I agree with this guy:
Open Letter to Republicans
@Magethor said:
Actually, he's writing an open letter to the Republicrates since Democrats and Republicans are one of the same entity. (The Two-Party System)
The Republicans and Democrats might be surprised to learn this.
I found the article a bit childish, actually. He used plenty of screaming, profanity, ad hominem's, and didn't even see fit to do the same disassembling he did with Romney, to his golden boy, Barrack. He is quite clearly angry and simply venting his rage. It was not a thoughtful or informative article/essay, but rather the rantings of an angry, uppity, self-righteous white guy, who thinks he's got it all figured out, and is ready to eat the faces off of anyone else who disagrees (heaven forbid we have something called "votes", where people might actually think differently. Oh, the horror!)
Here's what he did not mention in his essay.
1. Romney was not thrashed or destroyed in the election. In electoral votes he was beaten in quite a decent margin of victory from what I can tell, but the popular vote, which is average Americans like you and me, was extremely close. This guy and many of the comments make it out to seem like nobody in their right mind would ever support Romney, and if they're indeed saying this, they've insulted almost half the nation's voters. Not a wise tactic to win people over, as the essay points out, when it says the Republican party is "mean", before going on to shout more profanity at the Republicans (hypocrisy never tasted so good).
2. Obamacare sucks. I can't think of a single reason why Obamacare is preferable over simply trying to take the money that was spent on that bill and fix the economy so more jobs can be created for average American workers. More jobs, means more people can get insurance and be able to afford it, and the annoying redistribution of wealth and taxation of Obamacare isn't present, either, and we also can tag a few other solutions onto this, such as becoming energy independent, etc. etc.. These are big, long-term goals, probably for the next 4-8 or even 10-12 years, but they are a much better, more permanent solution, than socializing our healthcare system. It will require hard times to be endured. You know what? We're in hard times. You can't try and make a bill that will magically make it all easier, it doesn't work that way, things just get screwed up, like Obamacare is doing. Obamacare is going to prolong the economy's recovery, giving sub-optimal healthcare to the people who can afford better, taking money from businesses that are struggling to grow to give healthcare to those who can't afford it right now, and increasing the deficit. If we actually tried toughing it out and fixing the economy rather than patching up issues that are a symptom of the problem, we'd have long-term solutions that help everybody and don't introduce more hardship to more citizens under the guise of helping the little guy.
3. Republicans are mean? He didn't say that a few were mean, or one was mean, or even just "A large amount of Republicans in power are mean", he called us all "mean". How is that even a logical argument for one side over another? This guy's just ranting. I am not "mean" unless people are offensive to me first, and while it's best I not offend anyone at all, ever, I am of course human, and when attacked verbally, I tend to fight back, as do most people from both sides of the political system. I have witnessed a much larger amount of "educated" liberals slandering and insulting the Republican party and individual Republicans than the other way around.
4. Gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc.... These are all issues that are individual to the voter. This is not a reason to call the entire party awful or bunk or any some such thing. The thing about opinions like these, is that the guys or gals attacking these stances on abortion or whatnot, don't even try to see where the other guy is coming from, or why he disagrees with you. I do it all the time. It's called a logical debate, and I recommend he try one instead of cowardly insults behind a computer because he doesn't want to admit he's wrong, or because he simply doesn't agree that he might be wrong. I don't want to voice my opinion on these matters, and nobody reading this should care about my opinion on these matters, but these are not merely mathematical issues such as the economy or vote counting, these are individual beliefs, and when you attack and insult them because they don't agree with you, you lose all credibility and are reduced in the mind of your reader to a child throwing a tantrum because he can't get his way. This is the image that was stuck in my head while I read most of this "essay". He might be very smart, but this was not a smart essay.
5. Science and rape. To be fair, I'm unaware of the majority of the Republicans' stance on whatever science he appears to be concerned with, however in regards to rape, it was horribly misrepresented by the party. What is actually true and what I think a lot of people meant but couldn't, for the life of them, say in the correct words, is:
i. Pregnancy is affected by hormones and body chemistry. If you're being raped, your body is under a ton of stress (even if you're unconscious), and you will continue to be under stress for some time afterward, in all likelihood. This drastically reduces the chance of random pregnancy.
ii. You can go to a hospital ER or have someone take you there (in extreme cases, strangers will call paramedics when they notice you, and if you're unconscious and not noticed by anyone within at most 24 hours, you have more pressing immediate issues than being pregnant) after the incident, they will take care of you, they can clean out the vagina, you have an incredibly reduced chance of pregnancy after this occurs, if any at all. If your argument is "well they might not do it because they're embarrassed", then it's time to grow up, suck it up, and decide whether you'd rather give birth to a rape-child (or, even if that doesn't happen, live with whatever physical and emotional traumas you suffered without help), or live with your supposed "dignity". Unwillingness to take advantage of the systems in place does not disprove the systems' effectiveness.
6. War. Everybody thinks the Iraq war was about resources. Are you going to try and tell me it was also a conspiracy to raise the gas prices, and the evil government is out to get us? You'd have to, by extension, because if we led that war for oil, gas prices would've gone down because we'd be getting more oil. Gas prices went up. Gas prices are still going up. Not a damn thing changed in that regard. In fact, the USA is expected to outproduce Saudi Arabia in crude oil within a decade or two. We do not flipping need their oil. The war was not about oil. In my opinion, it was about getting Saddam Hussein, who may or may not have been affiliated with Al Qaeda and 9/11. We don't have facts saying he was part of the plot to do it, but he was, by many people, thought to be a dangerous tyrant who was making that area unstable, intentionally letting people think he had WMD's, even if the country appeared not to when inspected by the UN, and in general, being the kind of dictator that doesn't just affect his own country (which is not cause for invasion by US), but causes instability in an entire region of nations that could lead to multiple wars and likely aggravated hostilities towards the US, which definitely called for a war against him. Yes, I support the war we had in Iraq, because I think I have a much firmer understanding of why we went in, in the first place.
Did I really miss anything? The guy's article was devoid of any substantial information that would ever lead to me thinking he was educated, which makes me wonder what school he went to, to get his Master's Degree, and what his degree is in. He needs to rethink his own strategy, not offer up that mess of a rant as advice for someone else's strategy in the future.
@minigun You sir have brought up points that most people would ignore due to the brainwashing in the states and overall globe. I happen to agree with most if not all your points. It's about time real change started in instead of the bile the president keeps ejecting every time he opens his mouth in public. I'm tired of jerks like the one writing this letter who slander and whine like per-schoolers before a nap.
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
@minigun You sir have brought up points that most people would ignore due to the brainwashing in the states and overall globe. I happen to agree with most if not all your points. It's about time real change started in instead of the bile the president keeps ejecting every time he opens his mouth in public. I'm tired of jerks like the one writing this letter who slander and whine like per-schoolers before a nap.
I agree with him as well.
@Pyrogram said:
@WillPayton: interesting.
Cliche.
Regardless of what I thought of the article I couldn't believe the guy actually said meanness. I mean wow the guy must have serious blinders or suffers from pathological denial if he can't see the pure hate spewing from the frothing mouths of the other side. You can barely peep a conservative or republican opinion without a bunch of people jumping on it like they are on a self-righteous crusade.
I try to come down the middle and not for either side but I'm soo tired when one side tries to pretend they are any better then the other.
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
It's about time real change started in instead of the bile the president keeps ejecting every time he opens his mouth in public.
Can you give us an example?
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
I'm tired of jerks like the one writing this letter who slander and whine like per-schoolers before a nap.
What did the writer say that was slanderous?
I can tell minigun was a Ron Paul supporter.
@WillPayton:
Seriously? I get freedom of speech and everything, but the guy writing the "letter" all he did was swear about being a proud white boy and how "mean" the Republican party is, all the while keeping on swearing his butt off. It's almost hypocritical to tell you the truth ( I mean, you rarely ever see me swear online or otherwise. And almost never to a fellow human.)
The "bile" I mentioned? Well, it's my personal opinion, much like you agreeing that a guy who cusses worse than a stereotypical Irish dude.
I would put up the quote he made in the 2008 election about "Spreading the wealth" but I guess most on this thread would support the quote wholeheartedly without understanding the notion of spreading the wealth.
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
Seriously? I get freedom of speech and everything, but the guy writing the "letter" all he did was swear about being a proud white boy and how "mean" the Republican party is, all the while keeping on swearing his butt off. It's almost hypocritical to tell you the truth ( I mean, you rarely ever see me swear online or otherwise. And almost never to a fellow human.)
Saying someone is "mean" is not slander. What was it he said that was slander?
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
The "bile" I mentioned? Well, it's my personal opinion, much like you agreeing that a guy who cusses worse than a stereotypical Irish dude.
I would put up the quote he made in the 2008 election about "Spreading the wealth" but I guess most on this thread would support the quote wholeheartedly without understanding the notion of spreading the wealth.
You said the President ejects bile (lol... maybe something to see a doctor about) "every time he opens his mouth". Surely there's lots and lots of quotes you can give us if this is true. I'll settle for just one however.
I'm not sure how saying that we should "spread the wealth" is considered "bile". The whole idea of charity is exactly spreading the wealth around. Taxes... is spreading the wealth around. When you go to the store and spend money... you're spreading the wealth around. But please, give us the quote if you want. I want to know what was so objectionable that he said.
@WillPayton:
The definition of slander I've learned through school is that it's pretty much a lesser form of Defamation of Character. I've seen it happen to Rush Limbaugh all the time, even though he always apologizes if he goes over the rail and people call him on it (remember the Sandra Fluke ting awhile back?)
Also, I'm way too tired to find quotes on it right now. XP It's pretty much midnight as I write this.
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
@WillPayton:
The definition of slander I've learned through school is that it's pretty much a lesser form of Defamation of Character. I've seen it happen to Rush Limbaugh all the time, even though he always apologizes if he goes over the rail and people call him on it (remember the Sandra Fluke ting awhile back?)
Also, I'm way too tired to find quotes on it right now. XP It's pretty much midnight as I write this.
Yup, midnight here too. And you're right... I should be going to sleep as well instead of posting on CV... =)
Arghh, just dont get me started on Rush. LOL...
@WillPayton:
Hey, I like Rush. I find him to be a heck of a lot better to handle than Bill Maher. (who I will never ever forgive for saying something along the lines of humans should kill themselves more because there's too many in the world.)
@Magethor said:
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
@minigun You sir have brought up points that most people would ignore due to the brainwashing in the states and overall globe. I happen to agree with most if not all your points. It's about time real change started in instead of the bile the president keeps ejecting every time he opens his mouth in public. I'm tired of jerks like the one writing this letter who slander and whine like per-schoolers before a nap.I agree with him as well.
"Him" being the writer of the letter, or me?
Also, I didn't see these responses because CV didn't message me about them, derp.
@WillPayton said:
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
@WillPayton:
The definition of slander I've learned through school is that it's pretty much a lesser form of Defamation of Character. I've seen it happen to Rush Limbaugh all the time, even though he always apologizes if he goes over the rail and people call him on it (remember the Sandra Fluke ting awhile back?)
Also, I'm way too tired to find quotes on it right now. XP It's pretty much midnight as I write this.
Yup, midnight here too. And you're right... I should be going to sleep as well instead of posting on CV... =)
Arghh, just dont get me started on Rush. LOL...
Well, one instance could be where he basically said if you have a business or company or are in charge of any group of people, product, or any such thing where you're not simply a mook working for everyone else, you "didn't build that". I'm sorry, I didn't build the thing that I... Well... Built? Just because there were other innovations that came before, doesn't mean I didn't build the one that didn't exist without me. Bill Gates, for example, does not owe all his success or wealth or anything at all, to the descendents of Thomas Eddison or Nichola Tesla, just because they were instrumental in electricity and it's discovery/initial use. They were instrumental in modern technology; they get credit for that. They are awesome people. Bill Gates was equally as awesome. Let credit stand on it's own based on the complexity and quality of it's own individual merit. An original innovation that does nobody any actual good (say, astrology) is worth far less credit than, say, computers, even though electricity had to be discovered by other guys, for computers to work.
That's one big example of something absolutely ludicrous that Obama said, and believes in.
Rush Limbaugh is really just a puppet for the GOP money-masters and various corporate interests, and I'm saying that as someone who identifies with the traditional Republican values, which would be: staying out of peoples' personal lives, non-interventionalism, self-sufficiency, and sound fiscal/monetary policies. I honestly think you can attribute his rhetoric to all sorts of problems within the current conservative establishment.
Unfortunately, the party has been hijacked, and as I've grown older and furthered my education, I figure that I'm better off with the Libertarians, seeing as they tend to more accurately align with my own personal views, instead of the other way around.
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
@WillPayton:
Hey, I like Rush. I find him to be a heck of a lot better to handle than Bill Maher. (who I will never ever forgive for saying something along the lines of humans should kill themselves more because there's too many in the world.)
Rush Limbaugh has no redeemable qualities whatsoever. How can you (as a woman) like him? He's misogynistic, his show is a constant stream of mindless hatred against the President and the Democrats, he's a liar, he's a drug addict, and just generally he's completely clueless. He denies that there's scientific evidence for climate change, he was one of the people predicting that Romney would "win big"... <sigh>
On the other hand, if you regularly listen to Rush it would explain a lot about some of the stuff you say and why you keep finding yourself in conflict with your friends and schoolmates. Rush is a horrible human being and every other thing out of his mouth is hate-filled garbage.
@minigunman123 said:
I found the article a bit childish, actually. He used plenty of screaming, profanity, ad hominem's, and didn't even see fit to do the same disassembling he did with Romney, to his golden boy, Barrack. He is quite clearly angry and simply venting his rage. It was not a thoughtful or informative article/essay, but rather the rantings of an angry, uppity, self-righteous white guy, who thinks he's got it all figured out, and is ready to eat the faces off of anyone else who disagrees (heaven forbid we have something called "votes", where people might actually think differently. Oh, the horror!)
Here's what he did not mention in his essay.
1. Romney was not thrashed or destroyed in the election. In electoral votes he was beaten in quite a decent margin of victory from what I can tell, but the popular vote, which is average Americans like you and me, was extremely close. This guy and many of the comments make it out to seem like nobody in their right mind would ever support Romney, and if they're indeed saying this, they've insulted almost half the nation's voters. Not a wise tactic to win people over, as the essay points out, when it says the Republican party is "mean", before going on to shout more profanity at the Republicans (hypocrisy never tasted so good).
2. Obamacare sucks. I can't think of a single reason why Obamacare is preferable over simply trying to take the money that was spent on that bill and fix the economy so more jobs can be created for average American workers. More jobs, means more people can get insurance and be able to afford it, and the annoying redistribution of wealth and taxation of Obamacare isn't present, either, and we also can tag a few other solutions onto this, such as becoming energy independent, etc. etc.. These are big, long-term goals, probably for the next 4-8 or even 10-12 years, but they are a much better, more permanent solution, than socializing our healthcare system. It will require hard times to be endured. You know what? We're in hard times. You can't try and make a bill that will magically make it all easier, it doesn't work that way, things just get screwed up, like Obamacare is doing. Obamacare is going to prolong the economy's recovery, giving sub-optimal healthcare to the people who can afford better, taking money from businesses that are struggling to grow to give healthcare to those who can't afford it right now, and increasing the deficit. If we actually tried toughing it out and fixing the economy rather than patching up issues that are a symptom of the problem, we'd have long-term solutions that help everybody and don't introduce more hardship to more citizens under the guise of helping the little guy.
3. Republicans are mean? He didn't say that a few were mean, or one was mean, or even just "A large amount of Republicans in power are mean", he called us all "mean". How is that even a logical argument for one side over another? This guy's just ranting. I am not "mean" unless people are offensive to me first, and while it's best I not offend anyone at all, ever, I am of course human, and when attacked verbally, I tend to fight back, as do most people from both sides of the political system. I have witnessed a much larger amount of "educated" liberals slandering and insulting the Republican party and individual Republicans than the other way around.
4. Gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc.... These are all issues that are individual to the voter. This is not a reason to call the entire party awful or bunk or any some such thing. The thing about opinions like these, is that the guys or gals attacking these stances on abortion or whatnot, don't even try to see where the other guy is coming from, or why he disagrees with you. I do it all the time. It's called a logical debate, and I recommend he try one instead of cowardly insults behind a computer because he doesn't want to admit he's wrong, or because he simply doesn't agree that he might be wrong. I don't want to voice my opinion on these matters, and nobody reading this should care about my opinion on these matters, but these are not merely mathematical issues such as the economy or vote counting, these are individual beliefs, and when you attack and insult them because they don't agree with you, you lose all credibility and are reduced in the mind of your reader to a child throwing a tantrum because he can't get his way. This is the image that was stuck in my head while I read most of this "essay". He might be very smart, but this was not a smart essay.
