• 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]

Which side is my side? My side of this issue, or my side?

Still claiming you're non-partisan?

This issue. As for my partisanship, I've asked for you to provide evidence as to what makes me partisan. Feel free to give it a shot.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Good roads, less discrimination, leading the world in a lot of technology and medicine (government support of R&D at major univerisites certianly helps), and the best place in the world to be poor. Quite a bit actually. I don't think you want to move to any other country, and government is actually part of the reason why.
Hate to tell you this bud, but a lot of other countries have caught up to us. Heck, Iraq's highway system rivals ours. Good roads don't make a country. Electing a black leader doesn't make us better. We were way behind on that. People are leaving this country to get operations and medical care. I won't argue this is the best place to be poor though. Where else can you buy cigarrettes, soda, and steaks with other people's money. Thats why the Tea Party and groups like it have erupted lately. We see the best days in the rear view. The more gov't gets involved, the less competitive, the less bold, the less ambitious, the less individualized we get. We are becoming a nation of groups formed by politicians. And we define ourselves that way. Most citizens have no issue with calling themselves "the middle class" or various other polling groups. That is why groups like the Tea Party and yes, even Occupy (before they became violent) were not embraced by mainstream politicians and are still held at arms distance. They are groups started by individuals that are about the individuals and not politically controlled.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Fact is this quote was drastically taken out of context
205vbl5.jpg

No, you just didn't get the context because you love everything he says. I hope Romney keep beating his ass with it for the next 3 months or so. It's the dumbest things Obama has every said, and he said it at the perfect time.

That ignorant ****up thinks the Internet was invented so companies could make money. It was a Cold War communications system for the military. Private individuals made it what it is today, a useful tool for society.

I wonder if Obama every heard of Tim Berners-Lee, who never made a dime off his invention.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Hate to tell you this bud, but a lot of other countries have caught up to us. Heck, Iraq's highway system rivals ours. Good roads don't make a country. Electing a black leader doesn't make us better. We were way behind on that. People are leaving this country to get operations and medical care. I won't argue this is the best place to be poor though. Where else can you buy cigarrettes, soda, and steaks with other people's money. Thats why the Tea Party and groups like it have erupted lately. We see the best days in the rear view. The more gov't gets involved, the less competitive, the less bold, the less ambitious, the less individualized we get. We are becoming a nation of groups formed by politicians. And we define ourselves that way. Most citizens have no issue with calling themselves "the middle class" or various other polling groups. That is why groups like the Tea Party and yes, even Occupy (before they became violent) were not embraced by mainstream politicians and are still held at arms distance. They are groups started by individuals that are about the individuals and not politically controlled.

You're kind of leaping all over the place. What does Obama being black have to with ****? And while there are a very few who may abuse the system, the real abuse is at the top. Nothing done by those at the bottom comes close. And while I see problems with mainstream politics, mostly that there really isn't any difference (and if any fool thinks Romeny is siginifcant different than Obama, I would like to seel you some real estate.). But anger isn't a movement, and that's true of both the TP and OWS. I have discussed this with local members of each. If they really had any insight, they'd set down the BS and organized to present us with something different (not bat **** crazy either). You may not have lied the 60's, but they in comparison, they knew how to organize then. And for pete's sake, be coherent.

Now, as none of what said has anything to do with the point I was addressing, as it had nothing to do with competition world wide, we can go off topic, or you can swing around and address the point I made.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

No, you just didn't get the context because you love everything he says. I hope Romney keep beating his ass with it for the next 3 months or so. It's the dumbest things Obama has every said, and he said it at the perfect time.

No, if you buy the lies, you're just part of the problem. :coffeepap
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

No, you just didn't get the context because you love everything he says. I hope Romney keep beating his ass with it for the next 3 months or so. It's the dumbest things Obama has every said, and he said it at the perfect time.

That ignorant ****up thinks the Internet was invented so companies could make money. It was a Cold War communications system for the military. Private individuals made it what it is today, a useful tool for society.

I wonder if Obama every heard of Tim Berners-Lee, who never made a dime off his invention.


I'm sure he has, BTW

"I just had to take the hypertext idea and connect it to the Transmission Control Protocol and domain name system ideas and—ta-da!—the World Wide Web."
Tim Berners-Lee

The practice of using a name as a simpler, more memorable abstraction of a host's numerical address on a network dates back to the ARPANET era.

OMG thats the big bad government!
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

You're kind of leaping all over the place. What does Obama being black have to with ****?
You brought up discrimination. Not me. That we elected a black POTUS shows discrimination is, at the least, a dwindling belief amongst the people of our nation. However, we are far behind many other countries in this realm IMO.
And while there are a very few who may abuse the system
Disagree totally. Have you not seen how much disability claims have gone up? I understand we have an aging workforce. I also see that as job increases become stagnant, disability applications increase. That's not a coincidence.
the real abuse is at the top
Agreed
And while I see problems with mainstream politics, mostly that there really isn't any difference (and if any fool thinks Romeny is siginifcant different than Obama, I would like to seel you some real estate.)
Agreed again. So are you walking into the booth, closing your eyes, putting your finger out, and seeing where it lands? Or are you going to eenie, meenie, minee, moe it?
But anger isn't a movement, and that's true of both the TP and OWS. I have discussed this with local members of each. If they really had any insight, they'd set down the BS and organized to present us with something different (not bat **** crazy either). You may not have lied the 60's, but they in comparison, they knew how to organize then. And for pete's sake, be coherent.
Now, as none of what said has anything to do with the point I was addressing, as it had nothing to do with competition world wide, we can go off topic, or you can swing around and address the point I made.
So you're saying the drug infested, free sex aka std spreading hippies are an example we should follow? LOL. Roger that. Actually, Occupy did follow that mantra almost to the letter. Look what it got them. The Tea Party is the most organized, grass root political movement in a loooooong time. How many hippies were elected into the Congress in the '60s?
Further, everything I said was coherent. I pointed out that we are falling behind in world competition ie even Iraq has roads just as good, if not better than, ours/Electing a black leader after it's been done around the world many times doesn't mean we lead the world in the "less discrimination" category (I'll also point out that gay marriage is still illegal which is discrimination)/People leave our country to get medical care in other countries because its cheaper and better/Poor people do live good here and that's why we are losing our drive. All points that countered your original point that gov't has made all of those things happen/better. So, instead of talking about Pete's sake, lets talk about the original subject that I addressed and you failed to comprehend.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

You brought up discrimination. Not me. That we elected a black POTUS shows discrimination is, at the least, a dwindling belief amongst the people of our nation. However, we are far behind many other countries in this realm IMO.

I don't beleive I did.

OK. I looked back. I think you misunderstand what was being said. I said it was dwindling but the point was government dealt not only with race, but gender and age. And government is the people. it changes when people change, and people use government to elicit that change. This is the point.

Disagree totally. Have you not seen how much disability claims have gone up? I understand we have an aging workforce. I also see that as job increases become stagnant, disability applications increase. That's not a coincidence
.

Claims don't equal abuse.


Agreed again. So are you walking into the booth, closing your eyes, putting your finger out, and seeing where it lands? Or are you going to eenie, meenie, minee, moe it?

No, the difference, while minor, is a difference. I keep working in both primaries (as I can here) to try and get good choices. But the republican party put up too poor a field to even work with. Romney is your best choice, but he's Obama light with no real backbone at all. He'll betray you in a nanosecond.

So you're saying the drug infested, free sex aka std spreading hippies are an example we should follow? LOL. Roger that. Actually, Occupy did follow that mantra almost to the letter. Look what it got them. The Tea Party is the most organized, grass root political movement in a loooooong time. How many hippies were elected into the Congress in the '60s?
Further, everything I said was coherent. I pointed out that we are falling behind in world competition ie even Iraq has roads just as good, if not better than, ours/Electing a black leader after it's been done around the world many times doesn't mean we lead the world in the "less discrimination" category (I'll also point out that gay marriage is still illegal which is discrimination)/People leave our country to get medical care in other countries because its cheaper and better/Poor people do live good here and that's why we are losing our drive. All points that countered your original point that gov't has made all of those things happen/better. So, instead of talking about Pete's sake, lets talk about the original subject that I addressed and you failed to comprehend.

Only as it relates to organization. Stoned, they knew you needed a candidate and a plan.

And the TP is incoherent, and many of their candidates Bat **** nutters.

And no, they don't counter me at all. Government did those things. And they helped quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Disagree totally. Have you not seen how much disability claims have gone up? I understand we have an aging workforce. I also see that as job increases become stagnant, disability applications increase. That's not a coincidence
Claims don't equal abuse.

The concept of SSDI lays itself down as a doormat for abuse. It's federal money in exchange for the "I give up" attitude. Qualifying for it depends on how convincingly you can assure an eligibility technician bean counter in some federal office somewhere that you "can't" work.

The only redeeming quality of SSDI is how slowly and inefficiently it adds new folks to the rolls. It almost universally denies first time applicants and by the time they appeal it, 18 months to three years have gone by, which protects it from people who can just get it in their heads one day to latch onto this "disability" funding stream based on some questionable allegation of disability.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

The concept of SSDI lays itself down as a doormat for abuse. It's federal money in exchange for the "I give up" attitude. Qualifying for it depends on how convincingly you can assure an eligibility technician bean counter in some federal office somewhere that you "can't" work.

The only redeeming quality of SSDI is how slowly and inefficiently it adds new folks to the rolls. It almost universally denies first time applicants and by the time they appeal it, 18 months to three years have gone by, which protects it from people who can just get it in their heads one day to latch onto this "disability" funding stream based on some questionable allegation of disability.

I don't agree. I see people everyday who use that help, get up, get off and move on. Very few people actually give up. However, mindsets and beliefs need some verification. I've seen next to no numbers supporting your claim. But I'd look at anything you ahve.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I don't beleive I did.

OK. I looked back. I think you misunderstand what was being said. I said it was dwindling but the point was government dealt not only with race, but gender and age. And government is the people. it changes when people change, and people use government to elicit that change. This is the point.
Got it. So what about gay marriage then? We're one of the only countries left in the modernized, 1st world group that still has gay marriage as illegal. You can't claim this until that goes away.
Claims don't equal abuse.
In other words you're using the "stick my head in the sand" defense on this. What, in your opinion, is the reason for it then?
No, the difference, while minor, is a difference. I keep working in both primaries (as I can here) to try and get good choices. But the republican party put up too poor a field to even work with. Romney is your best choice, but he's Obama light with no real backbone at all. He'll betray you in a nanosecond.
That's why I'm not voting for either.
Only as it relates to organization. Stoned, they knew you needed a candidate and a plan.
Again, how many hippies got into Congress (present day doesn't count lol)
And the TP is incoherent, and many of their candidates Bat **** nutters.
No, I'd say the TP is pretty united and quite coherent. Check out the many different TP websites. They all say the same essential things. Everyone has their nutters. Us much less than other movements though.
And no, they don't counter me at all. Government did those things. And they helped quite a bit.
Gov't did all of those things a long time ago. That's my point. Our country isn't competitive because our gov't, instead of helping along when needed (like building interstates, medical grants, etc) is now trying to take over the programs it used to just support.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

The concept of SSDI lays itself down as a doormat for abuse. It's federal money in exchange for the "I give up" attitude. Qualifying for it depends on how convincingly you can assure an eligibility technician bean counter in some federal office somewhere that you "can't" work.


Uhmm well I had to go to a government appointed doctor and have a echocadiogram. BTW my ejection fraction came out at 10%. Anything below 30% is automatically considered congestive heart failure.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I don't agree. I see people everyday who use that help, get up, get off and move on. Very few people actually give up. However, mindsets and beliefs need some verification. I've seen next to no numbers supporting your claim. But I'd look at anything you ahve.

If you will actually read this and not balk/poison the well:

Facilitating Fraud: How SSDI Gives Benefits to the Able Bodied

It is well written and cogent, even if its bias is unabashed.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

If you will actually read this and not balk/poison the well:

Facilitating Fraud: How SSDI Gives Benefits to the Able Bodied

It is well written and cogent, even if its bias is unabashed.

I have no trouble with Cato, as bias is seldom my problem. Inaccuracy is. However, they state clear that some may argue 43 cases might be the exception. And they are right about that. What they give as evidence is largely circumstancial, and not objectively certain. At best, I think it raises the question. Some of their perscriptive messures I would not object to, like independent oversight and review. I have no problem tightening up the program. But what I need as far as to the claim that it is pervasive is some actual studies of large numbers of cases that gives us some % of abuse.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Got it. So what about gay marriage then? We're one of the only countries left in the modernized, 1st world group that still has gay marriage as illegal. You can't claim this until that goes away.

I didn't claim we were perfect. That is one glaring exception.


In other words you're using the "stick my head in the sand" defense on this. What, in your opinion, is the reason for it then?

Hardly. Argue for improvement, or show a significant percent abusing, and we can go somewhere. Go with your feeling, and I'm not convinced.

That's why I'm not voting for either.

Your choice.

Again, how many hippies got into Congress (present day doesn't count lol)

A few. Or a least a few who believed what they did. And they did change much, though it was costly. But the country was not the same after the 60's.

No, I'd say the TP is pretty united and quite coherent. Check out the many different TP websites. They all say the same essential things. Everyone has their nutters. Us much less than other movements though.

I haven't seen it. And I've checked a few, espeically locally, and here they are nutter. The Obama billboards have been sad in their stupidity.

Gov't did all of those things a long time ago. That's my point. Our country isn't competitive because our gov't, instead of helping along when needed (like building interstates, medical grants, etc) is now trying to take over the programs it used to just support.

A lot it lasted. As they've improved things, major changes haven't been needed. They are nto needed now. And while I agree their reach should be limited more, though we may disagree where, most of that reach has been pushed and supported by the people of this country. The government is us. If you've got a complaint, you really need to start with us. Government doesn't act in a vaccum.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I have no trouble with Cato, as bias is seldom my problem. Inaccuracy is. However, they state clear that some may argue 43 cases might be the exception. And they are right about that. What they give as evidence is largely circumstancial, and not objectively certain. At best, I think it raises the question. Some of their perscriptive messures I would not object to, like independent oversight and review. I have no problem tightening up the program. But what I need as far as to the claim that it is pervasive is some actual studies of large numbers of cases that gives us some % of abuse.

Hard to say those studies exist, given the data belongs to the state and I am not sure how accessible it is to researchers. But pretending for a moment these studies do exist, what percentage of false/questionable claims would convince you the program is wrought with fraud vulnerability?

Chances are it's all going to be subjective anyway. Let's say a bricklayer becomes physically damaged and never gathered skills to be anything other than a bricklayer, but has nothing wrong with his speech or mental functioning. Is he disabled? From being a bricklayer, yeah. But from a variety of other jobs he could apply himself toward and strive for? Each case is unique and I'm betting a majority of disabled folks (assuming the disability is not due to psychosis or developmental disability/retardation/etc.) theoretically could strive toward other work but feel hopeless about their prospects, and so they hop around from doctor's office to doctor's office seeking endorsement to be on disability. This is all subjective and case-by-case, and I'm not going to make appeals to my own experience in this arena, but I am extremely confident disability can be entirely faked, as well as not necessarily faked but definitely bought into by people who convince themselves of their own hopelessness and feel honest in arguing they "can't" overcome their current state of misfortune.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Hard to say those studies exist, given the data belongs to the state and I am not sure how accessible it is to researchers. But pretending for a moment these studies do exist, what percentage of false/questionable claims would convince you the program is wrought with fraud vulnerability?

Chances are it's all going to be subjective anyway. Let's say a bricklayer becomes physically damaged and never gathered skills to be anything other than a bricklayer, but has nothing wrong with his speech or mental functioning. Is he disabled? From being a bricklayer, yeah. But from a variety of other jobs he could apply himself toward and strive for? Each case is unique and I'm betting a majority of disabled folks (assuming the disability is not due to psychosis or developmental disability/retardation/etc.) theoretically could strive toward other work but feel hopeless about their prospects, and so they hop around from doctor's office to doctor's office seeking endorsement to be on disability. This is all subjective and case-by-case, and I'm not going to make appeals to my own experience in this arena, but I am extremely confident disability can be entirely faked, as well as not necessarily faked but definitely bought into by people who convince themselves of their own hopelessness and feel honest in arguing they "can't" overcome their current state of misfortune.

I don't think the data does exist, which I think is a problem. It should exist.

I also don't have a firm number, but less that 10% wouldn't scare me too much, considering the scope of the program.

As for your brick layer, I see a lot who don't end there. Have a fellow I know right now who had a siginifcant head injury. His memory is serverly hindered. But efforts to re-educate and move him on to something else are part of his program. To be honest, it might cheaper not to try and train him, but he is trying. And I respect that.

Over the years I've worked with a lot of good people handling problems and moving on. I don't have numbers, but I'm convinced a lot of people dumbed their McDonald's coffee and didn't sue. I've met mothers working three jobs and raising their kids alone, who somehow managed. I've even seen folks get on wlefare, improve thier lives, and contribute as tax payers. Somehow, they don't make the stories people tell. But then again, no one talks about traffic running smoothly either.
 
Translation: Proving evidence is hard.

No, you ARE the evidence.

No, that refered to roads. You doing the lazy dishonest partisan sheep thing.

No, that refered to businesses. Earlier he refered to roads. You're doing the dishonest partisan word rearranging thing.
 
This issue. As for my partisanship, I've asked for you to provide evidence as to what makes me partisan. Feel free to give it a shot.

The fact that you claim you are nonpartisan while calling me partisan for differing on opinion on this issue. That alone makes you a card carrying partisan. :shrug:

Next?
 
The fact that you claim you are nonpartisan while calling me partisan for differing on opinion on this issue. That alone makes you a card carrying partisan. :shrug:

Next?

Hardly. What makes you partisan is not a difference of opinion, but ignoring fact to accept a lie. No reasonable or honest person, unless of course their just stupid (which I don't think you are) believes the opinion you spouted. The most logical explanation is partisan. For me to be equal, I'd have to believe Bush was Hitler.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

No, you miss the point. They don't have people who can push for regulations. You mistakenly think the two are separate. But regulations largely have a history, and largely promoted by people. Government doesn't come to them on their own. When that si the case, you have China. So, you merely missed the point.

I nailed your point exactly. You held up China as having unsafe consumer products, and I agree they do. However, you think the cause is lack of regulation when in fact China has very little economic freedom relative to the U.S. Your answer? Become more like China. My answer, is to have consumer products truly "promoted by the people" by allowing them freedom of choice over what they consume. You want to force your choices on other people...you want to utilize the power of the state to coerce people into buying CFLs instead of incandescent bulbs, or regulate the size of soft-drink they drink. Such laws, although they have the blessing a democratic majority, are no less tyrannical than China's communist regime.

It should be noted too, established regulatory agencies in the U.S. act in the same manner as China's communist apparatchik. Even though these agencies were established through democratic means, they create regulations with delegated authority, and have the ability to coerce (levy large fines, shut down businesses) all without the due process of law, and without those regulations being approved by elected legislatures.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I nailed your point exactly. You held up China as having unsafe consumer products, and I agree they do. However, you think the cause is lack of regulation when in fact China has very little economic freedom relative to the U.S. Your answer? Become more like China. My answer, is to have consumer products truly "promoted by the people" by allowing them freedom of choice over what they consume. You want to force your choices on other people...you want to utilize the power of the state to coerce people into buying CFLs instead of incandescent bulbs, or regulate the size of soft-drink they drink. Such laws, although they have the blessing a democratic majority, are no less tyrannical than China's communist regime.

It should be noted too, established regulatory agencies in the U.S. act in the same manner as China's communist apparatchik. Even though these agencies were established through democratic means, they create regulations with delegated authority, and have the ability to coerce (levy large fines, shut down businesses) all without the due process of law, and without those regulations being approved by elected legislatures.

They have little economic freedom, but no push for regualtion from people; therefore, no regualtions that protect people. Can you not see this point?
 
Hardly. What makes you partisan is not a difference of opinion, but ignoring fact to accept a lie. No reasonable or honest person, unless of course their just stupid (which I don't think you are) believes the opinion you spouted. The most logical explanation is partisan. For me to be equal, I'd have to believe Bush was Hitler.

I'm not ignoring anything...he said what he said. Is it being exagerated? Sure. Did he walk it back moments later? Sure. He still said what he said, and your partisanship has you making excuses for him.

Reasonable and honest people believe reasonable and honest people (which I believe Obama is) say what they mean. He has a viewpoint he clearly expressed. His views are at odds with mine on the issue, for sure, but that doesn't mean I think he's a Chavez clone.

I've never seen you break party lines on a single issue, Boo. You are clearly partisan, or delusional (which I don't think you are).
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

They have little economic freedom, but no push for regualtion from people; therefore, no regualtions that protect people. Can you not see this point?

I see your point clearly, what I'm trying to get through to you is the fact that by regulating free commerce (without concern to principles of natural law) you give regulatory agencies the same authority within their sphere as China has over her people.

Here is an example, a new technology has developed called bump-stocks. Reveiw this video and tell me, for all practical purposes does this item not essentially convert the weapon to full auto?:



The BATF has declared this technology legal, I can only assume this would be to your chagrin. The technical reason why this item should be legal or illegal are irrelevent to our discussion here, what is relevant is the fact an un-elected regulatory agency declared it legal. Even though full auto firearms have been highly restricted (illegal for most) for nearly a century, the BATF has made an executive or judicial decision without due process or without legislative authorization.

I use this example, not because I think bump stocks should be illegal, but because their legality is an example of the delegated power of a regulatory agency. That type of authority by unelected, non-judicial bureaucrats is fundamentally similar to Chinese communism. These agencies have the authority to declare items/behavior legal or illegal without that input from "the people".
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I see your point clearly, what I'm trying to get through to you is the fact that by regulating free commerce (without concern to principles of natural law) you give regulatory agencies the same authority within their sphere as China has over her people.

Here is an example, a new technology has developed called bump-stocks. Reveiw this video and tell me, for all practical purposes does this item not essentially convert the weapon to full auto?:



The BATF has declared this technology legal, I can only assume this would be to your chagrin. The technical reason why this item should be legal or illegal are irrelevent to our discussion here, what is relevant is the fact an un-elected regulatory agency declared it legal. Even though full auto firearms have been highly restricted (illegal for most) for nearly a century, the BATF has made an executive or judicial decision without due process or without legislative authorization.

I use this example, not because I think bump stocks should be illegal, but because their legality is an example of the delegated power of a regulatory agency. That type of authority by unelected, non-judicial bureaucrats is fundamentally similar to Chinese communism. These agencies have the authority to declare items/behavior legal or illegal without that input from "the people".


So, let me this striaght, regulations that keep poison out of our PB is equal to lack of regulation in China that allows it in the PB? Is this your position?

And who would want that weapon? For what purpose? And people are elected, who place people into roles, and these agencies have to adhere to rules and laws. These rules and alws are ususally pushed by people not in government. People who lobby and push elected officials. The government doesn't usually do this compeltely on their own. You have to know how this works.
 
Back
Top Bottom