Last edited by Henrin; 07-18-12 at 11:27 PM.
No one claims they never had help. But they did PAY IN FULL for the help they needed. What they owe to the help they received has already been paid for, contract completed, deal is done.Are they so married to their ideal that rich people magically get to where they are and stay where they are, all on their own?
He's being Machiavellian and rallying his parasitic base, inducing their saliva at the thought of sending collectors out to gather from those with means what the takers feel is owed to them.Do you think for one minute that he's actually wrong here?
What in TF are you talking about?Do you think that America's hierarchical status could survive for one second if we were nothing but a nation of CEOs?
Last edited by Neomalthusian; 07-18-12 at 11:39 PM.
That doesn't mean that's he's coming for your women, or that the moon is made of green cheese.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-- Adam Smith
What is the point in reminding the owners of business and property that not everything they own came into existence solely because of them? Everyone knows this. There was never any question about it. So why, as the person with the most influential job on the planet, should he spend his time reminding us of something we all already know without even having to think, and knew as early as infancy (when we learned the concept of "mine")?
Best case scenario, he's wasting his time and ours. But honestly I believe there is a definite purpose to telling us these little fables, and I have explained what I think that purpose is in previous posts.
Last edited by Neomalthusian; 07-19-12 at 12:17 AM.
The dictionary says this about the definition of specious
It seems the perfect catch-all doesn't it? Its a lazy persons way of saying "sure, your argument sounds good and it could be true and sounds true, but it is wrong just the same."Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument".
Of course, the poster would then need to actually engage in debate by PROVING with VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that the argument is wrong despite its positive and believable appearance but that step is normally sorely lacking and absent. That part seems to be forgotten. In the post your cited, - #373 - the poster merely pompously proclaims the post they disagree with as specious and then fails to do anything with the charge. In others, they make the proclamation and then fail to prove the allegation instead going to the usual attacks about dependency, teat suckers, obeying ones masters and not being able to vote since you do not pay enough taxes.
Last edited by haymarket; 07-19-12 at 05:45 AM.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
Last edited by TurtleDude; 07-19-12 at 05:52 AM.
POTUS went off TOTUS. Ooops!!!
This was the real Barack Obama....a goof up who can't function without the help of professionals.