• 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]

I think it's the difference between the list of ingredients on a jar of peanut butter and the Madison Avenue ad for a brand of peanut butter. Both tell you things you may want to know about the manufacturer, etc. but to answer a question such as you are asking takes research.

Elections are about emotions, Mycroft. Not for you, obviously -- this is not how you vote. But I assure you, if Romney can get one good catchphrase embedded in people's minds and Obama makes a single gaffe (between now and the election), Obama can lose. It's herd behavior, and cannot be understood on a purely rational level.

Whew, good thing Obama's been completely gaffe free so far. :mrgreen:
 
Not so.

He gives that impression to people who had the pre-conceived incorrect notion that he:

A: Hates the successful.

B: Is a socialist.

If you already believe that, of course you're going to find that comment to mean what I said above.

But that's your problem, not his and certainly not those among us who don't have to take words out of context to find meanings in things that don't exist.

And by the way it's wrong no matter who does it.

That whole "You didn't build that" was complete crap taken completely out of context in the same way that it's being done here.

Is there anything Obama has said that might be disagreeable to a fairly large group of people that we can believe he actually meant? But, of course, Ryan makes a comment about conception and suddenly he condones rape (actually, apparently all us conservatives do that). Rick Perry uses the phrase "black cloud" and it's racism. Newt says "food stamp president" and it's racism. Herman ****ing Caine makes a joke playing on his name, saying that the best way to beat Obama is with a Caine, and, of course, it's racism. It'd be nice if people were equally concerned about "context" in those instances. /shrug
 
Not so.

He gives that impression to people who had the pre-conceived incorrect notion that he:

A: Hates the successful.

B: Is a socialist.

The problem with the first is that you have to actually show that he doesn't have contempt for the rich and that is a tall order with nothing really to use for ingredients. This is one of the problems liberals and democrats have in general. They generally treat the rich like the enemy of the state and whatever they do is not good enough. If they don't hire enough people then they are being greedy. If they move their plant then they are out to hurt people. If they have to cut wages to avoid going under they want everyone to work for two dollars a day. I could list examples all day long but the point is this behavior only says one thing, I hate the successful. The impression that successful are left with is that they are the enemy and that their property and their lives are nothing more than the property of the state and all they did to get it is meaningless. When they are paying more taxes than everyone else by large margin and it never seems to be enough and the liberals are always trying to figure out how to put in place a higher rate or a new tax here or there that only affects the successful the impression is only worsened. Worse yet, is that over the years the definition of successful has been getting looser and looser and more and more people are falling under it. In the days that liberals like to look back and smile at the group they used for their interests was much smaller, but these days people that are making just over 100 thousand feel like victims to their policies and to their hate which was not the case all those years ago. This is not easy for liberals or Obama to fight back on after decades on decades of building it up and at this point I don't think you can say they have done a wonderful job at not giving off the impression that they do NOT like the successful. I think if you are really here to fight back on that you will have an impossible task in front of you.

As for the second, he is a planned economy socialist.

Btw, I never said I saw what he said here in any other way than you. I'm just posting on why he should avoid such comments in the future.
 
Last edited:
Is there anything Obama has said that might be disagreeable to a fairly large group of people that we can believe he actually meant? But, of course, Ryan makes a comment about conception and suddenly he condones rape (actually, apparently all us conservatives do that). Rick Perry uses the phrase "black cloud" and it's racism. Newt says "food stamp president" and it's racism. Herman ****ing Caine makes a joke playing on his name, saying that the best way to beat Obama is with a Caine, and, of course, it's racism. It'd be nice if people were equally concerned about "context" in those instances. /shrug

If it's repeated often enough, it becomes true. (Not that reality changes, but that the electorate reacts as if it had.) Ergo, partisans parrot in hopes one of their catchphrases becomes a meme.

Tell me that "Obamaphone" makes any sense, rationally? And yet it has legs and we all know it.
 
But, of course, Ryan makes a comment about conception and suddenly he condones rape (actually, apparently all us conservatives do that). Rick Perry uses the phrase "black cloud" and it's racism. Newt says "food stamp president" and it's racism. Herman ****ing Caine makes a joke playing on his name, saying that the best way to beat Obama is with a Caine, and, of course, it's racism. It'd be nice if people were equally concerned about "context" in those instances. /shrug

And yet again X factor, much as I like you I am ****ing sick of you throwing everyone elses **** at my feet and saying

"Hey Jet, what about what these guys did!"

I wasn't one of those people that took their words out of context so why the hell do I have to worry about the people who did?

After all I believe I made it pretty clear:

And by the way it's wrong no matter who does it.
 
The problem with the first is that you have to actually show that he doesn't have contempt for the rich and that is a tall order with nothing really to use for ingredients. This is one of the problems liberals and democrats have in general. They generally treat the rich like the enemy of the state and whatever they do is not good enough. If they don't hire enough people then they are being greedy. If they move their plant then they are out to hurt people. If they have to cut wages to avoid going under they want everyone to work for two dollars a day. I could list examples all day long but the point is this behavior only says one thing, I hate the successful. The impression that successful are left with is that they are the enemy and that their property and their lives are nothing more than the property of the state and all they did to get it is meaningless. When they are paying more taxes than everyone else by large margin and it never seems to be enough and the liberals are always trying to figure out how to put in place a higher rate or a new tax here or there that only affects the successful the impression is only worsened. Worse yet, is that over the years the definition of successful has been getting looser and looser and more and more people are falling under it. In the days that liberals like to look back and smile at the group they used for their interests was much smaller, but these days people that are making just over 100 thousand feel like victims to their policies and to their hate which was not the case all those years ago. This is not easy for liberals or Obama to fight back on after decades on decades of building it up and at this point I don't think you can say they have done a wonderful job at not giving off the impression that they do NOT like the successful. I think if you are really here to fight back on that you will have an impossible task in front of you.

As for the second, he is a planned economy socialist.

Terrific post, Henrin.
 
For a President to say that nobody is is entitled to success in the USA? :roll:

That's plain wrong.

A rightist who doesn't know the difference between 'entitlement' and 'opportunity'. Who'da thunk?
 
I think it's the difference between the list of ingredients on a jar of peanut butter and the Madison Avenue ad for a brand of peanut butter. Both tell you things you may want to know about the manufacturer, etc. but to answer a question such as you are asking takes research.

Elections are about emotions, Mycroft. Not for you, obviously -- this is not how you vote. But I assure you, if Romney can get one good catchphrase embedded in people's minds and Obama makes a single gaffe (between now and the election), Obama can lose. It's herd behavior, and cannot be understood on a purely rational level.

I think you are going off on tangents.

Now, I'm not disputing anything you've said above, I just don't think it applies here. This isn't about how I'll vote...or even about how anyone else will vote. It's about what Obama means with his statement.

Look, when Romney says he'll reduce tax rates, the first thing he's asked is how is he going to do it, what does he mean, is it possible. Nobody considers his words to be "puffery". They want to know what he's talking about.

Well...same here. I just want to know what Obama is talking about.

I'm also beginning to wonder why nobody else wants to know what he's talking about.
 
A rightist who doesn't know the difference between 'entitlement' and 'opportunity'. Who'da thunk?

What if someone had already earned success? They entitled to it then?
 
And yet again X factor, much as I like you I am ****ing sick of you throwing everyone elses **** at my feet and saying

"Hey Jet, what about what these guys did!"

I wasn't one of those people that took their words out of context so why the hell do I have to worry about the people who did?

After all I believe I made it pretty clear:

Ya seem worried about it in this thread. :D

I'm sorry, Jet. Your point is a fair one. Here's the thing though, there are things that Obama has stated in context that make it extremely plausible that he really does believe it when he makes comments like "you didn't build that" . Even in that very speech, he's somewhat snarky about sucessful people who believe they're smart and worked hard (remember? He's actually "struck" by people who believe that). You say the problem is not his, but he has definitely perpetuated this, at least, appearance of snideness toward success. How many times has he suggested that the rich is not paying it's "fair share" or that doctors amputate limbs just for the money. Didn't a video just come out where he blasts people who move to the suburbs? (in all fairness I've only heard small clips). At some point, we should be able to assume he means what he's saying.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Obama's words... I wasn't entitled to success, I just took the opportunity to become successful.. ( i'm not so sure we are entitled to opportunity though...not with the government's latest habits of providing opportunity for some and making opportunity much harder for others)

I don't really pay much attention to Democrats speaking about success...if you are poor, they want you to be more successful... if you are middle class, they revere and celebrate you... if you are successful, you are just a revenue source who is probably greedy, didn't earn your success ethically, and should probably feel guilty about your success and give your money to the government as penance.
 
I'd give him a C as President. Maybe a D-.

But see, I think I'd be giving Romney an F PDQ, so I don't have a better option.

You might be pleasantly surprised with Romney, given his success in several areas, but you will not be surprised with the performance of Barack Obama. It will not be just more of the save but there is every indication he will be worse. Please recall his remarks in this article and look to see who is the power player in the photo.

Obama and open mic: Microphones pick up U.S. President boasting to Medvedev on winning reelection | Mail Online
 
Obama believes you aren't entitled to success but you are entitled to other people's money. What a guy.
 
Put it another way. What he is saying to everyone is:

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Then why has he become known as the "Food Stamp President"?

He not only has increased the number of food stamp recipients by several millions, the Department of Agriculture has spend thousands inviting more people to take advantage of these free lunches.

Of course someone else is paying for these generous programs, and it's those who are lucky enough to have a job.
 
doe the opposition feel that i'm entitled to success?

if so, i'll take mine in the form of a medium sized regional biotech contract lab, complete with existing and stable contracts with pharmaceutical R&D. i'm a skilled micro / molecular biologist, and the only thing stopping me from starting my lab is startup funds and someone to help me navigate the waters on the business end. how do i apply for my entitlement?
 
Then why has he become known as the "Food Stamp President"?

He not only has increased the number of food stamp recipients by several millions, the Department of Agriculture has spend thousands inviting more people to take advantage of these free lunches.

Of course someone else is paying for these generous programs, and it's those who are lucky enough to have a job.

Funny, I thought George W. Bush was the food stamp president. I mean, you do realize that the number of food stamp recipients increased every year of his presidency save one, right? You were aware that the number of food stamp recipients went up by about 10 million during Bush's two terms, right?
 
The problem with the first is that you have to actually show that he doesn't have contempt for the rich and that is a tall order with nothing really to use for ingredients. This is one of the problems liberals and democrats have in general. They generally treat the rich like the enemy of the state and whatever they do is not good enough. If they don't hire enough people then they are being greedy. If they move their plant then they are out to hurt people. If they have to cut wages to avoid going under they want everyone to work for two dollars a day. I could list examples all day long but the point is this behavior only says one thing, I hate the successful. The impression that successful are left with is that they are the enemy and that their property and their lives are nothing more than the property of the state and all they did to get it is meaningless. When they are paying more taxes than everyone else by large margin and it never seems to be enough and the liberals are always trying to figure out how to put in place a higher rate or a new tax here or there that only affects the successful the impression is only worsened. Worse yet, is that over the years the definition of successful has been getting looser and looser and more and more people are falling under it. In the days that liberals like to look back and smile at the group they used for their interests was much smaller, but these days people that are making just over 100 thousand feel like victims to their policies and to their hate which was not the case all those years ago. This is not easy for liberals or Obama to fight back on after decades on decades of building it up and at this point I don't think you can say they have done a wonderful job at not giving off the impression that they do NOT like the successful. I think if you are really here to fight back on that you will have an impossible task in front of you.

As for the second, he is a planned economy socialist.

Btw, I never said I saw what he said here in any other way than you. I'm just posting on why he should avoid such comments in the future.

One of the most over rated qualities in this latest election is that the President must be 'likeable' and 'relate to the people'. If someone is capable of leading the world's only superpower (so far), turning around the economy, cleaning up the foreign policy mess, I don't think it necessary to 'relate to the people'. That is pandering.

The electorate should vote for the best person for the job and not concern themselves whether he might be the ideal person to have a beer with.
 
Then why has he become known as the "Food Stamp President"?

He not only has increased the number of food stamp recipients by several millions, the Department of Agriculture has spend thousands inviting more people to take advantage of these free lunches.

Of course someone else is paying for these generous programs, and it's those who are lucky enough to have a job.

Ya, the recession has had nothing to do with this.

*Head shaking*

Do you people hear yourselves?
 
shrug...

I don't know. That's why I'm asking and that's why I'm more concerned about that part of his statement than the "We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country" part that everyone is going on about.

Obama qualified this statement with the second part of the sentence. It has to be read together otherwise there will be a mass of confusion. Entitlement is a matter of law or some other means where someone declares they are due success and that is not the case in this situation.

You just cannot separate that which is grammatically connected as glean the proper meaning of the statement. "We don’t believe that anybody is entitled to success in this country, but we do believe in opportunity. We believe in a country where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded, and everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the same rules."
 
Ya, the recession has had nothing to do with this.

*Head shaking*

Do you people hear yourselves?

No they just want to keeping talking and talking with misinformed opinions and lack of understanding regarding these issues.
 
Funny, I thought George W. Bush was the food stamp president.

Seems you were wrong.
I mean, you do realize that the number of food stamp recipients increased every year of his presidency save one, right? You were aware that the number of food stamp recipients went up by about 10 million during Bush's two terms, right?

I'll accept your numbers that food stamp use increased by 10 million during the eight years of the Bush Presidency but they have increased by 16 million during the four years of the Obama Presidency bringing the numbers up to 47 millions. Adding a further insult to the American taxpayer, his administration has been advertising for more people to get involved in applying for their own food stamps.

Certainly this program, and many others, serve to promote the idea that there is such a thing as a free lunch and everyone should take advantage of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom