Obama: If you got a business, you didn't build that!

[apple0154]

Nobody said you had to give it all away. Just adopt one poor family. Surely you can afford it.

I wouldn't laugh at you for setting an example.

All you just did was justify your own greed. You are like every other full of shit liberal I have ever met. You talk the talk but won't walk the walk..when asked to live up to the standards you espouse you puss out.

Quite the contrary. Liberals like me vote for people who believe in helping others. We are aware that if our candidate gets in we might be paying more taxes or see other programs cut. We also want to ensure everyone contributes. Nothing worse than a free rider, right?

 

[apple0154]

They have roads and schools and cops in Somalia so where are the entrepreneurs dumbass

You tell me. Are you suggesting no one in the entire country is ambitious or intelligent?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Quite the contrary. Liberals like me vote for people who believe in helping others. We are aware that if our candidate gets in we might be paying more taxes or see other programs cut. We also want to ensure everyone contributes. Nothing worse than a free rider, right?

So you do nothing more than outsource your so called compassion. I know libfucks like you. You sit around with your pious liberal friends wringing your hands about the plight of the downtrodden. You wax poetic about how the government should do something. You individually you never lift a finger. Yet you have the nerve to consider yourself compassionate while you call for others to carry load.

A perfect example is the litany of liberal politicians who don't give shit to charity. I suspect you are no different.

You are like all liberals who take every single tax deduction afforded to you just like Romney does, yet you claim to want to be taxed higher. Only difference between you and Romney is that he is generous with his own money and he isn't jealous of YOU

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You tell me. Are you suggesting no one in the entire country is ambitious or intelligent?

I am saying that using your Dear Leaders thought process Somalia should be loaded with people starting small businesses. They have roads, cops and teachers; all those things you libs say are necessary to start a business. According to you, nothing else matters

 

[Althea]

I did some research, because I knew that Jefferson had nixed the idea in 1800, and I thought from that point on, the idea was proposed to the state legislature. Turns out, in 1817, there was a vote by Congress to appropriate Federal funds to NY for the purpose of a canal, and PRESIDENT MADISON A JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRAT (NOT MONROE ANTI-FEDERALIST) vetoed the bill. You will recall Madison, the man who WROTE the fucking Constitution?

"More than happy to" is not how you would describe their vote.

I like to do research BEFORE I make any claims. Your claims below:

post 110

Most of the necessary roads and bridges were (and still are) built by capitalists. It's an amazing thing when you unbridle and unleash capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit of mankind, great things happen

post 167

But the government didn't think it was a good idea, they thought it was a STUPID idea that wouldn't work! CAPITALISTS thought it was a good idea.

post 193

The Federal government REFUSED to do this. (If that word is too difficult to grasp, let me know?)

I'm sure there are others.

You live on Wiki. I don't use them for most topics. In this link, you will find info about the Erie Canal.

Once the route and plans for the canal were established, it was time to obtain funds. The United States Congress easily approved a bill to provide funding for what was then known as the Great Western Canal but President James Monroe found the idea unconstitutional and vetoed it. Therefore, the New York State legislature took the matter into its own hands and approved state funding for the canal in 1816, with tolls to pay back the state treasury for upon completion

.

Romney, another anti Federalist, would've vetoed the bill too.

And that's the reason for this thread. Exposing Romney's distortions, and his economic philosophy that would further hinder progress in this country.

 

[apple0154]

So you do nothing more than outsource your so called compassion. I know libfucks like you. You sit around with your pious liberal friends wringing your hands about the plight of the downtrodden. You wax poetic about how the government should do something. You individually you never lift a finger. Yet you have the nerve to consider yourself compassionate while you call for others to carry load.

A perfect example is the litany of liberal politicians who don't give shit to charity. I suspect you are no different.

You are like all liberals who take every single tax deduction afforded to you just like Romney does, yet you claim to want to be taxed higher. Only difference between you and Romney is that he is generous with his own money and he isn't jealous of YOU

Why do you keep repeating Liberal individuals do nothing when they voted in the current President? If Liberals didn't want to help the needy they wouldn't have voted for a President that does. Is that so difficult to understand?

 

[apple0154]

I am saying that using your Dear Leaders thought process Somalia should be loaded with people starting small businesses. They have roads, cops and teachers; all those things you libs say are necessary to start a business. According to you, nothing else matters

Huh? Of course other things matter. Clean water. Electricity. Proper housing. Do you expect someone the be thinking about inventions when they have to figure out where supper is coming from?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I like to do research BEFORE I make any claims.

Well you might better check your sources:

Once the route and plans for the canal were established, it was time to obtain funds. The United States Congress easily approved a bill to provide funding for what was then known as the Great Western Canal but President James Monroe found the idea unconstitutional and vetoed it. Therefore, the New York State legislature took the matter into its own hands and approved state funding for the canal in 1816, with tolls to pay back the state treasury for upon completion

James Monroe was President from March 4, 1817 to March 4, 1825, how did he veto a bill in 1816?

Romney, another anti Federalist, would've vetoed the bill too.

The bill was vetoed by President Madison*, a Jeffersonian-Democrat... who found it unconstitutional.

* aka: James Madison, Father of the Constitution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I researched more on Monroe and found this, maybe it has something to do with it...

Monroe vetoed the Cumberland Road Bill, which provided for yearly improvements to the road, because he believed it to be unconstitutional for the government to have such a large hand in what was essentially a civics bill deserving of attention on a state by state basis.

And Monroe was not anti-Federalist, he was a Federalist who believed in amendments to the Constitution, and was instrumental in getting the Bill of Rights.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Huh? Of course other things matter. Clean water. Electricity. Proper housing. Do you expect someone the be thinking about inventions when they have to figure out where supper is coming from?

Wow.. I don't think Thomas Edison had electricity when he was inventing. Or Ben Franklin, for that matter... but it didn't seem to hinder them much.

 

[apple0154]

Wow.. I don't think Thomas Edison had electricity when he was inventing. Or Ben Franklin, for that matter... but it didn't seem to hinder them much.

And how many Edisons and Franklins were there?

Remember, you said those countries don't have a lot of entrepreneurs. How many entrepreneurs were there in Edison's and Franklin's day? Why do you think inventions/ideas come along quicker today? Could it be the people have access to more of life's conveniences and are able to spend more time thinking instead of working?

As a co-worker once told me the reason we're not rich is because we spend too much time working instead of thinking of ways of become wealthy. I couldn't argue with that.

 

[j-mac]

Here’s a rough excerpt of his speech. Start at 52:30 to 53:40. “There was a teacher somewhere along the way. Somebody created this American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. You never built that.

The internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the internet so companies can make money off the internet.”



First you ask, "Tell me, what examples did he use that were not government connected?" and then post "The newspaper you advertise in is not free. The Print shop is likewise neither free, nor government invented. In fact you have just made the argument where Obama was dead wrong."

That's exactly what I was referring to when I wrote, "I think one way Obama's comment has been misinterpeted is it's not just the government that has helped people. It's other people and businesses that have helped."

I think you're a bit confused.

It costs money to get a truck to move your goods but there wouldn’t be any trucks if there weren’t any roads. You couldn’t advertise in a newspaper if there weren’t any newspapers.

You wrote, “The Print shop is likewise neither free, nor government invented.”

That’s exactly my point! It’s not just government. Many people have helped businesses thrive. The person who built the truck adds refrigeration so one can move produce. There would be neither trucks nor refrigerated trucks if there weren’t any roads.

Restaurants thrive because the goods are fresh. Imagine a truck load of fish in an unrefrigerated truck going from LA to NY in the current heat wave.

Ok, but these other businesses didn't do this so that they could benefit society on a purely altruistic level. They invented these things because the free market demanded them, and money could be made. See, where Obama misses the mark here, is that he is anti free market therefore gives examples of governmental control as if without that nothing could exist...

That is laughable.

You like to use roads as an example of your premise, but see, roads are constitutionally mandated. I don't think anyone holds issue with the government spending on roads. It is when the constitutional powers are cast aside in favor of the whims, and dictates of one party or another that rubs people the wrong way.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And how many Edisons and Franklins were there?

Remember, you said those countries don't have a lot of entrepreneurs. How many entrepreneurs were there in Edison's and Franklin's day? Why do you think inventions/ideas come along quicker today? Could it be the people have access to more of life's conveniences and are able to spend more time thinking instead of working?

As a co-worker once told me the reason we're not rich is because we spend too much time working instead of thinking of ways of become wealthy. I couldn't argue with that.

I don't think ideas and inventions 'come along' any quicker than they ever have. How many patents has the US Patent office issued, any idea? I suspect, as technology has advanced, new inventions are born at a consistent rate, regardless of surrounding infrastructure or capability, and sometimes... FOR THAT VERY REASON ITSELF! One thing I do know, the ideas and inventions don't come from government. While government can do many things to encourage and enable invention, it can also do many things to hinder and obstruct invention. I have no problem with encouraging and/or enabling, but you seek to mask something as if it were concluded to be doing this, when it's not. You view what you are doing as encouraging, but it is obstructing instead. Regulations and mandates generally obstruct invention, or the realization of capitalist success from them...same difference. What is the purpose of inventing and creating if you can't prosper from your ideas? If you have a government that will steal your ideas and give you nothing, why should you share that with them, or with society?

 

[gui1tars]

Ok, but these other businesses didn't do this so that they could benefit society on a purely altruistic level. They invented these things because the free market demanded them, and money could be made. See, where Obama misses the mark here, is that he is anti free market therefore gives examples of governmental control as if without that nothing could exist...

That is laughable.

You like to use roads as an example of your premise, but see, roads are constitutionally mandated. I don't think anyone holds issue with the government spending on roads. It is when the constitutional powers are cast aside in favor of the whims, and dictates of one party or another that rubs people the wrong way.

President Barack Hussein Obama does not believe anything of the kind but just common sense tells any interested person that a well educated, organized and regulated society better creates an environment for invention, markets and entrepreneurship than any other alternative as yet observed. One person does not live in a vacuum and only an idiot would try to excuse his ignorance with such a claim.

You are laughable.

 

[j-mac]

And how many Edisons and Franklins were there?

Remember, you said those countries don't have a lot of entrepreneurs. How many entrepreneurs were there in Edison's and Franklin's day? Why do you think inventions/ideas come along quicker today? Could it be the people have access to more of life's conveniences and are able to spend more time thinking instead of working?

As a co-worker once told me the reason we're not rich is because we spend too much time working instead of thinking of ways of become wealthy. I couldn't argue with that.

They don't...The improvements you see in today's world are largely modifications on existing products. Think about it...The 20th century saw the greatest advances spurred by free market demand than ever in history, now I know that the 21st century just started but what great advances are we striving for? i-Phone 5? Solar power? Wind? What's next, horse drawn carriages?

Give me a break.

 

[gui1tars]

They don't...The improvements you see in today's world are largely modifications on existing products. Think about it...The 20th century saw the greatest advances spurred by free market demand than ever in history, now I know that the 21st century just started but what great advances are we striving for? i-Phone 5? Solar power? Wind? What's next, horse drawn carriages?


Give me a break.

I dunno. Telepathy, time and space travel, end of starvation ring any bells to you?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And how many Edisons and Franklins were there?

Well there was only one Edison and one Franklin, but there were thousands of people who invented things when we introduced the Industrial Revolution. And there have been countless thousands more since then, all the way up to now, where we have actual companies devoted to matching inventors with capitalists!

They have never NEEDED something to exist to invent... sometimes, the fact that something DOESN'T exist, is the inspiration FOR their invention!

Now, your point is... It's easier for some scientist to invent (develop) a pill in a proper lab which is built by the government and provided for him to do this... and I can see your point, and I can even agree to some extent, we do need to have some level of governmental funding into certain research in medicine. But why should government fund the invention of a pill to make men have multiple orgasms like women, when capitalists would be more than willing to do that? You see, in most cases, if the invention is a good idea, capitalists are all over it! That's kinda what they do!

The problem is, government. When you place government in between the inventor and the capitalist, and block their attempt to profit and succeed, you stifle their creative spirit in a way you can't even imagine. They just don't feel compelled to create shit anymore, and so they don't... and you're stuck. Because, without inventions and capitalists, you really don't have any source of income as a government. Governments don't have Jobs.

 

[j-mac]

I dunno. Telepathy, time and space travel, end of starvation ring any bells to you?

so tell me, when will Time travel be commercially available? LOL....

 

[gui1tars]

so tell me, when will Time travel be commercially available? LOL....

Einstein said it was possible. I don't doubt that. Why do you? LOL......

 

[gui1tars]

Well there was only one Edison and one Franklin, but there were thousands of people who invented things when we introduced the Industrial Revolution. And there have been countless thousands more since then, all the way up to now, where we have actual companies devoted to matching inventors with capitalists!

They have never NEEDED something to exist to invent... sometimes, the fact that something DOESN'T exist, is the inspiration FOR their invention!

Now, your point is... It's easier for some scientist to invent (develop) a pill in a proper lab which is built by the government and provided for him to do this... and I can see your point, and I can even agree to some extent, we do need to have some level of governmental funding into certain research in medicine. But why should government fund the invention of a pill to make men have multiple orgasms like women, when capitalists would be more than willing to do that? You see, in most cases, if the invention is a good idea, capitalists are all over it! That's kinda what they do!

The problem is, government. When you place government in between the inventor and the capitalist, and block their attempt to profit and succeed, you stifle their creative spirit in a way you can't even imagine. They just don't feel compelled to create shit anymore, and so they don't... and you're stuck. Because, without inventions and capitalists, you really don't have any source of income as a government. Governments don't have Jobs.

Societies rarely DEMAND inventions or entrepreneurship. Inventors and entrepreneurs do their work and market their products in whatever market they can find. Including very repressive markets like China or the main parts of Africa. The inability to adapt to existing markets has meant the failure of millions of inventors, inventions and entrepreneurs.

Governments don't have jobs? That further exemplifies your total ignorance, dicklicker.