighbor is an employee of a construction company that received the contract to build the road in front of my house. He worked on that road for 2 weeks and was compensated from his employer for two weeks of work, at the contracted rate. Now, you ask, how much did my neighbor contribute to my business. Not a motherfucking thing, how about that ? He should be happy that the money I generate from my lemonade stand generates tax revenue to our community so that he is hired in the future to build another road somewhere else. What risk has my neighbor taken ? He wants to be responsible for a business, he should open his own construction business and keep his grimy paws out of my lemonade stand's tiller. Did you build the possible demand for lemonade? Did you build the road that allows people to get to your lemonade stand? Did you build the infrastructure that allows human beings to live sufficiently close to your lemonade stand to potentially buy some of your lemonade? Did I build the possible demand for lemonade ? What kind of liberal bullshit argument is that ? I didn't build the road. I pretty clearly stated as much. It's clear, however, that whoever build the road and infrastructure were paid as employees, so they have no right to claim any ownership or right to the rewards generated from risks that I take. Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business. Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered.
Please refrain from being patronizing.
I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported.
Here is the transcription.
"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."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