5. Science and rape. To be fair, I'm unaware of the majority of the Republicans' stance on whatever science he appears to be concerned with, however in regards to rape, it was horribly misrepresented by the party. What is actually true and what I think a lot of people meant but couldn't, for the life of them, say in the correct words, is:
i. Pregnancy is affected by hormones and body chemistry. If you're being raped, your body is under a ton of stress (even if you're unconscious), and you will continue to be under stress for some time afterward, in all likelihood. This drastically reduces the chance of random pregnancy.
ii. You can go to a hospital ER or have someone take you there (in extreme cases, strangers will call paramedics when they notice you, and if you're unconscious and not noticed by anyone within at most 24 hours, you have more pressing immediate issues than being pregnant) after the incident, they will take care of you, they can clean out the vagina, you have an incredibly reduced chance of pregnancy after this occurs, if any at all. If your argument is "well they might not do it because they're embarrassed", then it's time to grow up, suck it up, and decide whether you'd rather give birth to a rape-child (or, even if that doesn't happen, live with whatever physical and emotional traumas you suffered without help), or live with your supposed "dignity". Unwillingness to take advantage of the systems in place does not disprove the systems' effectiveness.
6. War. Everybody thinks the Iraq war was about resources. Are you going to try and tell me it was also a conspiracy to raise the gas prices, and the evil government is out to get us? You'd have to, by extension, because if we led that war for oil, gas prices would've gone down because we'd be getting more oil. Gas prices went up. Gas prices are still going up. Not a damn thing changed in that regard. In fact, the USA is expected to outproduce Saudi Arabia in crude oil within a decade or two. We do not flipping need their oil. The war was not about oil. In my opinion, it was about getting Saddam Hussein, who may or may not have been affiliated with Al Qaeda and 9/11. We don't have facts saying he was part of the plot to do it, but he was, by many people, thought to be a dangerous tyrant who was making that area unstable, intentionally letting people think he had WMD's, even if the country appeared not to when inspected by the UN, and in general, being the kind of dictator that doesn't just affect his own country (which is not cause for invasion by US), but causes instability in an entire region of nations that could lead to multiple wars and likely aggravated hostilities towards the US, which definitely called for a war against him. Yes, I support the war we had in Iraq, because I think I have a much firmer understanding of why we went in, in the first place.
Did I really miss anything? The guy's article was devoid of any substantial information that would ever lead to me thinking he was educated, which makes me wonder what school he went to, to get his Master's Degree, and what his degree is in. He needs to rethink his own strategy, not offer up that mess of a rant as advice for someone else's strategy in the future.
I would personally like to thank you for pointing out all of the fallacies of that little essay, er.. rant about the Republicans and their policy.
Little do people know that having a Republic nation is the key of bringing this country back to its stability. Not democracy... In fact, little do people know that Democracy is a fallacy within itself and that the very bases of it's philosophy is Anarchy that leads to dictatorship (OLIGARCHY) and monarchy. Having a republic is the only one that is self supporting to keep it stable without fail. Look at Rome when it turned from a Republic to a Democracy.... It fell after it turned into a Democracy Nation. Now about Capitalism vs Socialism? We preferably rather have a Republic under Capitalism unlike a Republic or Democracy under Socialism. China for example is Republic of Socialism while most of America's history was a Republic of Capitalism. And I don't understand why minorities OF TODAY believe that democracy is the key of success when even the minorities of older generations WHO FOUGHT FOR OUR CIVIL RIGHTS were in fact conservative republicans that knew that a republic was the true philosophy of Freedom.
The Republicans FIGHT! for civil rights.
The Democrats FIGHT for SOCIALISM.
Democracy is a fallacy. It separates people in groups and categorizes them. It's Isolationism. And it's PLANNED to be that way. Obamacare is proof of this social planning that Liberals are too ignorant to figure it out. And I don't blame them because they listen to the media rather than doing their own critical thinking and research from a logical and statistical standpoint.
It's not that hard. All you have to do is ask:
- Who?
- What?
- Where?
- Why?
- How?
- When?
Everything about a liberal is about, "I want this, I want that...."
But they don't realize that "other" liberals are saying the same thing that conflicts and opposes of what the other liberals want.
It's a fallacy.
People can't think that way to better the nation.
- Republic is "United We Stand"
- Liberalism/Democracy is "Divided We Fall".
@minigunman123 said:
Well, one instance could be where he basically said if you have a business or company or are in charge of any group of people, product, or any such thing where you're not simply a mook working for everyone else, you "didn't build that". I'm sorry, I didn't build the thing that I... Well... Built?
That's one big example of something absolutely ludicrous that Obama said, and believes in.
Are you trolling, or do you honestly not realize that you're simply repeating a lie that was said over and over by the Republicans, Fox News, and Romney during the campaign? Do you really not care that you're being played for a fool by the GOP?
Instead of mindlessly regurgitating what you heard on Fox News, why dont you actually post the quote you're talking about? If you do, you will realize that Obama didnt say that. What actually happened is that the Republicans took what he said out of context. It's what people usually call "lying".
Oh, and it wasnt the first time Romney did this. There was another even more blatant example of him using an out-of-context quote to try to make Obama look bad. Would you like me to post that?
@WillPayton said:
@minigunman123 said:
Well, one instance could be where he basically said if you have a business or company or are in charge of any group of people, product, or any such thing where you're not simply a mook working for everyone else, you "didn't build that". I'm sorry, I didn't build the thing that I... Well... Built?
That's one big example of something absolutely ludicrous that Obama said, and believes in.
Are you trolling, or do you honestly not realize that you're simply repeating a lie that was said over and over by the Republicans, Fox News, and Romney during the campaign? Do you really not care that you're being played for a fool by the GOP?
Instead of mindlessly regurgitating what you heard on Fox News, why dont you actually post the quote you're talking about? If you do, you will realize that Obama didnt say that. What actually happened is that the Republicans took what he said out of context. It's what people usually call "lying".
Oh, and it wasnt the first time Romney did this. There was another even more blatant example of him using an out-of-context quote to try to make Obama look bad. Would you like me to post that?
Well, now that you've decided to attack me directly (ad hominem) just like the guy who's "essay" I tore apart, let me be frank, I've never watched Fox news, so get your head out of your ass on that one. I don't even know why people are so obsessed with it. Is it like, a devil worshipping channel? Dafuq is up with you people (you being liberal idiots who stereotype everyone to try and isolate them and discriminate against them, despite the fact they swear they're against such things).
I actually got it from the Wallstreet Journal. You know, a very irreputable, small-time news source, not worth any mention.
You want the actual quote, from the WSJ itself?
"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."
Sounds pretty clear to me, son.
@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:
@minigunman123 said:
I found the article a bit childish, actually. He used plenty of screaming, profanity, ad hominem's, and didn't even see fit to do the same disassembling he did with Romney, to his golden boy, Barrack. He is quite clearly angry and simply venting his rage. It was not a thoughtful or informative article/essay, but rather the rantings of an angry, uppity, self-righteous white guy, who thinks he's got it all figured out, and is ready to eat the faces off of anyone else who disagrees (heaven forbid we have something called "votes", where people might actually think differently. Oh, the horror!)
Here's what he did not mention in his essay.
1. Romney was not thrashed or destroyed in the election. In electoral votes he was beaten in quite a decent margin of victory from what I can tell, but the popular vote, which is average Americans like you and me, was extremely close. This guy and many of the comments make it out to seem like nobody in their right mind would ever support Romney, and if they're indeed saying this, they've insulted almost half the nation's voters. Not a wise tactic to win people over, as the essay points out, when it says the Republican party is "mean", before going on to shout more profanity at the Republicans (hypocrisy never tasted so good).
2. Obamacare sucks. I can't think of a single reason why Obamacare is preferable over simply trying to take the money that was spent on that bill and fix the economy so more jobs can be created for average American workers. More jobs, means more people can get insurance and be able to afford it, and the annoying redistribution of wealth and taxation of Obamacare isn't present, either, and we also can tag a few other solutions onto this, such as becoming energy independent, etc. etc.. These are big, long-term goals, probably for the next 4-8 or even 10-12 years, but they are a much better, more permanent solution, than socializing our healthcare system. It will require hard times to be endured. You know what? We're in hard times. You can't try and make a bill that will magically make it all easier, it doesn't work that way, things just get screwed up, like Obamacare is doing. Obamacare is going to prolong the economy's recovery, giving sub-optimal healthcare to the people who can afford better, taking money from businesses that are struggling to grow to give healthcare to those who can't afford it right now, and increasing the deficit. If we actually tried toughing it out and fixing the economy rather than patching up issues that are a symptom of the problem, we'd have long-term solutions that help everybody and don't introduce more hardship to more citizens under the guise of helping the little guy.
3. Republicans are mean? He didn't say that a few were mean, or one was mean, or even just "A large amount of Republicans in power are mean", he called us all "mean". How is that even a logical argument for one side over another? This guy's just ranting. I am not "mean" unless people are offensive to me first, and while it's best I not offend anyone at all, ever, I am of course human, and when attacked verbally, I tend to fight back, as do most people from both sides of the political system. I have witnessed a much larger amount of "educated" liberals slandering and insulting the Republican party and individual Republicans than the other way around.
4. Gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc.... These are all issues that are individual to the voter. This is not a reason to call the entire party awful or bunk or any some such thing. The thing about opinions like these, is that the guys or gals attacking these stances on abortion or whatnot, don't even try to see where the other guy is coming from, or why he disagrees with you. I do it all the time. It's called a logical debate, and I recommend he try one instead of cowardly insults behind a computer because he doesn't want to admit he's wrong, or because he simply doesn't agree that he might be wrong. I don't want to voice my opinion on these matters, and nobody reading this should care about my opinion on these matters, but these are not merely mathematical issues such as the economy or vote counting, these are individual beliefs, and when you attack and insult them because they don't agree with you, you lose all credibility and are reduced in the mind of your reader to a child throwing a tantrum because he can't get his way. This is the image that was stuck in my head while I read most of this "essay". He might be very smart, but this was not a smart essay.
5. Science and rape. To be fair, I'm unaware of the majority of the Republicans' stance on whatever science he appears to be concerned with, however in regards to rape, it was horribly misrepresented by the party. What is actually true and what I think a lot of people meant but couldn't, for the life of them, say in the correct words, is:
i. Pregnancy is affected by hormones and body chemistry. If you're being raped, your body is under a ton of stress (even if you're unconscious), and you will continue to be under stress for some time afterward, in all likelihood. This drastically reduces the chance of random pregnancy.
ii. You can go to a hospital ER or have someone take you there (in extreme cases, strangers will call paramedics when they notice you, and if you're unconscious and not noticed by anyone within at most 24 hours, you have more pressing immediate issues than being pregnant) after the incident, they will take care of you, they can clean out the vagina, you have an incredibly reduced chance of pregnancy after this occurs, if any at all. If your argument is "well they might not do it because they're embarrassed", then it's time to grow up, suck it up, and decide whether you'd rather give birth to a rape-child (or, even if that doesn't happen, live with whatever physical and emotional traumas you suffered without help), or live with your supposed "dignity". Unwillingness to take advantage of the systems in place does not disprove the systems' effectiveness.
6. War. Everybody thinks the Iraq war was about resources. Are you going to try and tell me it was also a conspiracy to raise the gas prices, and the evil government is out to get us? You'd have to, by extension, because if we led that war for oil, gas prices would've gone down because we'd be getting more oil. Gas prices went up. Gas prices are still going up. Not a damn thing changed in that regard. In fact, the USA is expected to outproduce Saudi Arabia in crude oil within a decade or two. We do not flipping need their oil. The war was not about oil. In my opinion, it was about getting Saddam Hussein, who may or may not have been affiliated with Al Qaeda and 9/11. We don't have facts saying he was part of the plot to do it, but he was, by many people, thought to be a dangerous tyrant who was making that area unstable, intentionally letting people think he had WMD's, even if the country appeared not to when inspected by the UN, and in general, being the kind of dictator that doesn't just affect his own country (which is not cause for invasion by US), but causes instability in an entire region of nations that could lead to multiple wars and likely aggravated hostilities towards the US, which definitely called for a war against him. Yes, I support the war we had in Iraq, because I think I have a much firmer understanding of why we went in, in the first place.
Did I really miss anything? The guy's article was devoid of any substantial information that would ever lead to me thinking he was educated, which makes me wonder what school he went to, to get his Master's Degree, and what his degree is in. He needs to rethink his own strategy, not offer up that mess of a rant as advice for someone else's strategy in the future.
I would personally like to thank you for pointing out all of the fallacies of that little essay, er.. rant about the Republicans and their policy.
Little do people know that having a Republic nation is the key of bringing this country back to its stability. Not democracy... In fact, little do people know that Democracy is a fallacy within itself and that the very bases of it's philosophy is Anarchy that leads to dictatorship (OLIGARCHY) and monarchy. Having a republic is the only one that is self supporting to keep it stable without fail. Look at Rome when it turned from a Republic to a Democracy.... It fell after it turned into a Democracy Nation. Now about Capitalism vs Socialism? We preferably rather have a Republic under Capitalism unlike a Republic or Democracy under Socialism. China for example is Republic of Socialism while most of America's history was a Republic of Capitalism. And I don't understand why minorities OF TODAY believe that democracy is the key of success when even the minorities of older generations WHO FOUGHT FOR OUR CIVIL RIGHTS were in fact conservative republicans that knew that a republic was the true philosophy of Freedom.
The Republicans FIGHT! for civil rights.
The Democrats FIGHT for SOCIALISM.
Democracy is a fallacy. It separates people in groups and categorizes them. It's Isolationism. And it's PLANNED to be that way. Obamacare is proof of this social planning that Liberals are too ignorant to figure it out. And I don't blame them because they listen to the media rather than doing their own critical thinking and research from a logical and statistical standpoint.
It's not that hard. All you have to do is ask:
- Who?
- What?
- Where?
- Why?
- How?
- When?
Everything about a liberal is about, "I want this, I want that...."
But they don't realize that "other" liberals are saying the same thing that conflicts and opposes of what the other liberals want.
It's a fallacy.
People can't think that way to better the nation.
- Republic is "United We Stand"
- Liberalism/Democracy is "Divided We Fall".
Pretty nice post, right here. I could go on a rant that agrees with you but it wouldn't be very productive, you summed it up quite nicely. Good job.
@minigunman123 said:
@WillPayton said:
@minigunman123 said:
Well, one instance could be where he basically said if you have a business or company or are in charge of any group of people, product, or any such thing where you're not simply a mook working for everyone else, you "didn't build that". I'm sorry, I didn't build the thing that I... Well... Built?
That's one big example of something absolutely ludicrous that Obama said, and believes in.
Are you trolling, or do you honestly not realize that you're simply repeating a lie that was said over and over by the Republicans, Fox News, and Romney during the campaign? Do you really not care that you're being played for a fool by the GOP?
Instead of mindlessly regurgitating what you heard on Fox News, why dont you actually post the quote you're talking about? If you do, you will realize that Obama didnt say that. What actually happened is that the Republicans took what he said out of context. It's what people usually call "lying".
Oh, and it wasnt the first time Romney did this. There was another even more blatant example of him using an out-of-context quote to try to make Obama look bad. Would you like me to post that?
Well, now that you've decided to attack me directly (ad hominem) just like the guy who's "essay" I tore apart, let me be frank, I've never watched Fox news, so get your head out of your ass on that one. I don't even know why people are so obsessed with it. Is it like, a devil worshipping channel? Dafuq is up with you people (you being liberal idiots who stereotype everyone to try and isolate them and discriminate against them, despite the fact they swear they're against such things).
I actually got it from the Wallstreet Journal. You know, a very irreputable, small-time news source, not worth any mention.
You want the actual quote, from the WSJ itself?
"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."
Sounds pretty clear to me, son.
First, I'm not your son.
Second, the quote is pretty clear, he's talking about infrastructure... roads and bridges... it's in the freakin quote you posted. He's saying that if you have a business, part of the success of that business relies on the work of others who build the infrastructure that you use.
Even Romney said basically the same thing in one of his own speeches.
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/21/you-didnt-build-that-how-fox-news-crafted-the-g/189468
And, BTW, calling people "liberal idiots"... is against the site rules.
@WillPayton said:
@minigunman123 said:
@WillPayton said:
@minigunman123 said:
Well, one instance could be where he basically said if you have a business or company or are in charge of any group of people, product, or any such thing where you're not simply a mook working for everyone else, you "didn't build that". I'm sorry, I didn't build the thing that I... Well... Built?
That's one big example of something absolutely ludicrous that Obama said, and believes in.
Are you trolling, or do you honestly not realize that you're simply repeating a lie that was said over and over by the Republicans, Fox News, and Romney during the campaign? Do you really not care that you're being played for a fool by the GOP?
Instead of mindlessly regurgitating what you heard on Fox News, why dont you actually post the quote you're talking about? If you do, you will realize that Obama didnt say that. What actually happened is that the Republicans took what he said out of context. It's what people usually call "lying".
Oh, and it wasnt the first time Romney did this. There was another even more blatant example of him using an out-of-context quote to try to make Obama look bad. Would you like me to post that?
Well, now that you've decided to attack me directly (ad hominem) just like the guy who's "essay" I tore apart, let me be frank, I've never watched Fox news, so get your head out of your ass on that one. I don't even know why people are so obsessed with it. Is it like, a devil worshipping channel? Dafuq is up with you people (you being liberal idiots who stereotype everyone to try and isolate them and discriminate against them, despite the fact they swear they're against such things).
