• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gallup: Group Most Disapproving of Obama: Business Owners

teamosil said:
Er what? No, it's exactly the opposite. The "owners" Obama is concerned with are the super rich. Investors. Virtually none of whom could name most the companies they own. He's countering the Reaganomics trickle down mentality that the rich are the only people who matter or deserve any credit for anything.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're just lying about what he said. Got it. I thought only the "right wing" did that.
 
Harshaw said:
Oh, so you're just lying about what he said. Got it. I thought only the "right wing" did that.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? He didn't say anything specific to small business owners. He is talking generally about owners as a whole. Certainly the small time ones who own little businesses that they themselves work at are the most sympathetic slice of that pie, and Democrats and Republicans alike usually try to take measures to protect them. It's the big time super rich investors that the parties differ on. Democrats generally believe they need to pay more taxes and Republicans generally believe that they need their asses kissed more. Trickle down and all that is not about small business owners (as much as Republican ads like to portray it that way). Most small business owners are much closer to the situation of their employees than they are to super rich investors, and most policies that favor their employees favor them as well. The divide is between the super rich investors and everybody else.
 
teamosil said:
What are you talking about? He didn't say anything specific to small business owners. He is talking generally about owners as a whole. Certainly the small time ones who own little businesses that they themselves work at are the most sympathetic slice of that pie, and Democrats and Republicans alike usually try to take measures to protect them. It's the big time super rich investors that the parties differ on. Democrats generally believe they need to pay more taxes and Republicans generally believe that they need their asses kissed more. Trickle down and all that is not about small business owners (as much as Republican ads like to portray it that way). Most small business owners are much closer to the situation of their employees than they are to super rich investors, and most policies that favor their employees favor them as well. The divide is between the super rich investors and everybody else.
Click to expand...

Why should I even entertain this idiocy?

Until this moment, I never saw anyone who wouldn't have agreed he was referring to people who own and run their own businesses. You're in the tiny fringe which can and should be ignored if there's going to be anything like a meaningful exchange here.

(Crikey. His speech doesn't even make any grammatical sense your way.)
 
Harshaw said:
Why should I even entertain this idiocy?

Until this moment, I never saw anyone who wouldn't have agreed he was referring to people who own and run their own businesses. You're in the tiny fringe which can and should be ignored if there's going to be anything like a meaningful exchange here.

(Crikey. His speech doesn't even make any grammatical sense your way.)
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Point out what in his speech you think indicates he was referring only to small business owners... I think you're just randomly making that leap because that is the image Romney and Republicans generally like to push when they talk about "owners". They try to present the most sympathetic case to justify their policies to favor the super rich.
 
Born Free said:
With all that liberalism you sure know how to rule, regulate, and have power over the people.
Click to expand...

Regulations are about safety and such. But, what isn't liberal isn't liberal. None of us are all one thing. That's one of the troubles with the sterotyping people like to do. We may be liberal on one issue and conservative on another. And someone who is overall liberal or overall conservative may go the other way on any particular issue. But none of that changes the difinition of the word liberal.
 
Harshaw said:
But you want it just about everywhere else. The original liberals absolutely did not.

(And you said yourself you don't mind the TSA running a hand down your pants at an airport, which is interesting.)




I won't even bother pointing out the difference between political liberalism and generally being philosophically "liberal." You couldn't possibly carry on that conversation.

I'd say you already knew the difference and are being obtuse here, but as I said yesterday, if it's a mistake to overestimate you, I shouldn't make it again. So, I won't.
Click to expand...

The word is the word. Period. You're trying to make an excuse to make words mean what you want them to mean.
 
Boo Radley said:
The word is the word. Period. You're trying to make an excuse to make words mean what you want them to mean.
Click to expand...

See? There is no possibility of having this discussion with you, because you're either too ignorant of what political liberalism is, or you're too dishonest to approach it in good faith.

I really do not care which.
 
Harshaw said:
See? There is no possibility of having this discussion with you, because you're either too ignorant of what political liberalism is, or you're too dishonest to approach it in good faith.

I really do not care which.
Click to expand...

Says the one being dishonest.

Democrats are not neccssairly liberals. And there is no liberal party.
 
teamosil said:
What are you talking about? Point out what in his speech you think indicates he was referring only to small business owners... I think you're just randomly making that leap because that is the image Romney and Republicans generally like to push when they talk about "owners". They try to present the most sympathetic case to justify their policies to favor the super rich.
Click to expand...

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

Like I said, you peddle idiocy.
 
Boo Radley said:
Says the one being dishonest.

Democrats are not neccssairly liberals. And there is no liberal party.
Click to expand...

I said neither one of those things. You accuse me of being dishonest by making things up?

Why do I ever bother engaging with you? It always comes to this.
 
Harshaw said:
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

Like I said, you peddle idiocy.
Click to expand...

read the rest of the words. It's clear he was talking about building roads and bridges. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
 
Boo Radley said:
read the rest of the words. It's clear he was talking about building roads and bridges. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't have the slightest idea what I responding to. You probably didn't even read what I quoted.
 
Harshaw said:
I said neither one of those things. You accuse me of being dishonest by making things up?

Why do I ever bother engaging with you? It always comes to this.
Click to expand...

Now you can't comprehend what I'm saying? I'm merely making sure you understand the difference. The word liberal has a real and concrete difinition. Political parties are different.
 
Harshaw said:
You obviously don't have the slightest idea what I responding to. You probably didn't even read what I quoted.
Click to expand...

I did. And you have been making a false point all along. Once sentence doesn't mean that is all he is refering to, and it doesn't mean he put down business owners. You keep getting it wrong because you don't read in context.
 
Boo Radley said:
Now you can't comprehend what I'm saying? I'm merely making sure you understand the difference. The word liberal has a real and concrete difinition. Political parties are different.
Click to expand...

You're continuing to make things up. I said nothing about political parties.
 
Boo Radley said:
I did. And you have been making a false point all along. Once sentence doesn't mean that is all he is refering to, and it doesn't mean he put down business owners. You keep getting it wrong because you don't read in context.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. If you did, you wouldn't have gone on about bridges and roads. Had nothing to do with the point.

You really are distinguishing yourself in the annals of hackery today.
 
Harshaw said:
You're continuing to make things up. I said nothing about political parties.
Click to expand...

No one said you did. That's what I mean about this comprehension problem you're having.
 
Harshaw said:
No, you didn't. If you did, you wouldn't have gone on about bridges and roads. Had nothing to do with the point.

You really are distinguishing yourself in the annals of hackery today.
Click to expand...

I read it, and your other posts. I put them together. But the point stands for both.
 
Boo Radley said:
No one said you did. That's what I mean about this comprehension problem you're having.
Click to expand...

Then this post of yours makes no sense at all:

Boo Radley said:
Says the one being dishonest.

Democrats are not neccssairly liberals. And there is no liberal party.
Click to expand...

Does it really profit you to lie all day long? It's pitiable. Nothing better to do?
 
Boo Radley said:
I read it, and your other posts. I put them together. But the point stands for both.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. You're simply out-and-out trolling at this point.

So, here's where I get off the asinine merry-go-round. Congrats; you win the stubborn stupidity contest.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it doesn't. You're simply out-and-out trolling at this point.

So, here's where I get off the asinine merry-go-round. Congrats; you win the stubborn stupidity contest.
Click to expand...

Tell yourself what you must. The point is, you read his statment wrong, and continue to misrepresent it even though it has been explained to you.
 
Harshaw said:
Then this post of yours makes no sense at all:



Does it really profit you to lie all day long? It's pitiable. Nothing better to do?
Click to expand...

Again, you're ahving comprehension problems. No where in that do i say you said those things. I merely point them out to show the difference between political and the meaning of the word. You just don't get it.
 
Harshaw said:
"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

Like I said, you peddle idiocy.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see what you're thinking on this. See I hear that as responding to the arrogant attitude of Romney bragging about how he created all these jobs and whatnot because Bain periodically would buy majorities of the shares in various companies and flip them. Obama is saying that just because you own something doesn't mean you get all the credit for that company. Owning it doesn't necessarily mean you're the person who built it. That one is pretty directly aimed at Romney who never actually built any of those companies, he just flipped or chopped them. But, also, just because you own something doesn't mean you did all the work- employees had a lot to do with it. And on top of that, we all rely on society as a whole in tons of ways. We have a strong society. That's a big part of the reason why businesses are able to make it here, but not in societies like Somalia.

It's just a "get off your high horse super rich, the whole world doesn't actually disappear every time you blink" speech. He's countering all the "job creator" talk about how we need to bend over backwards doing everything we can to please the super rich because they're the sole source of everything in the country. Well, that ain't so.
 
Boo Radley said:
read the rest of the words. It's clear he was talking about building roads and bridges. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

actually, since he used the singular, it isn't. had he been referring to the earlier bit about "roads and bridges" he would have said "you didn't build those".


But generally I enjoy that the left-wing response to learning that our nations job-creators think very little of the administration has been to attack them. I really cannot encourage ya'll enough in sticking it to the "owners" of things like restaurants who caused the 2008 meltdown :lol:.


I would also like to say that I thoroughly enjoy the continued demonstration of the lefts' lack of awareness of it's own intellectual history, as evidenced by Boo. Progressives took the name Liberal - which formerly had meant a predisposition to minimizing the state - after the term "progressive" had become distasteful following the Wilson administration. Sort of like how many now are calling themselves "progressive", as "liberal" has a public negative connotation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom