• 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!

Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

Moot said:
No, it wouldn't and it never has. But do feel free to try and prove it rather than repeating your fallacy ad nauseum. That would be a nice change for you.
Click to expand...

The drug trade is billions per year. They not only get no protection from the government, the government is trying to kill it. There are few more sophisticated businesses, either.
 
TurtleDude said:
Haymarket -tell us what evidence has ever backed up your claims that the rich don't pay their fair share or that its right for income to be subjected to a heavily progressive income tax and the current schedule for investment income is unfair to the public
Click to expand...

Turtle - please do NOT misrepresent my positions and then ask me to defend your perverted frankenstien monster version of what you think they are. That is NOT going to happen and is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

I have often and repeatedly stated that the term FAIR SHARE is ridiculous and should be removed from the discussion because nobody will ever agree on its meaning.

As such you are asking me to prove a position that is not mine. You are talking to the wrong person.

I cannot defend the use of a heavily progressive income tax because we currently do not have one. So again, you are talking to the wrong person.

Lots of people including myself have quoted many experts about taxing investment income at higher rates - do you want the opinion of Ronald Reagan again? I have heard he merits some respect on the far right so you may be interested in what he did about taxing capital gains if you missed it the first three score times.

The last major overhaul of the tax code, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, set tax rates on capital gains at the same level as the rates on ordinary income like salaries and wages . . .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
The drug trade is billions per year. They not only get no protection from the government, the government is trying to kill it. There are few more sophisticated businesses, either.
Click to expand...

The drug trade should not be that successful.

Law enforcement needs to adopt the techniques that worked so well during prohibition.
 
Harshaw said:
The drug trade is billions per year. They not only get no protection from the government, the government is trying to kill it. There are few more sophisticated businesses, either.
Click to expand...

Really?!?!?!?! I was under the impression the drug trade spends lots of money every year purchasing protection from people in the government.
 
johnny_rebson said:
The drug trade should not be that successful.

Law enforcement needs to adopt the techniques that worked so well during prohibition.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming this is meant to be funny.
 
haymarket said:
Really?!?!?!?! I was under the impression the drug trade spends lots of money every year purchasing protection from people in the government.
Click to expand...

Not unlike legal businesses.


See the issue?
 
haymarket said:
Not exactly. Could you explain it clearly?
Click to expand...

It is the relationship that our government has with ALL trade in this country, that ALLOWS for things like what you mentioned...drug dealers paying off government in order to stay in business, etc.

To put that into the context of the argument being made...Harshaw stated that the drug trade is BOOMING, in SPITE of uncle sam trying to squash it out with his considerable sized boot. This is, in essence, claiming that, ultimately, despite it's size, money, and power, our government doesn't really have much control, when it comes to things people actually, really WANT. And yet, it inserts itself into the equation ANYWAY. Why?

And then your post, about drug dealers paying lots of money to that self same government, in order to stay IN business...the implication being, I guess...that if they didn't, they would be squashed by the aforementioned boot heel. Which they would not be. Paying off government employees is simply the cheapest/easiest way. Remove that as an option, and drug dealers will simply use other means. Because they have a product that people actually, really want. MY comment, however, was not aimed at this, but more focused on the concept that, by allowing our government to hold the purse strings, so to speak, we have opened up a can of corrupt worms. Make no mistake, "legit" businesses spend FAR more, every year, for government protection, than drug dealers do.
 
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I do appreciate it.

I think I would differ as far as the whole boot of government suggestion. At best its a half-assed effort and it worst its fully assed to quote the line from FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH. And because its half-assed, the get corruption and bribery and lots of looking the other way.

I agree that our government does not have that much control but only because we seem to want it that one. In 1940's China, it is estimated that as many as one in every five adult men were users of opium and addicts. When Mao took over he believed that China could never advance economically with that sort of drag on the population. The Chinese government declared true WAR on opium and within five to seven years it was pretty much not existent as a used drug in China.

We have never had a war on drugs here so who can say if government could make it work or not?

We have the system we will tolerate. Government only facilitates that for us.
 
Henrin said:
In order to come to the table they have to believe you are doing things in good faith. They doubt this about you.

As for me, I would almost never come to the table with people like yourself as there is simply no starting point to be had.
Click to expand...

You're the one who won't negotiate or compromise. That's exactly my point about the GOP. There is no working with them because their stated goal is to block everything Obama does unless it fits in with their agenda. That's not a reflection on Obama ... that's a rfelection on the GOP and their dereliction of duty.
 
Henrin said:
I didn't, but there is something to be said about people like him. They argue for expanding the domain of force outside of protecting the rights and liberties of the people. I can't work with people like him.
Click to expand...

You do know that not everyone thinks like you do, don't you? You do realize that elected officials are not elected to shove their ideology down the throats of the public, don't you? But to work with, and compromise with, the opposition party.

We don't have a my way or the highway government.
 