I actually got it from the Wallstreet Journal. You know, a very irreputable, small-time news source, not worth any mention.
You want the actual quote, from the WSJ itself?
"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."
Sounds pretty clear to me, son.
First, I'm not your son.
Second, the quote is pretty clear, he's talking about infrastructure... roads and bridges... it's in the freakin quote you posted. He's saying that if you have a business, part of the success of that business relies on the work of others who build the infrastructure that you use.
Even Romney said basically the same thing in one of his own speeches.
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/21/you-didnt-build-that-how-fox-news-crafted-the-g/189468
And, BTW, calling people "liberal idiots"... is against the site rules.
But your antagonistic remarks were totally allowed, and constructive. Don't even go there.
You're taking that quote literally, so that he meant, we owe our success to the people that literally built the roads? That's a bit... Hilarious. It's their job to do that. We don't owe construction workers anything. They're payed to do that.
Going a little less literal, he specifically said you didn't build that. Somebody else made it happen. That's not sharing credit. That's downright giving credit to the other guy who wasn't involved in what you did at all.
And again, when someone makes infrastructure, awesome, be happy, praise them for all they're worth, because they did something that most likely is very good. Then, move on. When someone builds something thanks to that infrastructure, you don't credit the guy who built the infrastructure for the construction of the newer guy, because he had nothing to do with it. He didn't suggest it. He didn't envision it. He didn't spend his dedication, time, effort, money, life, and strength, on that project. His was a different project. Perhaps nobler, granted. That doesn't take any credit away from the man who built on top of the infrastructure.
I do not credit my teachers with anything, because they love teaching, and they're payed to do it, and they can't exactly go skip to a different, much higher paying job, any time they want; and often times, I disagree with my teachers, because I find better ways to go about things, smarter ways, or if it's a political or non-mathematical class, I simply think they're wrong. That happens all the time. If you never question what you're taught, and thus give much credit in your life to your teachers, then you're the actual fool here, not questioning what people are saying, but taking it at face value.
I read one of the links you posted, the "politifact" one, and it's still wishy washy. Obama is still suggesting that you got there because the government, other people, led you to that wonderful place so that your innovation would work. I'm sure that Sir Isaac Newton, who did tons of research and revolutionized math and the way we look at the entire universe without government aid, would beg to disagree. In fact, I bet if he were still alive, Isaac would give credit to the mathematicians that came before, but he would demand that his work be credited for the marvel that it was - he invented whole new sections of math that we still use and build off of today, by himself. Almost no other mathematician was as (or has been as) brilliant, gifted, and prolific as he was. If your theory, your stance, your ideology, doesn't stand the test of time, and doesn't stand on it's own throughout all trials, it doesn't stand. The Republican sense of "you built your business, you get credit for what you built" works throughout time, by rewarding people for effort, encouraging growth.
I'm going to go to bed, I have to wake up in 6 hours.
@minigunman123said:
@WillPayton said:
@minigunman123 said:
Well, one instance could be where he basically said if you have a business or company or are in charge of any group of people, product, or any such thing where you're not simply a mook working for everyone else, you "didn't build that". I'm sorry, I didn't build the thing that I... Well... Built?
That's one big example of something absolutely ludicrous that Obama said, and believes in.
Are you trolling, or do you honestly not realize that you're simply repeating a lie that was said over and over by the Republicans, Fox News, and Romney during the campaign? Do you really not care that you're being played for a fool by the GOP?
Instead of mindlessly regurgitating what you heard on Fox News, why dont you actually post the quote you're talking about? If you do, you will realize that Obama didnt say that. What actually happened is that the Republicans took what he said out of context. It's what people usually call "lying".
Oh, and it wasnt the first time Romney did this. There was another even more blatant example of him using an out-of-context quote to try to make Obama look bad. Would you like me to post that?
Well, now that you've decided to attack me directly (ad hominem) just like the guy who's "essay" I tore apart, let me be frank, I've never watched Fox news, so get your head out of your ass on that one. I don't even know why people are so obsessed with it. Is it like, a devil worshipping channel? Dafuq is up with you people (you being liberal idiots who stereotype everyone to try and isolate them and discriminate against them, despite the fact they swear they're against such things).
I actually got it from the Wallstreet Journal. You know, a very irreputable, small-time news source, not worth any mention.
You want the actual quote, from the WSJ itself?
"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."
Sounds pretty clear to me, son.
@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:
@minigunman123 said:
I found the article a bit childish, actually. He used plenty of screaming, profanity, ad hominem's, and didn't even see fit to do the same disassembling he did with Romney, to his golden boy, Barrack. He is quite clearly angry and simply venting his rage. It was not a thoughtful or informative article/essay, but rather the rantings of an angry, uppity, self-righteous white guy, who thinks he's got it all figured out, and is ready to eat the faces off of anyone else who disagrees (heaven forbid we have something called "votes", where people might actually think differently. Oh, the horror!)
Here's what he did not mention in his essay.
1. Romney was not thrashed or destroyed in the election. In electoral votes he was beaten in quite a decent margin of victory from what I can tell, but the popular vote, which is average Americans like you and me, was extremely close. This guy and many of the comments make it out to seem like nobody in their right mind would ever support Romney, and if they're indeed saying this, they've insulted almost half the nation's voters. Not a wise tactic to win people over, as the essay points out, when it says the Republican party is "mean", before going on to shout more profanity at the Republicans (hypocrisy never tasted so good).
2. Obamacare sucks. I can't think of a single reason why Obamacare is preferable over simply trying to take the money that was spent on that bill and fix the economy so more jobs can be created for average American workers. More jobs, means more people can get insurance and be able to afford it, and the annoying redistribution of wealth and taxation of Obamacare isn't present, either, and we also can tag a few other solutions onto this, such as becoming energy independent, etc. etc.. These are big, long-term goals, probably for the next 4-8 or even 10-12 years, but they are a much better, more permanent solution, than socializing our healthcare system. It will require hard times to be endured. You know what? We're in hard times. You can't try and make a bill that will magically make it all easier, it doesn't work that way, things just get screwed up, like Obamacare is doing. Obamacare is going to prolong the economy's recovery, giving sub-optimal healthcare to the people who can afford better, taking money from businesses that are struggling to grow to give healthcare to those who can't afford it right now, and increasing the deficit. If we actually tried toughing it out and fixing the economy rather than patching up issues that are a symptom of the problem, we'd have long-term solutions that help everybody and don't introduce more hardship to more citizens under the guise of helping the little guy.
3. Republicans are mean? He didn't say that a few were mean, or one was mean, or even just "A large amount of Republicans in power are mean", he called us all "mean". How is that even a logical argument for one side over another? This guy's just ranting. I am not "mean" unless people are offensive to me first, and while it's best I not offend anyone at all, ever, I am of course human, and when attacked verbally, I tend to fight back, as do most people from both sides of the political system. I have witnessed a much larger amount of "educated" liberals slandering and insulting the Republican party and individual Republicans than the other way around.
4. Gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc.... These are all issues that are individual to the voter. This is not a reason to call the entire party awful or bunk or any some such thing. The thing about opinions like these, is that the guys or gals attacking these stances on abortion or whatnot, don't even try to see where the other guy is coming from, or why he disagrees with you. I do it all the time. It's called a logical debate, and I recommend he try one instead of cowardly insults behind a computer because he doesn't want to admit he's wrong, or because he simply doesn't agree that he might be wrong. I don't want to voice my opinion on these matters, and nobody reading this should care about my opinion on these matters, but these are not merely mathematical issues such as the economy or vote counting, these are individual beliefs, and when you attack and insult them because they don't agree with you, you lose all credibility and are reduced in the mind of your reader to a child throwing a tantrum because he can't get his way. This is the image that was stuck in my head while I read most of this "essay". He might be very smart, but this was not a smart essay.
5. Science and rape. To be fair, I'm unaware of the majority of the Republicans' stance on whatever science he appears to be concerned with, however in regards to rape, it was horribly misrepresented by the party. What is actually true and what I think a lot of people meant but couldn't, for the life of them, say in the correct words, is:
i. Pregnancy is affected by hormones and body chemistry. If you're being raped, your body is under a ton of stress (even if you're unconscious), and you will continue to be under stress for some time afterward, in all likelihood. This drastically reduces the chance of random pregnancy.
ii. You can go to a hospital ER or have someone take you there (in extreme cases, strangers will call paramedics when they notice you, and if you're unconscious and not noticed by anyone within at most 24 hours, you have more pressing immediate issues than being pregnant) after the incident, they will take care of you, they can clean out the vagina, you have an incredibly reduced chance of pregnancy after this occurs, if any at all. If your argument is "well they might not do it because they're embarrassed", then it's time to grow up, suck it up, and decide whether you'd rather give birth to a rape-child (or, even if that doesn't happen, live with whatever physical and emotional traumas you suffered without help), or live with your supposed "dignity". Unwillingness to take advantage of the systems in place does not disprove the systems' effectiveness.
6. War. Everybody thinks the Iraq war was about resources. Are you going to try and tell me it was also a conspiracy to raise the gas prices, and the evil government is out to get us? You'd have to, by extension, because if we led that war for oil, gas prices would've gone down because we'd be getting more oil. Gas prices went up. Gas prices are still going up. Not a damn thing changed in that regard. In fact, the USA is expected to outproduce Saudi Arabia in crude oil within a decade or two. We do not flipping need their oil. The war was not about oil. In my opinion, it was about getting Saddam Hussein, who may or may not have been affiliated with Al Qaeda and 9/11. We don't have facts saying he was part of the plot to do it, but he was, by many people, thought to be a dangerous tyrant who was making that area unstable, intentionally letting people think he had WMD's, even if the country appeared not to when inspected by the UN, and in general, being the kind of dictator that doesn't just affect his own country (which is not cause for invasion by US), but causes instability in an entire region of nations that could lead to multiple wars and likely aggravated hostilities towards the US, which definitely called for a war against him. Yes, I support the war we had in Iraq, because I think I have a much firmer understanding of why we went in, in the first place.
Did I really miss anything? The guy's article was devoid of any substantial information that would ever lead to me thinking he was educated, which makes me wonder what school he went to, to get his Master's Degree, and what his degree is in. He needs to rethink his own strategy, not offer up that mess of a rant as advice for someone else's strategy in the future.
I would personally like to thank you for pointing out all of the fallacies of that little essay, er.. rant about the Republicans and their policy.
Little do people know that having a Republic nation is the key of bringing this country back to its stability. Not democracy... In fact, little do people know that Democracy is a fallacy within itself and that the very bases of it's philosophy is Anarchy that leads to dictatorship (OLIGARCHY) and monarchy. Having a republic is the only one that is self supporting to keep it stable without fail. Look at Rome when it turned from a Republic to a Democracy.... It fell after it turned into a Democracy Nation. Now about Capitalism vs Socialism? We preferably rather have a Republic under Capitalism unlike a Republic or Democracy under Socialism. China for example is Republic of Socialism while most of America's history was a Republic of Capitalism. And I don't understand why minorities OF TODAY believe that democracy is the key of success when even the minorities of older generations WHO FOUGHT FOR OUR CIVIL RIGHTS were in fact conservative republicans that knew that a republic was the true philosophy of Freedom.
The Republicans FIGHT! for civil rights.
The Democrats FIGHT for SOCIALISM.
Democracy is a fallacy. It separates people in groups and categorizes them. It's Isolationism. And it's PLANNED to be that way. Obamacare is proof of this social planning that Liberals are too ignorant to figure it out. And I don't blame them because they listen to the media rather than doing their own critical thinking and research from a logical and statistical standpoint.
It's not that hard. All you have to do is ask:
- Who?
- What?
- Where?
- Why?
- How?
- When?
Everything about a liberal is about, "I want this, I want that...."
But they don't realize that "other" liberals are saying the same thing that conflicts and opposes of what the other liberals want.
It's a fallacy.
People can't think that way to better the nation.
- Republic is "United We Stand"
- Liberalism/Democracy is "Divided We Fall".
Pretty nice post, right here. I could go on a rant that agrees with you but it wouldn't be very productive, you summed it up quite nicely. Good job.
And I thank you again.
@minigunman123 said:
I'm going to go to bed, I have to wake up in 6 hours.
7 am waking up in the morning.
@minigunman123 said:
I read one of the links you posted, the "politifact" one, and it's still wishy washy. Obama is still suggesting that you got there because the government, other people, led you to that wonderful place so that your innovation would work. I'm sure that Sir Isaac Newton, who did tons of research and revolutionized math and the way we look at the entire universe without government aid, would beg to disagree. In fact, I bet if he were still alive, Isaac would give credit to the mathematicians that came before, but he would demand that his work be credited for the marvel that it was - he invented whole new sections of math that we still use and build off of today, by himself. Almost no other mathematician was as (or has been as) brilliant, gifted, and prolific as he was. If your theory, your stance, your ideology, doesn't stand the test of time, and doesn't stand on it's own throughout all trials, it doesn't stand. The Republican sense of "you built your business, you get credit for what you built" works throughout time, by rewarding people for effort, encouraging growth.
I'm going to go to bed, I have to wake up in 6 hours.
Isaac Newton was a rich kid who barely had to work a day in his life and could devote every minute of his to figuring out the mysteries of the universe. He is precisely the kind of people who should be happy and thankful for the system in place that allowed him to prosper.
That is what Obama was talking about. It is the system in place that lets you build your business. If it was a system of India, or Uganda, or Somalia you wouldn't have had the chance to do what you did. So what if the construction workers got paid? You didn't paid them. The government did, with the money it took from its taxpayers. You didn't pay your teachers to give you an education, the government did (assuming you went to public school...). Those things exist only because you have a system that builds them, and only because the system is there can you afford to spend money on other things, like building business. Obama (and also moderate socialists like the ones in power in Europe) don't want to take the credit for what you've done. They don't want to diminish your achievement. They want you to acknowledge that you didn't do it in a freaking vacuum. They want you to do your part in maintaining the great system by doing nothing else but paying your blasted taxes.
@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:
Look at Rome when it turned from a Republic to a Democracy.... It fell after it turned into a Democracy Nation.
Oh man the stupid in this burns. Spoiler alert: Rome was at its most prosperous and long lived as an absolutist monarchy where all power was concentrated in the hands of one man and his ruthless armies. ALL HAIL BARRACK I, KING OF AMERICA, EMPEROR OF HAWAII, GREATEST AND MOST EXCELLENT BRINGER OF PEACE AND HEALTH CARE. MAY HIS REALM STAND FOR A THOUSAND YEARS MORE!
FYI, Rome was never a democracy. It was always an oligarchy where the power was held by a small elite who barely allowed the people to vote, let alone do anything else. Now can you kindly look up the terms republic, democracy, capitalism and socialism? Because they don't mean what you think they mean.
@AtPhantom said:
@minigunman123 said:
I read one of the links you posted, the "politifact" one, and it's still wishy washy. Obama is still suggesting that you got there because the government, other people, led you to that wonderful place so that your innovation would work. I'm sure that Sir Isaac Newton, who did tons of research and revolutionized math and the way we look at the entire universe without government aid, would beg to disagree. In fact, I bet if he were still alive, Isaac would give credit to the mathematicians that came before, but he would demand that his work be credited for the marvel that it was - he invented whole new sections of math that we still use and build off of today, by himself. Almost no other mathematician was as (or has been as) brilliant, gifted, and prolific as he was. If your theory, your stance, your ideology, doesn't stand the test of time, and doesn't stand on it's own throughout all trials, it doesn't stand. The Republican sense of "you built your business, you get credit for what you built" works throughout time, by rewarding people for effort, encouraging growth.
I'm going to go to bed, I have to wake up in 6 hours.
Isaac Newton was a rich kid who barely had to work a day in his life and could devote every minute of his to figuring out the mysteries of the universe. He is precisely the kind of people who should be happy and thankful for the system in place that allowed him to prosper.
That is what Obama was talking about. It is the system in place that lets you build your business. If it was a system of India, or Uganda, or Somalia you wouldn't have had the chance to do what you did. So what if the construction workers got paid? You didn't paid them. The government did, with the money it took from its taxpayers. You didn't pay your teachers to give you an education, the government did (assuming you went to public school...). Those things exist only because you have a system that builds them, and only because the system is there can you afford to spend money on other things, like building business. Obama (and also moderate socialists like the ones in power in Europe) don't want to take the credit for what you've done. They don't want to diminish your achievement. They want you to acknowledge that you didn't do it in a freaking vacuum. They want you to do your part in maintaining the great system by doing nothing else but paying your blasted taxes.
@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:
Look at Rome when it turned from a Republic to a Democracy.... It fell after it turned into a Democracy Nation.
Oh man the stupid in this burns. Spoiler alert: Rome was at its most prosperous and long lived as an absolutist monarchy where all power was concentrated in the hands of one man and his ruthless armies. ALL HAIL BARRACK I, KING OF AMERICA, EMPEROR OF HAWAII, GREATEST AND MOST EXCELLENT BRINGER OF PEACE AND HEALTH CARE. MAY HIS REALM STAND FOR A THOUSAND YEARS MORE!
FYI, Rome was never a democracy. It was always an oligarchy where the power was held by a small elite who barely allowed the people to vote, let alone do anything else. Now can you kindly look up the terms republic, democracy, capitalism and socialism? Because they don't mean what you think they mean.
1. How about Socrates? The system is what killed him, for radical thinking. He was teaching people things the "system" didn't like, they executed him.
2. Could've sworn that's what taxes were for (you point this out, but fail to notice that taxpayers pay for government programs; this is why we have the right to vote on and decide where government money gets spent, often times, and why we get outraged when we thinking it's being spent on a bad program/thing.)
3. I never went to public school in my life, I was homeschooled and am now going to College, which has never been public in America. Basic teaching in lower schools means about squat. It can be important, but it's not actually as important as some people think; college is what helps gets you better jobs (last 6 years notwithstanding, because we've been in a depression), college is what teaches you the skills to actually function in a society of thinkers, it can give you the skills to create your own work or business, and it gives you the accreditation to acknowledge you know this (because most people don't know these things without going to college, only a few exceptional people out of a bunch of random citizens are that smart). Besides that, we also pay for lower schools, even the (usually) mediocre public school system. What did you think taxes were?
4. That's crap and you should know it, we all pay taxes, they don't want us to just pay our taxes, they want to take credit from the individual. What, are you telling me that they think we're allavoiding taxes because we're self centered jerks, and that speech was really about paying taxes? He never mentioned taxes in the entire, large quote, because it's not about taxes, it's about taking credit from people, specifically saying that "you didn't build that (on your own)" and that people weren't successful because they were smarter or harder working, they were lucky. How would he know we didn't build it on our own? How does he have any idea? People that build their own smart, independent businesses are way smarter than your average person, I've spoken to plenty of normal people and there are some smart ones and there are many more not-so-smart ones, but of the technology experts and business men I've spoke to (and there are quite a few), the intelligent ones from that group are smarter and quicker thinking, and the average ones are still not actually average, they are far above it, and if you're saying Obama is so ridiculous he thinks we're all the same and there's no such thing as "smart", but we all always work together and someone is never actually smarter than someone else, maybe he should have a conversation with an average community college student in the technology area, and then talk to, say, my Father. Guy's a genius. You can't just assume we're all the same, and people simply get lucky or helped by others more than other people were, when they are successful, because that is taking credit away just for the sake of taking credit away. You have over 300 million citizens, and less than 1% are millionaires and/or super successful. You're telling me, every single one of them got lucky, or took advantage of the system, without being intelligent or hard-working themselves? Hmm. I could've sworn it's because that many of them were intelligent and could market their skills and create something from it. Stock traders are partially luck, but majorly smart in math and statistics, and they're caught up in news. Nothing just happens by chance, there's always a reason, that reason is usually smarts, in this society. You deserve credit for where you are in life. If you're a billionaire businessman, you should get accredited with being smart, and hard working (people that are high powered in business, technology or law areas usually work 70-80 hours a week, sometimes more, and usually don't take weekends off at all; the average citizen seriously isn't as hard working as them). If you work in a factory somewhere producing God knows what, you get credit for almost nothing, because what you do is not noteworthy in the least, and nobody else cares, because almost anyone could do that job decently if they were handed it. Want credit for your job? Do something original. Make your own job like the guy who built Minecraft; there are so many areas where you can make your own job, it's not even funny. If you have a business, you built that. Just because we don't have the hostile environment some other countries have doesn't mean you didn't build your business.
This is my reaction to this thread...
@AtPhantom said:
@minigunman123 said:
I read one of the links you posted, the "politifact" one, and it's still wishy washy. Obama is still suggesting that you got there because the government, other people, led you to that wonderful place so that your innovation would work. I'm sure that Sir Isaac Newton, who did tons of research and revolutionized math and the way we look at the entire universe without government aid, would beg to disagree. In fact, I bet if he were still alive, Isaac would give credit to the mathematicians that came before, but he would demand that his work be credited for the marvel that it was - he invented whole new sections of math that we still use and build off of today, by himself. Almost no other mathematician was as (or has been as) brilliant, gifted, and prolific as he was. If your theory, your stance, your ideology, doesn't stand the test of time, and doesn't stand on it's own throughout all trials, it doesn't stand. The Republican sense of "you built your business, you get credit for what you built" works throughout time, by rewarding people for effort, encouraging growth.
I'm going to go to bed, I have to wake up in 6 hours.
Isaac Newton was a rich kid who barely had to work a day in his life and could devote every minute of his to figuring out the mysteries of the universe. He is precisely the kind of people who should be happy and thankful for the system in place that allowed him to prosper.
That is what Obama was talking about. It is the system in place that lets you build your business. If it was a system of India, or Uganda, or Somalia you wouldn't have had the chance to do what you did. So what if the construction workers got paid? You didn't paid them. The government did, with the money it took from its taxpayers. You didn't pay your teachers to give you an education, the government did (assuming you went to public school...). Those things exist only because you have a system that builds them, and only because the system is there can you afford to spend money on other things, like building business. Obama (and also moderate socialists like the ones in power in Europe) don't want to take the credit for what you've done. They don't want to diminish your achievement. They want you to acknowledge that you didn't do it in a freaking vacuum. They want you to do your part in maintaining the great system by doing nothing else but paying your blasted taxes.
@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:
Look at Rome when it turned from a Republic to a Democracy.... It fell after it turned into a Democracy Nation.
Oh man the stupid in this burns. Spoiler alert: Rome was at its most prosperous and long lived as an absolutist monarchy where all power was concentrated in the hands of one man and his ruthless armies. ALL HAIL BARRACK I, KING OF AMERICA, EMPEROR OF HAWAII, GREATEST AND MOST EXCELLENT BRINGER OF PEACE AND HEALTH CARE. MAY HIS REALM STAND FOR A THOUSAND YEARS MORE!
FYI, Rome was never a democracy. It was always an oligarchy where the power was held by a small elite who barely allowed the people to vote, let alone do anything else. Now can you kindly look up the terms republic, democracy, capitalism and socialism? Because they don't mean what you think they mean.
Resulting to the insult of one's intelligence, but the facts still remain.
- Rome adopted the idea of a Republic from Greek.
- The Republic limited Government so that people lived free enough to prosper and allow Rome to raise economically
- While the city states grew bringing the abundance of new people and joining of newer younger politicians were added and therefore Government became bigger adding new laws and taking away (ignoring) the fundamental laws.
- The new power Senates used these laws to socialize amongst themselves to give whomever they wanted to have one power and take away from another. They called it democracy, but the rich were the ones who ruled the majority.
- Taxes increase and productivity declined
- The people realized and rebelled in democracy
- The mobs plundered Rome
- And democracy became Anarchy
- And in order for the democratic nation to fix up their mess they appointed the Dictator whom fought for these people. (who were convinced by self-proclaimed dictator Julius)
- After Julius assassination. The people as demos (people) and Kratian (to Rule) started to stir up again. But it could not fly. If all people rule, there are too many contradictions of ideals that it fell and ultimately resulting to an emperor to keep all the people in check.
So Rome had in fact at one point of multiple times became a democratic nation. Why do you think they had Civil Wars? They didn't have Civil Wars for no reason. There was a friction of democracy and oligarchy and the Republic was in between them.
As for your last statement.
- Republic/Democracy = Policy of Law
- Capitalism/Socialism = Policy of Economics
They go hand in hand.
Apparently I got responded to, in this thread, but the response was deleted. Second time that's happened lol. Wondering what's up with that.
@minigunman123 said:
Apparently I got responded to, in this thread, but the response was deleted. Second time that's happened lol. Wondering what's up with that.
I did that. I accidentally hit send before my post was complete so I deleted it. And now I have to type the whole thing over again...
I only did it once though.
@AtPhantom said:
@minigunman123 said:
Apparently I got responded to, in this thread, but the response was deleted. Second time that's happened lol. Wondering what's up with that.
I did that. I accidentally hit send before my post was complete so I deleted it. And now I have to type the whole thing over again...
Ah.
Well about Socrates, my point was that systems don't have to help anyone for the people to be able to be successful or productive members of the world. Socrates got killed for being a genius and proposing new ideas, by the government he lived in. He's one example of many martyrs that occurred before. While martyrdom is not necessarily common in the USA, there are plenty of times the system hinders people in many ways, including but not limited to allowing others to abuse the system against yourself. Even in crappy systems such as Russia or China, they have many extremely successful and brilliant people that flourish relatively well in there and have an impact on the world around them. The system is not responsible for individuals seizing opportunity and being willing and able to make the best result from it.
