Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.


Obviously referring to the roads.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
They call me....
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:


*Actually, the internet was not created so that "Companies could make money." It was for national security reasons. So Obama's wrong about that, too. But he's wrong about so much it's hard to keep track.


Apparently you and he were separated at birth.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
rshipley wrote:
Quote:
Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.


Obviously referring to the roads.


HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!

"Hey Barry, let's make sure we don't say "roads" when we mean roads."

"Why?"

"Cause, well, cause we want the voters to figure out what you really mean. Get it? It's like why just say what we mean, we want them to feel smart enough to figure it out and then they'll own it as well."

"Ah. Well, that makes sense."

"Of course it does. No politician says what they mean, it's up to voters to read between the lines."

I'm with ya man... hey! Don't bogart that, man! Give me a fuckin' toke!!!"

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's almost like Tripp and Drew and their new best buddy Mitt Romney want to ignore Obama's summary line of "we succeed when we do things together" and everything else in his speech that make it clear that the "that" referred to infrastructure so they can continue on with their fantasy that Obama is anti-business.

Gosh, I wonder why.
21 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mandiekinz
United States
Irvine
California
flag msg tools
Professor Xavier convinced Katniss to leave her home at 221B Baker Street. She jumped into the Impala shouting, "Allons-y!" .....
badge
.... to take The Ring down the yellow brick road, all through the black of the 'verse, to Narnia, to shine like a star, while saving the Enterprise from the Six-fingered Slytherin Sith.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
It's almost like Tripp and Drew and their new best buddy Mitt Romney want to ignore Obama's summary line of "we succeed when we do things together" and everything else in his speech that make it clear that the "that" referred to infrastructure so they can continue on with their fantasy that Obama is anti-business.

Gosh, I wonder why.

This.

A million times this.



I posted something about this on Facebook and this was part of the conversation we had:

Me (not a fan of any of the people up for Presidency but if I HAVE to pick, it'll probably be Obama):
"Well what he is saying is that it takes everyone working together to make something happen. Your business wouldn't happen if someone hadn't built the building it's housed in. Or paved the roads leading to it. Or built the bridges to get there across rivers and ravines. He is very clearly saying everything is a team effort. A team of hardworking people to make something happen. He is not at all belittling someone's accomplishments as a business owner. He's pointing out how the success of one cannot come without the success of many. It's the same "pay your workers well and they'll be loyal" sort of thing. Someone helped get that business owner to the top etc. Read the WHOLE paragraph and it makes sense in context."


A (she doesn't like Obama, her and her lesbian partner are against him, they are Republican):
"I think that if you were a small business owner, and read that... Context or not... You'd feel angry. Because yes, everything comes from something.... But the ability to create/build/and grow your own business.... Is really due to the effort of the person starting it. Not because someone else built the building it stands in, or cuz someone else created the internet. Those things contribute towards every business.... But it's not the thing that makes it happen. The original idea, desire, and effort made by a company's owner/designer is what builds it."


I'm not really sure how else to put it, but at this point I don't want to argue just to argue. I don't understand her side of it because I can logically see it from the context what it meant. I feel like it's just an attack just like how if Obama said, "I hate rice." someone might find a way to turn that into an Asian racial slur. laugh
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
It's almost like Tripp and Drew and their new best buddy Mitt Romney want to ignore Obama's summary line of "we succeed when we do things together" and everything else in his speech that make it clear that the "that" referred to infrastructure so they can continue on with their fantasy that Obama is anti-business.

Gosh, I wonder why.


Really? Let's compare - how many businesses have you started? What? None? Twelve? One? Maybe Obama is talking about people like you who stay in college until their mid 30's.

Here's a clue, Obama is a fucking moron. Taxes from people who work for people who started businesses paid for infrastructure, not the some benevolent government that appeared from the fog and started building Internets and roads and making engineers appear with plans already drawn up for fire engines, metal poles and dalmatians. You didn't have a single thing to do with any of the dozen or so businesses I started and ran, failed at, succeeded at and created jobs with. For that matter, neither did any single person here. And especially the government didn't help. They'd have built the fucking roads anyway because that's what we paid our taxes and elected them to do in the first fucking place.

At no point in my life has the government ever "helped" me succeed or start a business. There'd have been roads and bridges whether I took the risk and did the work or not. I could have stayed working at the laundry and there's still be roads and bridges. Romney, and about 150 million other Americans understand this. Apparently people who have never started a business or spent the first half of their existence sucking the government teat in school honestly believe government "makes business happen".

Oh, and look back to the run-up to the last election and you'll see I was behind Romney then as well. For the simple reason that he actually knows how business and economics works.
18 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Sauberer
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. 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. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. 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. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)


This is the part that is a problem for Obama. In the first paragraph he is downplaying the amount of credit that belongs to successful individuals. There are smart people and hardworking people but that doesn't really count.

In the last two paragraphs he is equating building a successful business with things like firefighting, the GI Bill and space exploration. He is saying that individual initiative doesn't succeed without the government.

So even if he did mean "roads" in the second paragraph, that doesn't eliminate the problem of what Obama said when looking at the entire context of the remarks. It definitely appears to be a justification of considering the government entitled to taking whatever is generated by individuals.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The only problem? He didn't say that... but he said it... but it didn't mean what you think he said by what he think that he meant when he said it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Sauberer
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
The only problem? He didn't say that... but he said it... but it didn't mean what you think he said by what he think that he meant when he said it.


Obama has started channeling Kerry?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So am I understanding the pro-Obama argument on this one? He meant to say: "If you got a business, you didn't build the roads?"

Man, I'm glad we've got a President to tell us these things...
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Really? Let's compare - how many businesses have you started? What? None? Twelve? One?


Two by myself, one in concert with friends. I went back to school for a career change, and now I'm contracting independently so I suppose technically that's four.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver
United States
Pompano Beach
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Be Excellent To Each Other
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If any of you think Obama or Romney or any politician or most of the people on this planet give shit about any of your problems or opinions you're sorely mistaken. We will never have a working viable government or public system of any kind. go to work eat and fuck and play boardgames. the rest is all up to those of us with way more money than the rest.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The main chunk of Obama's speech

http://youtu.be/192oEC5TX_Q



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Roads and bridges are "those."

Business is "that."

And note that the Obama campaign did not cut the quote the way you did. They really, truly did show Obama saying exactly what they claim he didn't say. It's nuts.


It puts it in context and shows Romney saying the same thing. It is a good response ad.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem is, once again, I don't see how the fact that government builds infrastructure is a reason to raise taxes on the wealthy.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
The problem is, once again, I don't see how the fact that government builds infrastructure is a reason to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Well as a practical matter, the very wealthy benefit a lot more from the existence of a nation of laws than anyone else, since if there were no laws to protect them, they'd be the first against the wall. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to pay a sightly higher percentage of their income in taxes.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
The problem is, once again, I don't see how the fact that government builds infrastructure is a reason to raise taxes on the wealthy.


That's a perfectly valid question, but irrelevant to the insistence of certain people on deliberately misreading the quote for spin's sake.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
The problem is, once again, I don't see how the fact that government builds infrastructure is a reason to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Well as a practical matter, the very wealthy benefit a lot more from the existence of a nation of laws than anyone else, since if there were no laws to protect them, they'd be the first against the wall. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to pay a sightly higher percentage of their income in taxes.


I think that is circular reasoning that is used to justify higher percentage of taxes on the wealthy. It is much more intellectually honest to say, "We need to pay for some infrastructure. The wealthy can afford it. Let's tax them"

That is really the only reason. You have to get money from the people who have it.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
The problem is, once again, I don't see how the fact that government builds infrastructure is a reason to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Well as a practical matter, the very wealthy benefit a lot more from the existence of a nation of laws than anyone else, since if there were no laws to protect them, they'd be the first against the wall. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to pay a sightly higher percentage of their income in taxes.


I think that is circular reasoning that is used to justify higher percentage of taxes on the wealthy. It is much more intellectually honest to say, "We need to pay for some infrastructure. The wealthy can afford it. Let's tax them"

That is really the only reason. You have to get money from the people who have it.


I think this argument would carry water if everyone in the country paid the same percentage of income taxes, but under the current system the wealthier you are the easier it is to get out of paying taxes.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
The problem is, once again, I don't see how the fact that government builds infrastructure is a reason to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Well as a practical matter, the very wealthy benefit a lot more from the existence of a nation of laws than anyone else, since if there were no laws to protect them, they'd be the first against the wall. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to pay a sightly higher percentage of their income in taxes.


I think that is circular reasoning that is used to justify higher percentage of taxes on the wealthy. It is much more intellectually honest to say, "We need to pay for some infrastructure. The wealthy can afford it. Let's tax them"

That is really the only reason. You have to get money from the people who have it.
I don't see how what I said is circular reasoning, but I'm also completely comfortable with the "they can afford it, lets tax them" theory of taxation.

As a practical matter when poor people have money they spend it. That's good for future taxes, since it creates taxable events. When rich people have money, they use it to buy more favorable tax regulations, spend the money overseas, save it or otherwise spend it in non-taxable ways. That's bad for future taxes as it reduces the amount of taxable events. Assuming we have to take the money from someone, why not take it from them?



Also, I think the title of this thread should be "The insanity of the a conservative poster (Or, "I didn't understand something Obama said, and to prove it, I will post links to things and lengthy posts about the fact that I don't understand what he's saying.")
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
The problem is, once again, I don't see how the fact that government builds infrastructure is a reason to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Well as a practical matter, the very wealthy benefit a lot more from the existence of a nation of laws than anyone else, since if there were no laws to protect them, they'd be the first against the wall. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to pay a sightly higher percentage of their income in taxes.


I think that is circular reasoning that is used to justify higher percentage of taxes on the wealthy. It is much more intellectually honest to say, "We need to pay for some infrastructure. The wealthy can afford it. Let's tax them"

That is really the only reason. You have to get money from the people who have it.


I think this argument would carry water if everyone in the country paid the same percentage of income taxes, but under the current system the wealthier you are the easier it is to get out of paying taxes.


For the time being, I am restricting it to Federal Income Tax -- since we are talking about Federal Infrastructure. 50% of the people don't pay those. If we were to calculate the "relative benefit" for an individual as

"Benefit derived from infrastructure"/"Amount of Tax Paid to Create Infrastructure" it is pretty hard to get bigger than the infinite benefit that those who don't pay taxes receive.
8 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
The problem is, once again, I don't see how the fact that government builds infrastructure is a reason to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Well as a practical matter, the very wealthy benefit a lot more from the existence of a nation of laws than anyone else, since if there were no laws to protect them, they'd be the first against the wall. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to pay a sightly higher percentage of their income in taxes.


I think that is circular reasoning that is used to justify higher percentage of taxes on the wealthy. It is much more intellectually honest to say, "We need to pay for some infrastructure. The wealthy can afford it. Let's tax them"

That is really the only reason. You have to get money from the people who have it.


I think this argument would carry water if everyone in the country paid the same percentage of income taxes, but under the current system the wealthier you are the easier it is to get out of paying taxes.


For the time being, I am restricting it to Federal Income Tax -- since we are talking about Federal Infrastructure. 50% of the people don't pay those. If we were to calculate the "relative benefit" for an individual as

"Benefit derived from infrastructure"/"Amount of Tax Paid to Create Infrastructure" it is pretty hard to get bigger than the infinite benefit that those who don't pay taxes receive.


If taxes were based on relative individual benefit, this would matter immensely.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
For the time being, I am restricting it to Federal Income Tax -- since we are talking about Federal Infrastructure. 50% of the people don't pay those. If we were to calculate the "relative benefit" for an individual as

"Benefit derived from infrastructure"/"Amount of Tax Paid to Create Infrastructure" it is pretty hard to get bigger than the infinite benefit that those who don't pay taxes receive.


I guess before there was an income tax, everyone was getting infinite benefits. Maybe things aren't really that simple.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rshipley wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
For the time being, I am restricting it to Federal Income Tax -- since we are talking about Federal Infrastructure. 50% of the people don't pay those. If we were to calculate the "relative benefit" for an individual as

"Benefit derived from infrastructure"/"Amount of Tax Paid to Create Infrastructure" it is pretty hard to get bigger than the infinite benefit that those who don't pay taxes receive.


I guess before there was an income tax, everyone was getting infinite benefits. Maybe things aren't really that simple.


Everything was funded through tariffs, correct? Kind of an apples to oranges nonsensical comparison.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [12] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.