• 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 wonder...did anyone actually watch the video? Something very telling is the response of the crowd. Know what? They are going through the motions. The thrill is gone.

There is an odd complacency. You could be right.

Obama has a 12% lead in Ohio, and no GOP candidate has ever won without this state. I'll be flabbergasted if Obama is not reelected.
 
Really? I didn't know belief in a right to opportunity was exclusive to Pauligans. Oh wait, you're doing that thing where you come up with a nonsequitur to avoid the fact that you don't have a point. Lolz oh you.

My point is not about you personally, it is just interesting to see the degree you go as a partisan. If Obama had said that people are entitled to success, by your other messages you would be likely defending it.

Your logic does not work. When Obama says people are entitled to health care, by your logic the correct response is that a person is not entitled to health care, rather they have a right to go to the doctor and obtain health care - but they actually have to go to the doctor or hospital themselves. A person has a right to pursue health care, but they are not entitled to health care coming to them. Or such nonsense as your message defenses are.

Why your messages are hackery is that you don't just give the reasonable response of "Obama could have worded that better. What he clearly meant was..." Instead, you go to Ron Paul's self reliance hard stances and defend those. Your messages in toto show that Obama's words are the omniscient words of your god, for which you will rationalized god-goodness and truth as defense. That appears what you are doing in your messages on this thread.

In real terms, a person is entitled to success and a person is entitled to pursue success really means the same thing in real terms.
 
For a President to say that nobody is is entitled to success in the USA? :roll:

That's plain wrong.
Hatuey is correct. You've mistaken equal opportunity with equal outcome. This is a very distinct difference.
 
Such as BETTER opportunities. BETTER support. BETTER access to colleges. Oh no...I think we BOTH understand the "land of opportunity" quite well. I came from a pretty ugly home situation, busted my ass, built a future, and created opportunities for my kids and grandkids. I taught them hard work and then provided them the opportunity to start life on the 4th and 5th step and not the basement floor. I suspect you are doing similarly for your child. And BTW...thats the same thing Romneys dad did. Your child is 'entitled' to a better life merely from the benefits and advantages you provide. Does that mean she doesnt have to still work hard? Of course not. Just that her starting point is different.

Ignoring your bland rhetoric aside, better colleges? Kk, you live in the world where people get into colleges because of family connections (Bush, Romney etc). My money aside, I don't have that kind of connection with the world and even if I did, my daughter would still have to get the grades in order to make it into those colleges seeing as how I'm not willing to "donate" to a school just so my kid gets a free ride through it. Your nonsense aside you've failed classically on your point. People simply aren't entitled to success. That's a Republican idea. You know, your daddy gives money to a school? Why shouldn't you be a B- student at an Ivy League university? ;)
 
There is an odd complacency. You could be right.

Obama has a 12% lead in Ohio, and no GOP candidate has ever won without this state. I'll be flabbergasted if Obama is not reelected.

"Flabbergasted" is an age revealing word. :lol: A pretty cool word. Its still Obama's election to win, but Romney's now in the game anyway.
 
There is an odd complacency. You could be right.

Obama has a 12% lead in Ohio, and no GOP candidate has ever won without this state. I'll be flabbergasted if Obama is not reelected.

Obama has a one point lead in the post-debate polling. Though (critically) he has reached the 50% threshold.
 
Staples isn't the only company of course. Did you listen to the speech by the founder of Staples? You really should start doing your own research.

And it is the board of directors who decides which companies are worthwhile trying to save, or in which to invest. You really don;t know much about this do you. It seems you just don't get it.

I'm guessing Romney "saved" Staples by laying off workers, eliminating the pension and lowering wages.

Am I warm?
 
There is an odd complacency. You could be right.

Obama has a 12% lead in Ohio, and no GOP candidate has ever won without this state. I'll be flabbergasted if Obama is not reelected.
Frankly, I believe he will as well. I think Romney was not far off about that 47%, and add to that many well meaning sincere liberals that truly believe the democrat way is better...it should be enough to carry the election fairly soundly. I believe that also means that by the time he is finished the national debt will go from the 7 trillion he has added to it to near 30 trillion and things wont be better. We'll see.
 
Hatuey is correct. You've mistaken equal opportunity with equal outcome. This is a very distinct difference.

Entitled to success doesn't mean "equal outcome." Your logic/rationalism defense is just inaccurate.
 
Entitled to success doesn't mean "equal outcome." Your logic/rationalism defense is just inaccurate.

Yes, that's exactly what it means. No one is entitled to win. You are given fair rules in the game, and you may win or lose based on your own steam.
 
My point is not about you personally, it is just interesting to see the degree you go as a partisan. If Obama had said that people are entitled to success, by your other messages you would be likely defending it.

tl/dr.

Your logic does not work. When Obama says people are entitled to health care, by your logic the correct response is that a person is not entitled to health care, rather they have a right to go to the doctor and obtain health care - but they actually have to go to the doctor or hospital themselves. A person has a right to pursue health care, but they are not entitled to health care coming to them. Or such nonsense as your message defenses are.

Why your messages are hackery is that you don't just give the reasonable response of "Obama could have worded that better. What he clearly meant was..." Instead, you go to Ron Paul's self reliance hard stances and defend those. Your messages in toto show that Obama's words are the omniscient words of your god, for which you will rationalized god-goodness and truth as defense. That appears what you are doing in your messages on this thread.

In real terms, a person is entitled to success and a person is entitled to pursue success really means the same thing in real terms.

Ah, you're extrapolating my thoughts on one issue to another. That's like saying that you can't support abortion if you don't support the death penalty. Stick to Trayvon Martin threads joko. You can at least repeat your arguments in those threads ad nausea to the acclaim of other people who barely understand logic.

The best part is your contradiction though. I'm partisan about this even though I'm supposedly, according to your weak understanding of basic American axioms using Ron Paul's rhetoric, Republican rhetoric, to defend a Democrat about a claim Republicans themselves support.

Do you not realize yet how weak your argument sound?
 
Ignoring your bland rhetoric aside, better colleges? Kk, you live in the world where people get into colleges because of family connections (Bush, Romney etc). My money aside, I don't have that kind of connection with the world and even if I did, my daughter would still have to get the grades in order to make it into those colleges seeing as how I'm not willing to "donate" to a school just so my kid gets a free ride through it. Your nonsense aside you've failed classically on your point. People simply aren't entitled to success. That's a Republican idea. You know, your daddy gives money to a school? Why shouldn't you be a B- student at an Ivy League university? ;)
Meh...Ivy league schools are passe. SO you want to pretend you ARENT going to work to help your child get into a GOOD school and help pay for that school? Really? Really? Nah...I kinda doubt little miss young money is going to be struggling through community college and carrying a 60k student loan debt trying to get a degree in massage and aroma therapy. Amiright? You are going to HELP her. And shame on you if you dont. (and if you are really idiotic enough to believe that getting into an Ivy league school based on your parents is a 'republican' thing, you are far more foolish than I beleive)
 
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.

I never really could figure out what people mean by relate to the people, but to me democrats have no business saying such things when they policies are in many ways responsible for the divisions in this country be them between the classes or between the young and the old. I know they don't want to hear it but what they believe in is in many ways morally corrupt. I know that they believe that people need assistance but what they don't want to admit is that using people for the gains of others is going to make people angry. It is however much they don't like to hear it morally corrupt to forcefully take from one group and give it to another and when the government takes part in this kind of action in such blatant fashion like they support it being done people are going to feel like they are a victim when its being done to them like they are just there for people to benefit from. Be it the rich man that is mostly responsible for providing food stamps to Joe down the road or young jim that is taxed to provide social security for someone else's grandma. They might think its best for us all to work together and there is plenty of truth to that, but they are going about in a way that only angers people and causes problems. I know liberals will say I'm picking on them a lot here and I will admit I am, but I do believe much of what we are dealing with today on this front is their fault and I grow tired of them not being man enough to stand up and admit it. While its true that people should not be calling people on food stamps, etc parasites and that only causes the division to get deeper on top of it, that insult only comes about from actions liberals support and made come into existence. I know liberals will say I didn't comment on welfare for the rich and believe me that is a problem, but it doesn't appear to cause the same kind of division as this. I don't know why that is because it honestly should and its just as morally corrupt if not more so, but that I guess is just how the world turns.

I would think that what that phrase would mean is all people, but I really do not understand how politics that is in many ways designed to separate people be it the belief in the progressive income tax system or the belief in welfare programs can ever hope to make such a claim and be honest about it, but I'm sure someone can help me along on that one.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing Romney "saved" Staples by laying off workers, eliminating the pension and lowering wages.

Am I warm?

Oh I'm sure he sent out hit squads to kill pensioners and excess workers given how much Romney liked for people do die. :roll:

Of course, that pathological liar Romney probably would say they injected cash and credit and restructured the company to pull it back from bankruptcy that so many other retailers were going thru, but that can't be it given how purely evil Romney is. That's the reason he wants to be president too. As president he can destroy the most people possible to try to satisfy his bloodlust.
 
If it has fallen 11% in a week, then it's a meaningless result and anyone could win.

Well I think it means we are in for a down-to-the-wire race; with a slight advantage to the President there. He spent a lot of money and time defining Romney in the worst ways possible in Ohio, and saw alot of success. I attribute the rapid-falling-off of that success to the failure of the narrative; people saw Romney in the debates and he didn't seem to be the blood thirsty vampiric corporate raider that he had been painted as.
 
tl/dr.


Stick to Trayvon Martin threads joko. You can at least repeat your arguments in those threads ad nausea to the acclaim of other people who barely understand logic.

I can't think of a time that someone told me to get off a thread has ever worked.

Do you have any actual response to my point that your defense is your arguing that apples aren't apples? That there is no real difference between being entitled to success and entitled to pursue success - just as there is no difference between being entitled to air and entitled to pursue breathing air - to a person in air.
 
Oh I'm sure he sent out hit squads to kill pensioners and excess workers given how much Romney liked for people do die. :roll:

Of course, that pathological liar Romney probably would say they injected cash and credit and restructured the company to pull it back from bankruptcy that so many other retailers were going thru, but that can't be it given how purely evil Romney is. That's the reason he wants to be president too. As president he can destroy the most people possible to try to satisfy his bloodlust.

Well, that was a tad harsh, donca think?

I don't believe I'm a partisan hack.
 
Meh...Ivy league schools are passe. SO you want to pretend you ARENT going to work to help your child get into a GOOD school and help pay for that school? Really? Really? Nah...I kinda doubt little miss young money is going to be struggling through community college and carrying a 60k student loan debt trying to get a degree in massage and aroma therapy. Amiright? You are going to HELP her. And shame on you if you dont. (and if you are really idiotic enough to believe that getting into an Ivy league school based on your parents is a 'republican' thing, you are far more foolish than I beleive)

Here, I'll give you some parenting advice seeing as how you don't seem to have it already. Maybe it'll help you with your future kids because the last ones you had probably didn't get this type of parenting. My parenting? Very simple. I help my kid do her homework over Skype. Send her books to read etc. If she wants to read them? Good of her. If she takes my teaching seriously? Good for her. Is she entitled to a good university simply because I have money? Of course not. She has the next 12 years to try and take advantage of the opportunity which she's being given. If she doesn't? Too bad. However even if she does take advantage of it, she's not entitled to any kind of success by taking advantage of those opportunities. It's up to her.

:shrug:

I'm going to charge you for the next parenting lesson.
 
Well I think it means we are in for a down-to-the-wire race; with a slight advantage to the President there. He spent a lot of money and time defining Romney in the worst ways possible in Ohio, and saw alot of success. I attribute the rapid-falling-off of that success to the failure of the narrative; people saw Romney in the debates and he didn't seem to be the blood thirsty vampiric corporate raider that he had been painted as.

OMG, yes. One benefit of our government: after the election, the annoying political ads stop.
 
Well, that was a tad harsh, donca think?

I don't believe I'm a partisan hack.


I don't think so either, but your message suggested hackery in that you don't know what he did and regards to Staples, but assert it must have been evil things. Then again, you could have been using satire - like I was.

Reorganizing companies doing down the toilet likely does require layoffs, closing locations, and other "harsh" measures, for which the alternative is bankruptcy for which everyone - including all investors, all employees and all pensioners lose everything.
 
I can't think of a time that someone told me to get off a thread has ever worked.

Do you have any actual response to my point that your defense is your arguing that apples aren't apples? That there is no real difference between being entitled to success and entitled to pursue success - just as there is no difference between being entitled to air and entitled to pursue breathing air - to a person in air.

As 10 other posters in this thread (of all kinds of ideologies) have argued, you simply don't have a right to success. You have a right to opportunity and the significant difference is in the way in which rights are described in various. Right to PURSUE happiness. Not right TO happiness
 
I'm guessing Romney "saved" Staples by laying off workers, eliminating the pension and lowering wages.

Am I warm?

Nope :). Staples was start-up straight investment capital.


Which isn't to say that it is bad to save some jobs instead of losing all jobs. Simply that Romney (as I understand it) didn't have to do that in this instance.
 
Back
Top Bottom