So I'll cut out the first part of my post and replace it with what you responded on Socrates:
@minigunman123 said:
Well about Socrates, my point was that systems don't have to help anyone for the people to be able to be successful or productive members of the world. Socrates got killed for being a genius and proposing new ideas, by the government he lived in. He's one example of many martyrs that occurred before. While martyrdom is not necessarily common in the USA, there are plenty of times the system hinders people in many ways, including but not limited to allowing others to abuse the system against yourself. Even in crappy systems such as Russia or China, they have many extremely successful and brilliant people that flourish relatively well in there and have an impact on the world around them. The system is not responsible for individuals seizing opportunity and being willing and able to make the best result from it.
What was Socrates a martyr for though? And why weren't hundreds of other philosophers made martyrs too? Why was Socrates even allowed to do what he did for long? How did he get exposed to the ideas that helped him form his philosophy? Why weren't his students killed as well? What ideas got him killed?
You're just taking a random example of a miscarriage of justice and making it seem like grand stand of a great man against a society that hated him, when it was nothing of the sort. Socrates wasn't executed because he was a genius and had radical ideas. He was executed because he made enemies out of powerful people. So yeah. The system can be used against you. This is quite obvious. It however, has no bearing on the matter of the necessity of the system itself.
@minigunman123 said:
3. I never went to public school in my life, I was homeschooled and am now going to College, which has never been public in America. Basic teaching in lower schools means about squat. It can be important, but it's not actually as important as some people think; college is what helps gets you better jobs (last 6 years notwithstanding, because we've been in a depression), college is what teaches you the skills to actually function in a society of thinkers, it can give you the skills to create your own work or business, and it gives you the accreditation to acknowledge you know this (because most people don't know these things without going to college, only a few exceptional people out of a bunch of random citizens are that smart). Besides that, we also pay for lower schools, even the (usually) mediocre public school system. What did you think taxes were?
Fair enough. You are, however, an exception then, and not the norm. And I wouldn't be too hasty to dismiss elementary education. Even if you consider it nothing more than an orientation to decide what you want to do in college, it performs an important function.
Now you assume I forgot about it. No, you misunderstand, that is precisely my point. You (Hypothetical business-owning individual) did not pay the teachers, or the road workers, or the builders or any public service providers. The tax payers did. Of course, as a diligent person you are a tax payer, so you had a share in their funding, but you personally cannot take credit for it. No one man, personally, can take credit for them. You can take any single individual out of the and it would make no difference. Take away the system, however, and the services disappear with it. Hence 'you didn't build it', because you didn't. The American people as a whole did, and they did it through the government. Without the system in place that takes money from people and invests it in infrastructure, none of the things that everyone benefits from would be build.
@minigunman123 said:
4. That's crap and you should know it, we all pay taxes, they don't want us to just pay our taxes, they want to take credit from the individual. What, are you telling me that they think we're allavoiding taxes because we're self centered jerks, and that speech was really about paying taxes? He never mentioned taxes in the entire, large quote, because it's not about taxes, it's about taking credit from people, specifically saying that "you didn't build that (on your own)" and that people weren't successful because they were smarter or harder working, they were lucky. How would he know we didn't build it on our own? How does he have any idea? People that build their own smart, independent businesses are way smarter than your average person, I've spoken to plenty of normal people and there are some smart ones and there are many more not-so-smart ones, but of the technology experts and business men I've spoke to (and there are quite a few), the intelligent ones from that group are smarter and quicker thinking, and the average ones are still not actually average, they are far above it, and if you're saying Obama is so ridiculous he thinks we're all the same and there's no such thing as "smart", but we all always work together and someone is never actually smarter than someone else, maybe he should have a conversation with an average community college student in the technology area, and then talk to, say, my Father. Guy's a genius. You can't just assume we're all the same, and people simply get lucky or helped by others more than other people were, when they are successful, because that is taking credit away just for the sake of taking credit away. You have over 300 million citizens, and less than 1% are millionaires and/or super successful. You're telling me, every single one of them got lucky, or took advantage of the system, without being intelligent or hard-working themselves? Hmm. I could've sworn it's because that many of them were intelligent and could market their skills and create something from it. Stock traders are partially luck, but majorly smart in math and statistics, and they're caught up in news. Nothing just happens by chance, there's always a reason, that reason is usually smarts, in this society. You deserve credit for where you are in life. If you're a billionaire businessman, you should get accredited with being smart, and hard working (people that are high powered in business, technology or law areas usually work 70-80 hours a week, sometimes more, and usually don't take weekends off at all; the average citizen seriously isn't as hard working as them). If you work in a factory somewhere producing God knows what, you get credit for almost nothing, because what you do is not noteworthy in the least, and nobody else cares, because almost anyone could do that job decently if they were handed it. Want credit for your job? Do something original. Make your own job like the guy who built Minecraft; there are so many areas where you can make your own job, it's not even funny. If you have a business, you built that. Just because we don't have the hostile environment some other countries have doesn't mean you didn't build your business.
Of course it's all about taxes. This whole thing is about taxes. Because this entire election has been framed in this retarded context of Makers vs Moochers and the question of 'Does the government have the right to take money from people who earned it with their own hard work and spend it on everyone?' That question right there is the heart and soul and crux of the argument between left and right in America right now, and Obama was there to tell you 'Yes' Because that's how society works. Because there are some things individuals cannot do. Some things the system must do for them, or they won't get done.
Look, if you're a business owner (Hypothetically again, not you in person), good on ya. Nobody is trying to take that from you. Nobody is saying you got lucky. Nobody is saying you weren't smart. Nobody is saying you didn't work hard. Nobody is saying you skipped on your taxes. I'm not saying it and Obama didn't say that, and nobody is actually making a deal out of that.
But if you did build a business, you benefited from the system more than those who didn't. Because you need roads not only to drive yourself, but to have your goods driven. Because you need healthcare not only for yourself but to keep your employes productive. Because you need teachers to supply you with workforce. Because you need the police to protect not only you and your personal property, but your investments as well. The more you prosper and advance, the more ingrained into the system you become and the more your interest lies with the well being and strengthening of the system, because suddenly you stand a lot more to loose if the system falls.
And that's what Obama was about. Yes, there are things you didn't build. There are things the taxpayers had to band together to pay for, and those things make everyone's lives easier, especially the business owners. That's why everyone should maintain the system. That's why the system shouldn't just be dismantled and replaced with private enterprise. That's why you shouldn't feel entitled to paying less (Or hell, even equal) of your share than the rest just because you own a business you built with your hands. That's why governments exist and why they're necessary.
@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:
Resulting to the insult of one's intelligence, but the facts still remain.
I didn't insult your intelligence. I insulted the intelligence of your post. And I stand by that. To wit:
Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Republic means the highest office of power is electable rather than hereditary. Republics can be either oligarchies, where power is held by a minority, or democracies, where it's held by a majority. From 509 to 27 BC Rome was a republic, but it was never, ever a democracy.
@minigunman123 said:
@Magethor said:
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
@minigun You sir have brought up points that most people would ignore due to the brainwashing in the states and overall globe. I happen to agree with most if not all your points. It's about time real change started in instead of the bile the president keeps ejecting every time he opens his mouth in public. I'm tired of jerks like the one writing this letter who slander and whine like per-schoolers before a nap.I agree with him as well.
"Him" being the writer of the letter, or me?
Also, I didn't see these responses because CV didn't message me about them, derp.
@WillPayton said:
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
@WillPayton:
The definition of slander I've learned through school is that it's pretty much a lesser form of Defamation of Character. I've seen it happen to Rush Limbaugh all the time, even though he always apologizes if he goes over the rail and people call him on it (remember the Sandra Fluke ting awhile back?)
Also, I'm way too tired to find quotes on it right now. XP It's pretty much midnight as I write this.
Yup, midnight here too. And you're right... I should be going to sleep as well instead of posting on CV... =)
Arghh, just dont get me started on Rush. LOL...
Well, one instance could be where he basically said if you have a business or company or are in charge of any group of people, product, or any such thing where you're not simply a mook working for everyone else, you "didn't build that". I'm sorry, I didn't build the thing that I... Well... Built? Just because there were other innovations that came before, doesn't mean I didn't build the one that didn't exist without me. Bill Gates, for example, does not owe all his success or wealth or anything at all, to the descendents of Thomas Eddison or Nichola Tesla, just because they were instrumental in electricity and it's discovery/initial use. They were instrumental in modern technology; they get credit for that. They are awesome people. Bill Gates was equally as awesome. Let credit stand on it's own based on the complexity and quality of it's own individual merit. An original innovation that does nobody any actual good (say, astrology) is worth far less credit than, say, computers, even though electricity had to be discovered by other guys, for computers to work.
That's one big example of something absolutely ludicrous that Obama said, and believes in.
I meant I agree with you; Not the writer of the letter.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment