• 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]

So you are completely fine with the money laundering as long as we don't identify it and discuss it. Um-kay.


You're really working hard to either shift the issue from the right to vote to campaign finance and crony capitalism or at least tie the two together. Still, I'll bite...

No, I do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision on Citizen's United. I think it was a huge mistake and have stated as much in other threads dealing with the subject matter. However, I do believe it is the "INDIVIDUAL'S" right to donate to the candidate of his/her choice and, as such, to vote accordingly. If you have a problem with campaign finance rules, I would suggest you write your Congressman, Senator and the more conservative wing of the Supreme Court and make youself heard.
 
Last edited:
Are you new here too?

Why yes I am :).

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 But if Obamacare is not repealed that is our fate.

So you're really going with the Marxist, Socialist Fascist Communist? Have you ever looked up what any those terms actually stand for?
 
You're really working hard to either shift the issue from the right to vote to campaign finance and crony capitalism or at least tie the two together. Still, I'll bite...

No, I do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision on Citizen's United. I think it was a huge mistake and have stated as much in other threads dealing with the subject matter. However, I do believe it is the "INDIVIDUAL'S" right to donate to the candidate of his/her choice and, as such, to vote accordingly. If you have a problem with campaign finance rules, I would suggest you write your Congressman, Senator and the more conservative wing of the Supreme Court and make youself heard.

Let's see. Money laundering or right to vote...This is NOT about campaign finance reform. I believe anybody ought to be able to contribute any amount. This is about what comes after...and before. Campaign bundlers created green companies that were given billions of dollars. Some, many, are already broke. But the bundlers are not millionaires and the Bamster got his contributions. That is wrong.
 
And in other breaking news: the sun rose in the east today. Reliable sources state that it will set in the west this evening.

Yup. which makes me kind of curious as to why you thought he was being absurd.
 
The way Obama is using the word "Entitled" is used with his spin......he is great at spinning. Its that same feeling as when he said "You didn't build that someone else did" ....We are entitled to "Earn Success" and then he feels he is "ENTITLED" to take it away if he wants or all the money we earn from it.....he plays his words carefully.....and those that feel that Millionaires and Billionaires(you know those making 200,000 on up..)should give them their hard earned cash so they dont have to go out and succeed in the high income bracket.....

I am not talking about helping the disabled,the poor or elderly....just to make sure I am clear on that. We all know how he feels....he is for Distribution of wealth and success.....and when he says that he does not believe we are entitled to success he means that as to say...The GOVT is the one that says what we can have and not have....we are not entitled to make that choice for our selves...
 
Why yes I am :).
A hearty welcome!

So you're really going with the Marxist, Socialist Fascist Communist? Have you ever looked up what any those terms actually stand for?
Yes. I have read three of Radical Karl's more (in)famous writings. You can read about those in some of the half dozen or so times I have listed them. His writings run 50 volumes. He was a prolific radical.

I was also an intelligence officer. My area of interest was the Soviet Union. I read everything I could get my hands on (we had paper back then) about Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism-Leninism, and on into Communism, socialism and Progressivism. I assumed liberals were not so tainted. I was wrong.

Obama grew up surrounded by Marxists, socialists, Communists, Progressives, liberals, terrorists and unspecified other radicals. Bill Ayers writes about them in one of the Obama ghostwritten books. The telling part is where Ayers/Obama claims that Obama intentionally sought out the radicals (see the list above) to hang around with during his college years. He has a life-long pattern.

I will only need to speak of him for another month or two. Then he will be as little interest as Clinton.
 
Are you happy with the second Carter term?

Reading comprehension time. When I said "2 straight failures," who do you think I meant?

We need a Reagan but he died. So Romney will just have to do the best he can.

They all do the best they can. Electing Romney will probably just mean one more failure to add to our losing streak. I'm not sure if it's worse to go for #3, or live a little while longer with #2.
 
Reading comprehension time. When I said "2 straight failures," who do you think I meant?
It is reading comprehension time. Why do you believe my comment about the second Carter term (you know the one with the Obama Hope and Change bumper sticker) had anything to do with your mischaracterization of Bush?

They all do the best they can. Electing Romney will probably just mean one more failure to add to our losing streak. I'm not sure if it's worse to go for #3, or live a little while longer with #2.
My fear is that Obama will succeed. We need to hire Romney to ensure that Obama is a failure. If Obama succeeds it is the end of the USA as I knew it.
 
Last edited:
Clinton was the last decent President we had.
Well, there you go again.

BJ Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.
He had the good fortune of Republicans in the legislature who reigned him in.
 
"You didn't build that" --Barack Obama

This was the entire quote, in context, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help." He continued, "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He made a blunder with a fantastic point, one which I believe in.

I said this in another post , "no one is entitled to success it takes a set of balls, determination, commitment a lot of luck and the right people in your corner." I had the right people: mentors, positive friends, those who wished to see me succeed. While I did the work, I needed their emotional support and professional guidance, without which I do not think I could have succeeded. I built it sure, I also had help, I give back every chance I get too.
 
That fine and dandy. You can call yourself what you want to call yourself. Its a free country.

And others can identify what they see in your posts and in your views and compare them to others who sound a whole lot like your are in mutual agreement about many things.

That is part of freedom and liberty. God Bless America!!!

That is fine and I agree you are free to do that.
 
This was the entire quote, in context, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help." He continued, "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He made a blunder with a fantastic point, one which I believe in.

I said this in another post , "no one is entitled to success it takes a set of balls, determination, commitment a lot of luck and the right people in your corner."
I had the right people: mentors, positive friends, those who wished to see me succeed. While I did the work, I needed their emotional support and professional guidance, without which I do not think I could have succeeded. I built it sure, I also had help, I give back every chance I get too.
Do you see the difference between you giving back, as you put it and the government seizing more of the wealth you created to spend as it sees fit?

This is the great error of socialism and near-socialist governments. They always need more and more and more of our money. Ane eventually they run out. The society collapses.
 
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!

That instance of "you" meant "everyone". When we talk about groups, people often look for a small subset as a counterexample. So I'm saying that "most" of the 47% aren't sufficiently responsible and independent. I've said this many times before Romney said it. The level of responsibility people take has dropped over the last several decades.

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.

Obama knew darn well what type of message spouting "...they don't care about New Orleans!" to a black audience would send.

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.

I appreciate your sympathy for how she was treated. You don't know how badly I wanted to go into the school and whip those kids into shape. My point is that before you look at getting more students college opportunities, you need to fix the high schools and their standards. Clearly, high school comes first and college will be a step up and much bigger risk of wasted investment. I can't stand how parents have complained over the years and had discipline all but removed. Did you know that an NFL coach has more challenge flags than the number of referrals a teacher is allowed to write in the school where my wife was teaching Spanish? That put her in the stupid situation of questioning "do I referral this kid for this BS behavior or do I save in case someone does something worse?" If 20 kids are disrupting the classroom then 20 students need to be punished.
 
I agree. It's amazing to me that the both sides have an army of script writers, and gaffs still happen.



as opposed to:



There's plenty enough "gotcha' moments to go around on both sides. This is one of those. Very poorly written.

No. Bull****. The president chose his words just fine if you actually listened to the entire thing instead of letting someone clip out one sentence for you. Literally the next goddamned sentence made his statements perfectly clear.

Here. Let me give an example:

It's amazing to me that the both sides have an army

Oh my god. MaggieD thinks Obama and Romney both have a private army. Wait, she doesn't? Well she certainly chose her words poorly.

If they're willing to remove context, no amount of script writing can save you.
 
Last edited:
This was the entire quote, in context, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help." He continued, "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He made a blunder with a fantastic point, one which I believe in.

I said this in another post , "no one is entitled to success it takes a set of balls, determination, commitment a lot of luck and the right people in your corner." I had the right people: mentors, positive friends, those who wished to see me succeed. While I did the work, I needed their emotional support and professional guidance, without which I do not think I could have succeeded. I built it sure, I also had help, I give back every chance I get too.

If Obama would have instead pointed to some successful people and said "they built that" or "they earned it" then maybe he'd get the work ethic in this country raised. Instead, it sends a message of discrediting those who have worked to get ahead. Moreover, this feeds the stupid sense of entitlement in the lower-class if they don't think the higher classes earned their status.
 
This was the entire quote, in context, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help." He continued, "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He made a blunder with a fantastic point, one which I believe in.

I said this in another post , "no one is entitled to success it takes a set of balls, determination, commitment a lot of luck and the right people in your corner." I had the right people: mentors, positive friends, those who wished to see me succeed. While I did the work, I needed their emotional support and professional guidance, without which I do not think I could have succeeded. I built it sure, I also had help, I give back every chance I get too.

Obama wants to regulate who succeeds and how much they succeed.

"redistribution, which I believe in"

"at some point, you've made enough money"

Those people that helped you. What was in for them?
 
This quote:

"Yes, nobody is entitled to success...not while Barack Obama's in the White House!" :peace
 
If Obama would have instead pointed to some successful people and said "they built that" or "they earned it" then maybe he'd get the work ethic in this country raised. Instead, it sends a message of discrediting those who have worked to get ahead. Moreover, this feeds the stupid sense of entitlement in the lower-class if they don't think the higher classes earned their status.

I do not disagree like I said he bumbled it.
 
Obama wants to regulate who succeeds and how much they succeed.

"redistribution, which I believe in"

"at some point, you've made enough money"

Those people that helped you. What was in for them?

When you provide me with the entire quotes and context then I will be happy to look, as it is my quota for doing research on snippets has been met in this thread. I have said many times my vote is still up in the air. I am waiting for one of these guys to claim it. Neither Romney nor Obama have done a good job yet.
 
Ah yes, gentlemanly debate is such an endearing quality in some folks
You were the one who said "making a profit is moral"
And you tried to turn it into something ugly. This is why I have so little to do with you. This is an anti-American, immoral thing to do.
I see that your lean is Taker, or is it mastermind?
 
Well, there you go again.

BJ Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.
He had the good fortune of Republicans in the legislature who reigned him in.

What,is it with all the paid advertsising for the GOP these days? You don't even try to use your brain, you just regurgitate....
 
And you tried to turn it into something ugly. This is why I have so little to do with you. This is an anti-American, immoral thing to do.
I see that your lean is Taker, or is it mastermind?


You were the one with the absolutist statement. I merely asked a question and you responded with a personal attack simply because you had not fully thought through your first post. And you continue with personal attacks in place of recognizing that statements such as you made in this thread are fine examples of how one's words may be misused by political opponents - something we see with Republican attacks on the President's words.
 
Ah yes, gentlemanly debate is such an endearing quality in some folks


You were the one who said "making a profit is moral"

Are you serious? Making a profit is moral while killing people is not. Why do you think that because someone might kill to make a profit that profit itself is not moral? That makes no sense. Killing is not moral and profit is.

Was your example not framed in that way? If not, please explain how I got it wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom