|
|
On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo 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? 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. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc.
I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment.
|
On September 17 2012 08:10 erin[go]bragh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? I'll go out on a limb here and say, to the levels they were at back when the economy was booming and we had a surplus? Taxes were cut. The economy tanked. Obviously you could fill a lake with all the other variables, but I fail to see why raising taxes, when they are the lowest they have been in decades, seems like such an alien and dramatic thing.
You want spending levels set back to the Clinton presidency ? I'm right there with you. Let's cap spending at no higher than the amounts they were under Clinton. Any tea-partier would agree to that, as well.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 09:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 08:10 erin[go]bragh wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? I'll go out on a limb here and say, to the levels they were at back when the economy was booming and we had a surplus? Taxes were cut. The economy tanked. Obviously you could fill a lake with all the other variables, but I fail to see why raising taxes, when they are the lowest they have been in decades, seems like such an alien and dramatic thing. You want spending levels set back to the Clinton presidency ? I'm right there with you. Let's cap spending at no higher than the amounts they were under Clinton. Any tea-partier would agree to that, as well.
Sure. Let's cut that defense spending the Pentagon says they're perfectly fine without.
|
On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: ![[image loading]](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/293191_10150918893749205_189142814_n.jpg) At least the Democrats want to do something.
You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat.
Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice.
|
On September 17 2012 07:36 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:30 Defacer wrote: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_t2As 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".
LOL.
You're equating a general report about the deteriorating security situation in Lybia with it's newly installed government, as comprehensive, actionable intelligence.
The Bush administration had better intelligence prior to the 9/11 attacks.
There's no reason to dispute the ambassadors claim that extremists seized upon the opportunity provided by the protests to provide cover for an attack. In fact, it doesn't necessarily contradict the Lybian government's claim that it was a group of foreign terrorists that had a planned attack months in advance either. It may very well be a coincidence, or a matter of both being true. Perhaps these terrorist saw the spontaneous protests, and that was enough of a reason to advance their time table and improvise their attack.
It's baffling that suddenly American conservatives suddenly trust the competency and credibility of the Lybian government more than their own. This story is literally 5 days old and everyone -- including the media -- is pretending to know everything about the motives of the attack, who executed it, and how much intelligence agencies knew before hand.
Funny stuff.
|
On September 17 2012 09:39 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:37 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:10 erin[go]bragh wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? I'll go out on a limb here and say, to the levels they were at back when the economy was booming and we had a surplus? Taxes were cut. The economy tanked. Obviously you could fill a lake with all the other variables, but I fail to see why raising taxes, when they are the lowest they have been in decades, seems like such an alien and dramatic thing. You want spending levels set back to the Clinton presidency ? I'm right there with you. Let's cap spending at no higher than the amounts they were under Clinton. Any tea-partier would agree to that, as well. Sure. Let's cut that defense spending the Pentagon says they're perfectly fine without.
I'm all for our national security, but I also realize the most populated areas are the heaviest concentration of Liberals and the biggest targets for terrorists. So, while I love my Country, I don't feel much at risk of being blown up by a terrorist (man-made accidental explosion might be the actual p.c. term), so if Liberals want to cut Defense spending, so be it.
|
On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice.
Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments.
It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered, not employers, not politicians. But I'm sure you know better than doctors oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health.
Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing.
|
On September 17 2012 09:43 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:36 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:30 Defacer wrote: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_t2As 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". LOL. You're equating a general report about the deteriorating security situation in Lybia with it's newly installed government, as comprehensive, actionable intelligence. The Bush administration had better intelligence prior to the 9/11 attacks. There's no reason to dispute the ambassadors claim that extremists seized upon the opportunity provided by the protests to provide cover for an attack. In fact, it doesn't necessarily contradict the Lybian government's claim that it was a group of foreign terrorists that had a planned attack months in advance either. It may very well be a coincidence, or a matter of both being true. Perhaps these terrorist saw the spontaneous protests, and that was enough of a reason to advance their time table and improvise their attack. It's baffling that suddenly American conservatives suddenly trust the competency and credibility of the Lybian government more than their own. This story is literally 5 days old and everyone -- including the media -- is pretending to know everything about the motives of the attack, who executed it, and how much intelligence agencies knew before hand. Funny stuff.
Well, to be completely honest, as soon as I heard Jay Carney qualify what they knew by adding 'actionable' and 'specific' and some verbage about that location, I expected they knew more than they are acknowledging and are covering up. I don't know what they knew, obviously, but I know they are hiding something. Do I care ? Only to the extent that it pisses me off that the press isn't pressing the issue and are only trying to make a story of Romney's refutation of the statement released by the Embassy in Cairo. WTF, I wish they would do their jobs.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 09:46 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:39 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 09:37 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:10 erin[go]bragh wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:[quote] 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. [quote] 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? I'll go out on a limb here and say, to the levels they were at back when the economy was booming and we had a surplus? Taxes were cut. The economy tanked. Obviously you could fill a lake with all the other variables, but I fail to see why raising taxes, when they are the lowest they have been in decades, seems like such an alien and dramatic thing. You want spending levels set back to the Clinton presidency ? I'm right there with you. Let's cap spending at no higher than the amounts they were under Clinton. Any tea-partier would agree to that, as well. Sure. Let's cut that defense spending the Pentagon says they're perfectly fine without. I'm all for our national security, but I also realize the most populated areas are the heaviest concentration of Liberals and the biggest targets for terrorists. So, while I love my Country, I don't feel much at risk of being blown up by a terrorist (man-made accidental explosion might be the actual p.c. term), so if Liberals want to cut Defense spending, so be it.
That's great logic! Building on that let's raise those taxes a big chunk. If terrorists are gonna blow up NYC anyway, we might as well milk those businesses for all they're worth while we still can.
|
On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing.
Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government.
|
On September 17 2012 09:46 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:39 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 09:37 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:10 erin[go]bragh wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:[quote] 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. [quote] 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? I'll go out on a limb here and say, to the levels they were at back when the economy was booming and we had a surplus? Taxes were cut. The economy tanked. Obviously you could fill a lake with all the other variables, but I fail to see why raising taxes, when they are the lowest they have been in decades, seems like such an alien and dramatic thing. You want spending levels set back to the Clinton presidency ? I'm right there with you. Let's cap spending at no higher than the amounts they were under Clinton. Any tea-partier would agree to that, as well. Sure. Let's cut that defense spending the Pentagon says they're perfectly fine without. I'm all for our national security, but I also realize the most populated areas are the heaviest concentration of Liberals and the biggest targets for terrorists. So, while I love my Country, I don't feel much at risk of being blown up by a terrorist (man-made accidental explosion might be the actual p.c. term), so if Liberals want to cut Defense spending, so be it.
If that's a joke, it's not very funny. It's just psychotic.
|
On September 17 2012 09:51 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:46 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:39 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 09:37 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:10 erin[go]bragh wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? I'll go out on a limb here and say, to the levels they were at back when the economy was booming and we had a surplus? Taxes were cut. The economy tanked. Obviously you could fill a lake with all the other variables, but I fail to see why raising taxes, when they are the lowest they have been in decades, seems like such an alien and dramatic thing. You want spending levels set back to the Clinton presidency ? I'm right there with you. Let's cap spending at no higher than the amounts they were under Clinton. Any tea-partier would agree to that, as well. Sure. Let's cut that defense spending the Pentagon says they're perfectly fine without. I'm all for our national security, but I also realize the most populated areas are the heaviest concentration of Liberals and the biggest targets for terrorists. So, while I love my Country, I don't feel much at risk of being blown up by a terrorist (man-made accidental explosion might be the actual p.c. term), so if Liberals want to cut Defense spending, so be it. That's great logic! Building on that let's raise those taxes a big chunk. If terrorists are gonna blow up NYC anyway, we might as well milk those businesses for all they're worth while we still can.
Don't we already have the highest corporate tax rates in the world ?
|
On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:32 kwizach wrote:[quote] 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. [quote] 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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government.
Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again?
And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare.
|
On September 17 2012 09:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:51 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 09:46 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:39 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 09:37 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:10 erin[go]bragh wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? I'll go out on a limb here and say, to the levels they were at back when the economy was booming and we had a surplus? Taxes were cut. The economy tanked. Obviously you could fill a lake with all the other variables, but I fail to see why raising taxes, when they are the lowest they have been in decades, seems like such an alien and dramatic thing. You want spending levels set back to the Clinton presidency ? I'm right there with you. Let's cap spending at no higher than the amounts they were under Clinton. Any tea-partier would agree to that, as well. Sure. Let's cut that defense spending the Pentagon says they're perfectly fine without. I'm all for our national security, but I also realize the most populated areas are the heaviest concentration of Liberals and the biggest targets for terrorists. So, while I love my Country, I don't feel much at risk of being blown up by a terrorist (man-made accidental explosion might be the actual p.c. term), so if Liberals want to cut Defense spending, so be it. That's great logic! Building on that let's raise those taxes a big chunk. If terrorists are gonna blow up NYC anyway, we might as well milk those businesses for all they're worth while we still can. Don't we already have the highest corporate tax rates in the world ?
Looks like it, from a quick google search:
http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/whatwedo/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx
Well United Arab Emirates is higher, if that counts. Japan is pretty close.
|
On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again?
Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 09:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:51 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 09:46 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:39 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 09:37 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:10 erin[go]bragh wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? I'll go out on a limb here and say, to the levels they were at back when the economy was booming and we had a surplus? Taxes were cut. The economy tanked. Obviously you could fill a lake with all the other variables, but I fail to see why raising taxes, when they are the lowest they have been in decades, seems like such an alien and dramatic thing. You want spending levels set back to the Clinton presidency ? I'm right there with you. Let's cap spending at no higher than the amounts they were under Clinton. Any tea-partier would agree to that, as well. Sure. Let's cut that defense spending the Pentagon says they're perfectly fine without. I'm all for our national security, but I also realize the most populated areas are the heaviest concentration of Liberals and the biggest targets for terrorists. So, while I love my Country, I don't feel much at risk of being blown up by a terrorist (man-made accidental explosion might be the actual p.c. term), so if Liberals want to cut Defense spending, so be it. That's great logic! Building on that let's raise those taxes a big chunk. If terrorists are gonna blow up NYC anyway, we might as well milk those businesses for all they're worth while we still can. Don't we already have the highest corporate tax rates in the world ?
Close, but what does it matter if they're all gonna get blown up?
|
On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:41 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare.
I have authority on what should go into MY healthcare. A topic between me, my doctor, and my insurance provider. Everybody else can GTFO of that relationship. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats can make decisions overriding this relationship, but don't worry, it affects you too. Well see just how kind the government is when "austerity" hits our shores and it affects government-funded healthcare. Healthcare, which when poorly provided, actually reduces future Social Security and Medicare outlays, ironically enough.
|
On September 17 2012 09:58 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:53 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:51 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 09:46 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:39 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 09:37 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:10 erin[go]bragh wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? I'll go out on a limb here and say, to the levels they were at back when the economy was booming and we had a surplus? Taxes were cut. The economy tanked. Obviously you could fill a lake with all the other variables, but I fail to see why raising taxes, when they are the lowest they have been in decades, seems like such an alien and dramatic thing. You want spending levels set back to the Clinton presidency ? I'm right there with you. Let's cap spending at no higher than the amounts they were under Clinton. Any tea-partier would agree to that, as well. Sure. Let's cut that defense spending the Pentagon says they're perfectly fine without. I'm all for our national security, but I also realize the most populated areas are the heaviest concentration of Liberals and the biggest targets for terrorists. So, while I love my Country, I don't feel much at risk of being blown up by a terrorist (man-made accidental explosion might be the actual p.c. term), so if Liberals want to cut Defense spending, so be it. That's great logic! Building on that let's raise those taxes a big chunk. If terrorists are gonna blow up NYC anyway, we might as well milk those businesses for all they're worth while we still can. Don't we already have the highest corporate tax rates in the world ? Looks like it, from a quick google search: http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/whatwedo/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspxWell United Arab Emirates is higher, if that counts. Japan is pretty close.
IIRC, Japan had the good sense to cut their rates recently because they realized they had screwed up. Tax rates, especially on corporations, are not a matter of fairness, but international competition.
|
On September 17 2012 09:59 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case.
Errr... well growing the economy would require either focused government spending or focused tax cuts or something. Neither of those would lower the deficit, so that's kind of a weird comment. Unless you're suggesting that Republicans don't care about the deficit, in which case that's just a disingenuous argument.
So maybe you're just saying we shouldn't worry about the deficit right now. We should wait for the economy to come back, and then deal with the deficit. That's ok. But then you should argue that, and not completely confuse people by saying republicans are about cutting spending. Right?
|
On September 17 2012 10:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
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." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case. Errr... well growing the economy would require either focused government spending or focused tax cuts or something. Neither of those would lower the deficit, so that's kind of a weird comment. Unless you're suggesting that Republicans don't care about the deficit, in which case that's just a disingenuous argument. So maybe you're just saying we shouldn't worry about the deficit right now. We should wait for the economy to come back, and then deal with the deficit. That's ok. But then you should argue that, and not completely confuse people by saying republicans are about cutting spending. Right?
Don't feed the troll.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
