• 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]

no, its factual.

grants, wealthy folks who started with nothing and built a factory that now employees 1,000 people, has been very productive. I respect such people and congratulate their success and hope for more.

but folks who simply get rich by buying & selling properties, stocks, & bonds....folks who inherited their wealth, folks who simply sign documents written by others are simply a token of control and bureaucracy, are NOT more productive than the folks who do the actual work that creates profit.

You need the second group just as much as the first bro. I would put forth that you need an equal, if not higher level, of education to buy/sell properties, stocks, bonds, sign documents. Why hate on inheritance? Should their parents have just given it away to someone else? Almost everyone inherits something from their parents. Whether its a couch or millions doesn't matter. Should someone have to throw their couch to the curb?
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

This part pissed me off more than the other,
"“I’m always struck by people who think ‘well, it must be because I was just so smart’. There are a lot of smart people out there! ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there!”.
I understand his point about the roads lead people to your business, but, the aforementioned comments lead me to believe that he meant it the way its been portrayed. President Obama believes the gov't should be as involved as it is in our lives. He believes it should be MORE involved than it is. What has that gotten us?

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.
 
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.

But is it a GROWING part, or a SHRINKING part?
 
business-haters don't pass laws giving private businesses 30 million new customers.

Business hating Keynesian like Obama pass laws with a fatal conceit which hallucinates their ability to decide what's best for consumers. Rather than leaving it to free people to decide for themselves what they want to purchase or invest in.
 
Business hating Keynesian like Obama pass laws with a fatal conceit which hallucinates their ability to decide what's best for consumers....

I majored in Geography, not English. Please put this into laymen's terms.
 
Last edited:
Business hating Keynesian like Obama pass laws with a fatal conceit which hallucinates their ability to decide what's best for consumers. Rather than leaving it to free people to decide for themselves what they want to purchase or invest in.

That is rather hard to read. Maybe remove the adjectives.
 
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.

Less government intervention is needed if you want those societal benefits to once again thrive in America. Government gets in the way of innovation. I wont leave my country because our history reveals the best period for innovations were also the periods of least state intervention. Government grants to universities don't hold a candle to profit motive when it comes to advancements in technology or medicine. In regards to "less discrimination", I assume you mean racist laws. The institutions of slavery, segregation, jim crow etc. could not exist without the laws which backed them. The evolution of discrimination within America has been an evolution solely within the venue of government. Discrimination was of government, that eventually became corrected by government.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Less government intervention is needed if you want those societal benefits to once again thrive in America. Government gets in the way of innovation.....

private businesses put man on the moon and built the atomic bomb?
 
That is rather hard to read. Maybe remove the adjectives.

Keynesians pass laws which harm the economy due to unknowable and unforeseen consequences of their actions. Better?
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

private businesses put man on the moon and built the atomic bomb?

The private space industry is producing a better product at a lower cost than any government. I'm sure you're not advocating the societal benefits of nuclear bombs..are you?
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

The private space industry is producing a better product at a lower cost than any government. I'm sure you're not advocating the societal benefits of nuclear bombs..are you?

um.....they prevented a third world-war. So yes, I guess I am.
 
Keynesians pass laws which harm the economy due to unknowable and unforeseen consequences of their actions. Better?

A little, but what laws? What consequences?
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Less government intervention is needed if you want those societal benefits to once again thrive in America. Government gets in the way of innovation. I wont leave my country because our history reveals the best period for innovations were also the periods of least state intervention. Government grants to universities don't hold a candle to profit motive when it comes to advancements in technology or medicine. In regards to "less discrimination", I assume you mean racist laws. The institutions of slavery, segregation, jim crow etc. could not exist without the laws which backed them. The evolution of discrimination within America has been an evolution solely within the venue of government. Discrimination was of government, that eventually became corrected by government.

You mean like having our rivers catch on fire. Regualtion that stopped that was useless and harmful. Or like LA being so smog filled people died because they couldn't breath. We certainly need no reuglation there. And God knows, that the meat industry was just fine prior regulations concerning safety. Is this what you mean?

There may be a place where somethign is over regulated, but you shouldn't speak of them in blanket form. Be specific, and deal with each one. Otherwise, we can be China with lead in toys and poisoning PB.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

You mean like having our rivers catch on fire.
Regualtion that stopped that was useless and harmful. Or like LA being so smog filled people died because they couldn't breath. We certainly need no reuglation there. And God knows, that the meat industry was just fine prior regulations concerning safety. Is this what you mean?

There may be a place where somethign is over regulated, but you shouldn't speak of them in blanket form. Be specific, and deal with each one. Otherwise, we can be China with lead in toys and poisoning PB.

Rivers don't catch fire unless they are dammed by the government. LA is still smoggy. Other than shared hallucinations of you and Upton Sinclair, the meat industry has higher safety standards internally than the federal government imposes because their safety standards have to meet the demands of insurance actuaries.

Need I remind you China is a communist nation with vastly more regulations over its economy than the U.S. I'm surprised you'd use China as an example of consumer product horrors.

A little, but what laws? What consequences?

Fair Lending acts that lead to housing bubbles, mal-investments into "green job" companies like Solyndra, stuff like that. The list can go on.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

um.....they prevented a third world-war. So yes, I guess I am.

I thought Bruce Springsteen ended the Cold War?
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Rivers don't catch fire unless they are dammed by the government. LA is still smoggy. Other than shared hallucinations of you and Upton Sinclair, the meat industry has higher safety standards internally than the federal government imposes because their safety standards have to meet the demands of insurance actuaries.

Need I remind you China is a communist nation with vastly more regulations over its economy than the U.S. I'm surprised you'd use China as an example of consumer product horrors.



Fair Lending acts that lead to housing bubbles, mal-investments into "green job" companies like Solyndra, stuff like that. The list can go on.

Learn your history, polution did catch fire in a river. And LA is better than it was. And no, the meat industry wasn't. I know you want to convince yourself of these fanasties, but you simply don't know your history.

And yes, they are communist, and don't have the people pressing them to have helpful regulations. You missed the point.

And no, derugulation did more to cause the crisis than anything else. And companies fail from time to time, but don't let too much misinformation get inside your ideology. ;)
 
Nonsense. His words and meaning is clear, to the nonpartisan.

You are not nopartisan, and you are taking a very partisan interpretation of his words.

It's not that flexible.

Of course it is, otherwise, facts would be enough.

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

As for my wallet, quite enough.


Back to your "nonpartisanship", eh?
 
You are not nopartisan, and you are taking a very partisan interpretation of his words.

Yeah. It's very funny that Boo Radley would imply HE is a "non-partisan."
 
You are not nopartisan, and you are taking a very partisan interpretation of his words.

There's a spectrum on that, and frankly, you guys to tend to think anyone not partisan in your direction is partisan the other way.

Of course it is, otherwise, facts would be enough.

Facts are enough to reasonable people. Only dishonest people pretend something is something it isn't.




Back to your "nonpartisanship", eh?

You projecting has nothing to do with me. His thesis is clear for anyone to see.
 
There's a spectrum on that, and frankly, you guys to tend to think anyone not partisan in your direction is partisan the other way.

Not anyone. You? Yes. Without any shred of doubt.
 
Not anyone. You? Yes. Without any shred of doubt.

Can't help you. And yes, you do measure me based on your huge bias. Anything that isn't as rabid as you, must be partisan. :coffeepap
 
Can't help you. And yes, you do measure me based on your huge bias. Anything that isn't as rabid as you, must be partisan. :coffeepap

Heh. Because you say so.

You've had people on YOUR side comment on your hyperpartisanship. I guess they can't around their biases, either.

And since we're in a different thread, but one on the same topic, you never did answer my question.

"No one succeeds alone." OK. So what? Now what? What conclusions do we draw? Why did Obama bring it up? Why do you run from that question?
 
I thought some would enjoy this:

Democalypse 2012 - Do We Look Stupid? Don't Answer That Edition - Grammatical Gaffes

Mitt Romney's attack on Barack Obama's slight grammatical misstep regarding small business is what people do in an argument when they're completely f**ked. (06:19)

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - Political Comedy - Fake News | Comedy Central

Now, you do have to click on this segment. ;)
 
There's a spectrum on that, and frankly, you guys to tend to think anyone not partisan in your direction is partisan the other way.

Boo, come on. You are clearly partisan.

Facts are enough to reasonable people. Only dishonest people pretend something is something it isn't.

Facts are rarely enough for most people, reasonable or not. Only dishonest people pretend that their version is the only "nonpartisan" view.

You projecting has nothing to do with me. His thesis is clear for anyone to see.

Yep, govt=good, business=bad. Clear enough.
 
Boo, come on. You are clearly partisan.

Am I? What makes me partisan? Voting for Bob Dole when I did? Arguing for a divided government because when one side wins it goes to ****? Calling for compromise? Saying both sides lie? Exactly what makes me partisan?

Facts are rarely enough for most people, reasonable or not. Only dishonest people pretend that their version is the only "nonpartisan" view.

When you ignore a fact, like a clear thesis statement, you are neither reasonable nor honest.



Yep, govt=good, business=bad. Clear enough.

Of course, he did not say that. So, you have it completely wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom