• 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: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

Do you believe that earning a profit is amoral?

Awesome. In my opinion there is very little that is more moral than earning profits.


Interesting viewpoint. So am I correct in assuming that you feel a company showing a profit despite X number of humans being harmed or killed as a direct result of the company's actions is still a "moral" entity?
 
Paranoid demonizing hackery in the form of calling the opposition extremist names =/= awareness.

I know plenty about Rand, Niet, Mach and the rest. You're not talkin' to an uneducated, intellectual child. Spare me your condescension.

Only if you spare me your pretended ignorance.
 
You forgot Muslim. Don't ever forget Muslim.
The one term Marxist did spend his formative years in Islamic Indonesia. He has occasionally stumbled and spoke of his Muslim, er Christian faith. And an interviewer did say that the one term Marxist did recite the Islamic call to prayer in arabic. So you may have a kernel of truth there.
 
Only a matter of time before this nonsense came on. I'm surprised nobody has called Obama a Marxist Muslim yet.
It is what the one term Marxist believes. You describe yourself as very liberal. Of course you object to the truth as it strikes close to home.
 
I keep hearing things like this come from the right and it's pretty scary. It's like a blatant and intentional misinterpretation of the words.

I assume the democrats did the same to Bush in 2004 but I wasn't as active in politics as I am now.
It is Obama's consistent narrative.

Has the one term Marxist ever said, "if you built a business from scratch, if you worked long hours, put your money at risk, and despite all of the obstacles that governments put in your way you managed to succeed then you are entitled to enjoy the fruits of your success. Thank you for your dedication, your hard work, your rugged individualism, you love of capitalism and your willingness to take risk."

Has he ever said anything even close to this?
 
It's really the same thing as calling every lefty a communist.

Actually its not. Perhaps you can link to all the people blacklisted and had their lives and careers ruined for being followers of Rand? But why confuse you with reality when you are laboring so mightily to stay in denial?
 
Actually its not. But why confuse you with reality when you are laboring so mightily to stay in denial?

Most people have never read anything by Rand. Stop chasing imaginary opponents.
 
Most people have never read anything by Rand. Stop chasing imaginary opponents.

But lots here certainly have - or have been influenced by those who have.
 
How would the government do this? Taxes?
Yes. Ever more steeply progressive taxes. Trial balloons are floated periodically to see how we respond to them. Maybe a surtax on success. Or a death tax that does not wait for one's death. Given a willing populace all things are possible.
 
We all have the same opportunities in relation to the US. I know I did and if there was anyone who would be least likely to succeed it is someone like me. Wrong side of the tracks etc etc. I was provided with opportunity and moved on it.
Given your level of success do you agree with Obama that you are not entitled to (your) success? Given that "You didn't do that. Somebody else made that happen" are you willing to have the government take most of it from you? I believe his goal is to make it acceptable to the citizens for the government to take more from you since you had help along the way.
 
The meaning IMO is that a person has to show up for life and apply for a job and work hard to achieve. The opportunities are there we just have to find them.

That sure as hell isn't what Obama meant. He constantly harps about giving people oppurtunity, as if the oppurtunity is controlled by someone, or something.

No doubt, he wants the government be in control of of who succeeds and who doesn't. Mostly, who doesn't, IMO.
 
There are TWO things wrong with your statement in bold:

1) As free citizens, we have a right to support whatever candidate we choose. And in so doing, we make volunteer donations to said political candidate and/or campaign and/or party affiliation we so choose. That is enshrined in our Constitution as a voting right.

2) How soon we forget about SuperPACs. :doh
Does this mean you support the government giving billions of dollars to Obama campaign bundlers? Crony capitalism is not capitalism. And money laundering, even when done using the federal government to take dollars from one group, taxpayers, to give to another group, Friends of BHO, in order to enrich the Friends who in turn give the Democratic Party Machine contributions, is still wrong.

Obama picking losers. Here is the video:

 
Interesting viewpoint. So am I correct in assuming that you feel a company showing a profit despite X number of humans being harmed or killed as a direct result of the company's actions is still a "moral" entity?
Given who you are I am not surprised at your comments. You are beneath contempt.
 
A growing number have the moronic sense of entitlement to success without even the pursuit. This is precisely a group Obama is strategically chasing and why Romney's 47% comment is accurate in my opinion. Of course, apply some logic and realize that you exclude those who are truly unable to work or are retired.

By "you", I hope you were referring to Mitt Romney's comments and not my own. I understand very clearly that not everyone within that 47% population group fit nicely into the entitlement narrative. Like Romney, if I take certain tax deductions, exemptions and credits at my income level, I can pay little or no federal income tax, but NOT be on any entitlement program whatsoever yet still be well within that 47% group. So, Romney's comment was just plain stupid!

Even Obama, as seen in the 2007 speech recently publicized, feeds the victim mentality to people (especially blacks) and paints being rich as evil.

I'd have to disagree with you here. The speech wasn't about Blacks being painted as victims. His speech emphasized a pervasive problem in this country that has historical context to support his conclusion: that Black communities and African-Americans overall have not always been given a fair shake in this country even in modern times since both Reconstruction (post-Emancipation) and the Civil Rights era. Black Laws enacted by White leaders at local, state and to a lessor degree the federal level have all passed legislation (some as local ordinances) that worked to curtail Black achievements and/or advancements. If you've studied American history - or more specifically Black History - you'd know this to be true.

However, the President didn't just lay blame on government for undermining African-Americans. He also laid blame squarely at Black people themselves for not taking more responsibility for themselves and their communities. It's the same type of tongue lashing Black historical figures such as Frederick Douglass, Bucker T. Washington, Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have all stated repeatedly throughout their lives. As such, I don't see why our nation's 44th President should be villified in present-day for echoing those exact same sentiments.

To put it in perspective: Republicans/Conservatives have been saying all along that poor people whether Black, White, Hispanic, Italian, etc., should do more to take responsibility for themselves. Why then was what Pres. Obama said in that regard so dreadfully wrong simply because:

1) he said it before a group of majority Black people; and,

2) he said it using a "Negro Dialect"

????

I get that people want to make that speech (and others) part of a larger argument concerning race relations or picking winners and loser, etc., but I think if people turned off their partisan and/or racial radar and tried to see things in much broader terms (and it helps to know alittle history as well), maybe they'd come to understand that their distain for so many people thinking they are "entitled" to gov't handouts is very much in keeping with our President wanting more people to take responsibility for themselves. The problem here, of course, is the only real way many people will "see" opportunities to move forward is for them to have a job. And so it is incumbant on both the federal government and the private sector to foster employment opportunities since not everyone has the skills, knowledge or even the bravery (let alone the desire) to risk starting a business of their own.

Instead, someone needs to whip the work ethic in this country into shape. My wife just quit her job at a high school after three lectures because about 25 of her 30 students were disrespectful and one even physically assaulted her. The 2nd day of class, a student tried to insist the classroom door be open during lecture and tried to physically push my wife when she blocked to student from the door. This is the kind of punk Obama wants "entitled" to college? Instead, teach your "culture" the respect and work ethic to earn scholarships. This generalizes to requiring people to earn any type of aid desired.

Sorry that your wife had to endore such disrespect, but I think you totally misunderstand the caliber of student the Pres. wants to pursue a college education even from within the African-American community.
 
Last edited:
Has the one term Marxist ever said...

Before we continue with this dialogue can you give me an example of legislation that Obama helped push through that can be considered Marxist?
 
Does this mean you support the government giving billions of dollars to Obama campaign bundlers? Crony capitalism is not capitalism. And money laundering, even when done using the federal government to take dollars from one group, taxpayers, to give to another group, Friends of BHO, in order to enrich the Friends who in turn give the Democratic Party Machine contributions, is still wrong.

Obama picking losers. Here is the video:



My comment had nothing to do with what a President's Administration does with campaign donations once such contributions are made. Mine was to remind the reader that the public as legally registered voters have a Constitutional right (hopefully as part of a well-informed electorate) to support the political candidate and/or political party of their choice and campaign finance is part of that - nothing more.
 
Given your level of success do you agree with Obama that you are not entitled to (your) success? Given that "You didn't do that. Somebody else made that happen" are you willing to have the government take most of it from you? I believe his goal is to make it acceptable to the citizens for the government to take more from you since you had help along the way.

I believe you are taking his statement out of context. Nevertheless, while I do not live in fear of losing whatever success(money) I may have acquired, I am no more guaranteed to keep than anyone else. I am entitled to my degrees, I am entitled to own various forms of property. The value of each is mostly out of my hands, I can maintain them but the market will dictate their value.
 
That sure as hell isn't what Obama meant. He constantly harps about giving people oppurtunity, as if the oppurtunity is controlled by someone, or something.

No doubt, he wants the government be in control of of who succeeds and who doesn't. Mostly, who doesn't, IMO.

That is an interesting point. Can you provide an example with source material?
 
Before we continue with this dialogue can you give me an example of legislation that Obama helped push through that can be considered Marxist?
Are you new here too?

Whether or not he has succeeded in turning the nation into a European Socialist nation based upon Radical Karl's writings is not relevant to his fundamental beliefs. In addition to being steeped in Marxism he is also an opportunist. He is using fascism in the form of massive regulations to bring the nation to its knees, preparing it for more radical changes.

Things take time. Despite the radicalization of most of the Democratic Party Radical Barack could not move us to socialism in one term. But if Obamacare is not repealed that is our fate.
 
My comment had nothing to do with what a President's Administration does with campaign donations once such contributions are made. Mine was to remind the reader that the public as legally registered voters have a Constitutional right (hopefully as part of a well-informed electorate) to support the political candidate and/or political party of their choice and campaign finance is part of that - nothing more.
So you are completely fine with the money laundering as long as we don't identify it and discuss it. Um-kay.
 
I believe you are taking his statement out of context. Nevertheless, while I do not live in fear of losing whatever success(money) I may have acquired, I am no more guaranteed to keep than anyone else. I am entitled to my degrees, I am entitled to own various forms of property. The value of each is mostly out of my hands, I can maintain them but the market will dictate their value.
Actually I put his statement into the context of Obama's consistent narrative.

Given that are you entitled to your success or not? If he wins he is coming after you unless you are a major campaign contributor or bundler.
 
Back
Top Bottom