I see your confusion lingers on...

mac said:
Of course he was talking about the US...
Click to expand...
Then why are you talking about businesses other than U.S. businesses succeeding without government? That has nothing to do with what Obama was talking about since he was talking about America.

mac said:
... and business's inability to succeed without without his help.
Click to expand...
Umm, he never said businesses could not succeed without his help. :roll::roll::roll: But this certainly does go a long way in explaining why so many are talking exception to what he said ... like you, many of them have no idea what he was talking about. All they know is that Obama spoke and they're outraged.
 
mac said:
How many of the house was it? Did the Republicans push it to the floor in the form of an act to be voted on? Or did they just talk about it?
Click to expand...

I see you're still trying your damnedest to defend your ridiculous statement that the mandate was supported by no Republicans other the one who sponsored the bill.

How sad. :(

Why don't you just admit you had no idea what in the hell you were talking about when you made that asinine comment, let it go, and move on? Everyone here already knows you don't know what you're talking about anyway.
 
Henrin said:
Not if my duty is to protect their rights and liberties.
Click to expand...


You don't do that by walking away form the table. That's chicken ****. Also, if our leader's examples are any predictor, you only do that when the other party has some power. Otherwise, you support exactly the same thing when your party is in power (see Romney in Mass and health care, or Bush and his bailouts and spying and Patriot act).
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

cpwill said:
Great response by the Romney team:




Ya'll ain't running against no John McCain this time round, fellas :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Romney's tougher than McCain? :2funny::2funny::2funny:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're the one who won't negotiate or compromise. That's exactly my point about the GOP. There is no working with them because their stated goal is to block everything Obama does unless it fits in with their agenda. That's not a reflection on Obama ... that's a rfelection on the GOP and their dereliction of duty.
Click to expand...

Their duty is to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans. Obama has shown to not care for these liberties or rights and so therefore there is nothing to compromise on. He puts forward ideas that are designed to expand the authority of the state outside of those restraints and I simply have nothing to talk to him on those issues about until he finds those restraints once more.
 
Boo Radley said:
You don't do that by walking away form the table. That's chicken ****. Also, if our leader's examples are any predictor, you only do that when the other party has some power. Otherwise, you support exactly the same thing when your party is in power (see Romney in Mass and health care, or Bush and his bailouts and spying and Patriot act).
Click to expand...

I'm not a republican and could never dream myself as one when their is such vermin in their ranks that support what is their foundation of the platform. They are nothing like me, and like Obama I would have to refuse to go to the table when basic restraints are breached.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
You do know that not everyone thinks like you do, don't you? You do realize that elected officials are not elected to shove their ideology down the throats of the public, don't you? But to work with, and compromise with, the opposition party.

We don't have a my way or the highway government.
Click to expand...

When healthcare is proposed to be taken over or we have ideas that violate the basic human rights of all Americans I find it is my duty to make sure my people are safe from their oppression. I know what this country was founded on and I know why government exists and I will hold to that.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Their duty is to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans. Obama has shown to not care for these liberties or rights and so therefore there is nothing to compromise on. He puts forward ideas that are designed to expand the authority of the state outside of those restraints and I simply have nothing to talk to him on those issues about until he finds those restraints once more.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you believe "Obama has shown to not care for these liberties or rights," but that doesn't make it so. It just makes it your opinion.
 
Henrin said:
When healthcare is proposed to be taken over or we have ideas that violate the basic human rights of all Americans I find it is my duty to make sure my people are safe from their oppression. I know what this country was founded on and I know why government exists and I will hold to that.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that healthcare is a basic human right and not one reserved only to those who can afford it.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Perhaps you believe "Obama has shown to not care for these liberties or rights," but that doesn't make it so. It just makes it your opinion.
Click to expand...

Prove that he has by supporting what he has supported. Do you need a list?

I know what liberty means, but I wonder if you do.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seems to me that healthcare is a basic human right and not one reserved only to those who can afford it.
Click to expand...

That is perhaps the most idiotic comment I have heard all week. Healthcare is service that is provided to by other people that takes money to exist and money to be provided. It is not a right in any stretch of the imagination. Rights do NOT take the labor of others and surely do not take money to even exist and be provided. With such a measurement anything you decide is a right and that is not a way to determine anything of value. You have shown your lack of ability to understand fundamental ideas with such ignorant statements.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That is perhaps the most idiotic comment I have heard all week. Healthcare is service that is provided to by other people that takes money to exist and money to be provided. It is not a right in any stretch of the imagination. Rights do NOT take the labor of others and surely do not take money to even exist and be provided. With such a measurement anything you decide is a right and that is not a way to determine anything of value. You have shown your lack of ability to understand fundamental ideas with such ignorant statements.
Click to expand...
From my seat, you're the one lacking in understanding.

The Declaration of Independence states, "... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

The main purpose of healthcare is to preserve life and the government is instituted to secure these rights.

Your claim could just as easily be made about the military and how it is a service provided by others, yet it too is to preserve our unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and secured by the government.
 
Last edited:
Isn't "If you and the government build it, they will come" a little long winded, and apparently politically incorrect?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Sphere said:
So NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, & CNN Headline news, all of these are not credible news sources either?
Click to expand...
They may be credible occasionally. News should be news. Opinion should be opinion. I do flip through those channels every now and then. I only stop to watch and listen in order to keep my disgust fresh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom