• 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]

Not sure why you think your question means they can be dishonest about what he said. He merely points out that we accomplish a lot by working together. This isn't all that controversial. But, like happens too often, instead of addressing what he actually said, partisans go off into silly land and embrace the lie. There is a prevasive thought out that government doesn't work, and yet much of what it does, business and most everyone else depends on. Roads and bridges are a good example. SO, a poltiican addressing that is not something that is extreme.

If thats all he said, no one would have a problem with it. But you have to take the entire statement in context along with other things he has said and written. Obama believes in the marxist view of society. "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" and he wants to be the one deciding who gets what from whom.

you on the left have no idea the danger posed by that type of ideology----unless of course, you also believe it.
 
Obama and the Democrats tried to get tax-cuts for businesses to hire more workers, and the GOP said "no".

Please, you're only fooling yourself. Senate Republicans said "no" to raising taxes on small businesses.
 
Not sure why you think your question means they can be dishonest about what he said. He merely points out that we accomplish a lot by working together. This isn't all that controversial. But, like happens too often, instead of addressing what he actually said, partisans go off into silly land and embrace the lie. There is a prevasive thought out that government doesn't work, and yet much of what it does, business and most everyone else depends on. Roads and bridges are a good example. SO, a poltiican addressing that is not something that is extreme.

They aren't being dishonest about what he said. Exagerating it a bit, maybe, but he said what he said.

So, we KNOW that govt plays a role in business. President Obama didn't point out anything that isn't known (other than his disdain for private sector success) and he wasn't proposing any change. Why bring it up at all, then?
 
They aren't being dishonest about what he said. Exagerating it a bit, maybe, but he said what he said.

So, we KNOW that govt plays a role in business. President Obama didn't point out anything that isn't known (other than his disdain for private sector success) and he wasn't proposing any change. Why bring it up at all, then?

Yes, they are being dishonest. And I've linked how.

And distain is your interpretation, not reality. As his opponents demonize use of government, that is plenty of reason to try and discuss it honestly. We don't do dicussing honestly well and this country, which is why so many lies dominate. I say shame on us.
 

Old news, Republicans came back to the table and are holding back to back roll calls on the opposing bills. The ball is now in the Dem's court. The Democrat's bill will fail not because of a republican filibuster, but because moderate dems won't support their own bill.

Senate ready for symbolic showdown on tax cuts
Published July 25, 2012


In an announcement that seemed to surprise Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor that he was accepting a Democratic offer to hold back-to-back roll calls on both parties' bills, with each measure requiring just a simple majority for passage.
The new plan puts pressure on Democrats to avoid an embarrassing defeat of their own tax cut plan, which closely resembles proposals by President Barack Obama to extend tax cuts for all but the nation's highest earners. Republicans want the high earners to keep their tax cuts, too.
 
Yes, they are being dishonest. And I've linked how.

What you linked to is an interpretation just like any other. Everyone hears what they hear filtered through their own bias. If you view the speach, you can see exactly what he meant when he said the words.

And distain is your interpretation, not reality.

My interpretation is my reality. Just as yours is yours.

As his opponents demonize use of government, that is plenty of reason to try and discuss it honestly. We don't do dicussing honestly well and this country, which is why so many lies dominate. I say shame on us.

Actually, it's plainly an attempt to diminish the impact of Romney's success. There is no other reason to bring up something so plainly obvious..and get carried away doing it.

It's clear he feels that any individual's success in business is "no big deal" thanks to the helping hand of government. I mean, since the govt is there to help, anyone can do it, right?

What's in your wallet?
 
Old news, Republicans came back to the table and are holding back to back roll calls on the opposing bills. The ball is now in the Dem's court. The Democrat's bill will fail not because of a republican filibuster, but because moderate dems won't support their own bill.

Senate ready for symbolic showdown on tax cuts
Published July 25, 2012

Um, you're completely misrepresenting what happened. The GOP filibustered the small business tax cuts, which is separate from the bills referenced in your quote. Your quote references bills dealing with the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
 
Obama and the Democrats tried to get tax-cuts for businesses to hire more workers, and the GOP said "no".

Oh, so now it's Democrats who are the party of tax cuts? lol.....

Republicans tried to get the Keystone Pipeline approved to hire more workers, and the Liberals said "no".
Republicans tried to lower the capital gains tax rate, which would create more investment, and liberals said "no".
Republicans tried to respect your individual liberty and oppose Obamacare, and liberals said "no".
Republicans tried to protect innocent life in a woman's womb, and liberals said "no".
Republicans tried to secure our southern borders, and liberals said "no".

Give it a rest. Obama is anti-business, and everyone in business knows it. On one hand you liberals rail against the "tax breaks for corporations", then on the other hand, brag about giving corporations tax cuts.

So which liberal are you today? The liberal who hates corporate tax breaks? or the liberal gushing over Obama giving corporations tax breaks to hire more workers? lol
 
Yes, they are being dishonest. And I've linked how.

And distain is your interpretation, not reality. As his opponents demonize use of government, that is plenty of reason to try and discuss it honestly. We don't do dicussing honestly well and this country, which is why so many lies dominate. I say shame on us.

If he doesn't personally have a disdain for private sector success, then he's absolutely banking on his voting constituency having disdain for private wealth. Which is why he runs adds attacking Romney's wealth, and his "overseas accounts".

Stop to think for one minute. You don't think Obama has a single offshore account where he puts money to avoid taxes? The President of the United States? Please....I'm sure he has a couple.

Let me set you straight one last time. Obama was raised by Marxists, mentored by Marxists, sought out other Marxists in school to hang out with, was pastored by a Marxist, was married and baptised by a Marxist, called Frank Marshall Davis "uncle Frank", who was a Marxist, chose a career in community organizing on the South Side of Chicago just like Saul Alinsky, who was a Marxist, got a Harvard recommendation from Rashid Khalidi, who is a Marxist. Taught a class in college about Saul Alinsky, who I've already mentioned, was a Marxist. Was lifelong friends with Valorie Jarrett, whose father was a devout Marxist. Received another college recommendation from Khalid Al Monsoor, another Marxist. Gave speeches with, and started his political career in Bill Ayers' private home, he's also a Marxist Revolutionary.

Now, you expect me to believe he's a straight running Capitalist? After his two books, after his speeches, after his Joe the Plumber comments, after these last comments about business owners not building their businesses, and after analyzing his entire life's associations???? You think it's just a coincidence he says the things he does about private business owners?

You've lost your mind my friend. Or you are more naive than any person I've ever seen. Then you accuse people like me of misinterpreting Obama. No, I'm not misinterpreting anything. I take the man in Full context. Meaning FULL context. That includes his life, his writings, his theology, his pastor, his parents, his prior jobs, his childhood mentors, his friends, his business connections, his history. I take him in FULL context. He's a Marxist. He's Bill Ayers in a suit, with much more patience and understanding, that he cant just shove his crap down our throats. He has to try to "convice" us that businesses only succeed because of society. He has to "convince" us that single payer health care is good for the country. He has to try to "convince" us that adding almost 5 trillion dollars of new debt on our nation is "necessary". He has to try to "convince" you he's a capitalist. He has to try to "convince" you that wealth redistribution is fair. His method isn't force, it's willful submission.

And so many were duped by him. How? Because they still haven't studied him. They still, to this day, know little to nothing about "who" Obama is as a man. Not even as a politician, but as a man. They bury their head in the sand and claim it doesn't matter. BS. It matters. Ask a liberal if they have ever read Obama's books, both of them. I've been asking liberals for years, and in my personal experience, very few liberals have ever read his books. Ask a liberal if they know who James Cohn is. They won't be able to tell you. But James Cohn was one of the fathers of Black Liberation Theology, the theology Jeremiah Wright preaches in his church. The church Obama attended for more than 20 years. He's a follower of Black Liberation Theology. Go study it sometime, then tell me Obama believes in the same theology you do. Tell me why on Earth Obama would admire James Cohn.

That's just one example. You people don't know half of what you should know about the man, yet you act like he's God or something, that he's this full blooded capitalist, Constitutionalist, scholar, icon, rock star, well-spoken, diplomat. psssshhhhhhh..........
 
the GOP didn't allow tax-breaks for businesses to hire more people.

Is that right? Hmmmm.....as I recall, it was democrats who were demanding that the Bush tax cuts expire on the upper income individuals? The Republicans unanimously voted for tax cuts on businesses payrolls if they hired new workers. That was over a year ago. Or did you forget about that already?

Upper income individuals consist of many business owners. 67% of small business owners still file taxes as individuals. Yet Dems, and Obama are demanding that those tax breaks expire. So don't play smart with me Thunder, I know you're not very smart.

But you failed to answer my question. Which liberal are you today? The liberal who hates corporate tax breaks? Or the liberal praising Obama for cutting taxes for corporations so they can hire more people?

Oh, btw.....It wasn't very long ago liberals were arguing that tax cuts didn't create jobs. lol....now Thunder is implying that Republicans are hurting jobs because they opposed a tax cut....supposedly. If that's true Thunder, let me tell you something, DEMS HAVE BEEN HURTING JOBS FOR 100 YEARS, because they almost always oppose a tax cut.
 
From your own source Thunder Dome: The roll call came after senators voted 73-24 against a Republican version that would have provided a tax deduction to U.S. companies with fewer than 500 employees.

Ya, really sounds like Republicans oppose tax cuts on smaller businesses......

Are you any good at math? If a bill cannot make it through THE SENATE, it's because Dems are voting against it. They couldn't even get their own party to go along. So, it's stupid to blame Republicans.

Remind me one more time.....how many seats do Dems hold in the Senate?
 
Last edited:
Oh I see....and I suppose THE SENATE has enough republican votes to kill the bill right? Like I said, the day you start thinking things through, is the day I'll probably stroke out.....


You must have seen this sentence since the one you C&P'd came just after it
The vote was 53-44, seven short of the 60 votes required to overcome GOP procedural hurdles.
 
which shows just how much they value tax cuts for job-creators.

They fillibustered because of the strings attached to the bill Thunder. Just minutes before, THEIR proposal to cut taxes on small businesses was DEFEATED BY DEMOCRATS.

And just to point out, the Democrat bill was defeated BY DEMOCRATS AS WELL!!!

You wanna use a Senate bill to try to place blame on Republicans? lololol....wow! Dems control the Senate. The same Senate that hasn't produced a mandatory budget in how many years now? I lost count.

Look at the House. Republicans have passed numerous jobs bills in the House. Senate hasn't even picked them up. Look at the track record. Obama refuses to cut taxes on anyone, but demands that tax cuts on the upper tax bracketts expire. While Reps are simply asking to extend them all for 2 years. So, who's looking out for the ENTIRE country? REpublicans. They want to extend tax cuts for ALL, while Dems just wanna extend them for a select few. Playing class warfare. It's who they are.
 
You must have seen this sentence since the one you C&P'd came just after it

It would be the same if I said that in 2005, Democrats voted unanimously against a bill that would of funded more bullett proof vests for our troops in Iraq. It would be true. But would it be true to say that's the reason they voted against the bill?

This may be a bad example, because I wouldn't put that past liberals either. But the fact is, they opposed the bill because of other reasons, not because of the bullett proof vests.

Same applies here. The Republicans had just had a bill defeated that would of cut taxes on businesses with 500 or fewer employees. You're being dishonest, along with Thunder. Republicans weren't filibustering over tax cuts, but all the other crap Dems tried to pile in the bill. So save your lies for someone who will fall for your them.
 
It would be the same if I said that in 2005, Democrats voted unanimously against a bill that would of funded more bullett proof vests for our troops in Iraq. It would be true. But would it be true to say that's the reason they voted against the bill?

This may be a bad example, because I wouldn't put that past liberals either. But the fact is, they opposed the bill because of other reasons, not because of the bullett proof vests.

Same applies here. The Republicans had just had a bill defeated that would of cut taxes on businesses with 500 or fewer employees. You're being dishonest, along with Thunder. Republicans weren't filibustering over tax cuts, but all the other crap Dems tried to pile in the bill. So save your lies for someone who will fall for your them.


Why are you denying your own words?

Oh I see....and I suppose THE SENATE has enough republican votes to kill the bill right? Like I said, the day you start thinking things through, is the day I'll probably stroke out.....
 
They fillibustered because of the strings attached to the bill Thunder....

you mean like how the GOP added an amendment that extended tax-cuts for the middle class and the wealthy?

that kind of attached strings?

why did the GOP have to hold tax-cuts for job-creators hostage to the income tax debate?
 
What you linked to is an interpretation just like any other. Everyone hears what they hear filtered through their own bias. If you view the speach, you can see exactly what he meant when he said the words.

Nonsense. His words and meaning is clear, to the nonpartisan.

My interpretation is my reality. Just as yours is yours.

It's not that flexible.



Actually, it's plainly an attempt to diminish the impact of Romney's success. There is no other reason to bring up something so plainly obvious..and get carried away doing it.

It's clear he feels that any individual's success in business is "no big deal" thanks to the helping hand of government. I mean, since the govt is there to help, anyone can do it, right?

What's in your wallet?

Shocking, candidates addressing each other? The rest, is you projecting.

As for my wallet, quite enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom