Barack Obama went off-teleprompter a couple of days ago and gave us a rare glimpse into his, oh, what shall I call it? What's the word? He gave us a glimpse into his....mind.
The problem with his thinking, of course, is that he assumes that if government didn't build the roads and bridges, they wouldn't get built. What a disastrous little man. He's a parasite that thinks he's a host.
I went on Facebook last night and started saving the parodies that my friends were posting. I suspect people will be producing them for years.
And the greatest one EVER....
If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.Hit the link to read the whole thing.
The problem with his thinking, of course, is that he assumes that if government didn't build the roads and bridges, they wouldn't get built. What a disastrous little man. He's a parasite that thinks he's a host.
I went on Facebook last night and started saving the parodies that my friends were posting. I suspect people will be producing them for years.
And the greatest one EVER....
32 comments:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/7mqL6.jpg[/img]
You are intentionally taking that out of context and you know it. Obama was talking about the roads and bridges, and critical infrastructure. The reason companies are able to be the economic engines they are today is because of government contractors building roads, etc.
If Obama was talking about infastructure then he should have said that in the first place. He only started talking about government and it's role in providing the infrastructure after he felt the backlash from his original position.
It takes more than a government build road to make a company an economic engine.
context motherfucker.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q4uvk/
do you understand it?
" Anonymous said...
context motherfucker.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q4uvk/
do you understand it?"
English words leftie, do you understand them? Even in context his comment makes no sense and you know it.
@Anonymous - And none of those companies and individuals paid taxes for those roads and bridges? Government came up with the money ex nihilo?
@ Anonymous no.2
Oh Noes! He made fun of of Obama.
Stop being so butthurt.
NO only the Businesses built the businesses, paid the employees and created success but they gave money to the goverment so that they can buy themself a clue...!
(Joaquin from Spain..)
haha. Cause there were no roadz or bridgez before the government built them with money they got from...where exactly?
Guys, guys, guys....The government took money from people, kept some for themselves and their supporters, and then used the rest to build the roads that surround the businesses in question.
Government does play a role in success.
But mostly they're a collection of shakedown artists and speedbumps.
Using the infrastructure as a reason to purport that business people do not do it own their own is absurd. First the roads were built by settlers then by private entrepeneurs who built toll roads once their was enough commerce developed by private individuals the government taxed that business and built more roads. No one took this out of context what the
President said in fact it is spot on! If you were NOT there at the Roanoke, Virginia campaign you should shut your mouth! He most certainly met BUSINESS MEN DID NOT BUILD THEIR OWN WEALTH. ANONYOUS YOUR FILTHY WORDS REVEAL ALL ABOUT YOU. UNEDUCATED TWIT.
Idiots! Using the infrastructure as an excuse for obama behaving badly when he says no one built it alone. The roads were built by settlers, then by entrepeneurs who built toll roads when commerce grew great enough government stepped in and taxed commerce using some of the money to build roads. Which came first? Business before government. the road is opened to all the successful and the unsuccessful. Unless you were in that firehouse and heard his speech shut your mouths for he truly said in Roanake , Virgina , " if you built your business you did not build that"
hog wash this is to be expected from a man who never held a real job where he was not coddled by labor unions and academia. He is such a loser his own brother lives in a hut in Kenya and receives no help from him. Look up George Obama. Read history, stop listening to the left liberal who want to keep you enslaved groveling for handouts from the government. They want your vote .
Sepulchre: That is irrelevant. Businesses have been doing fine long before government started overcharging for road construction. Government does nothing for business other than defense and security which it does for all citizens so again irrelevant. Trying to be nice to a Marxist enemy of state is futile at best and dangerous at worst.
Um even if the state "builds" infrastructure, it is done by private companies that are contracted by the state. The state does not build them. What the state does is steal your money, then give contracts to business owners that give politicians and bureaucrats kickbacks for the contracts.
Businessmen should face Washington, kneel down, and howl their thanks to Obama.
But the Occupiers, welfare bums, lazy union goons, and other assorted leftwing swine don't need to show any form of apreciation to those of us who fill the trough for them....
Stan
Come at me bro
Sure government may have built the roads and bridges BUT governments have NO MONEY - the only money they have it money that people give them through taxes. Businesses earn revenue and are taxed and then the government can do something to support the business. That's it - that's all!!!
If the government thinks that they build business - show me ONE successful government business that wasn't a monopoly or where people were FORCED to buy their product (driver's licenses etc.!!)
Actually, Steve Jobs didn't build the computer, Woz did.
If I recall correctly, Daniel Boone blazed the Wilderness Trail through the Cumberland Gap for the Transylvania Company, a private enterprise, and founded Boonesville, one of the first permanent settlements in the West.
The Oregon Trail, Bozeman Trail, California Trail, and Mormon Trail were also blazed by private citizens who built improved roads, barges, ferries, and bridges. Government's only contribution came later with forts. The entire western US was settled without much governmental assistance. The government supposedly had legal claim, but it had no way to enforce or capitalize on the claim, so it granted parcels for development.
So let's be clear: government played the role of sovereign, but it had very little to do with more than a century of westward expansion. In fact, when territories formed into states, they were drawn into the partisan squabbles of Washington DC.
The military support against foreign empires and savage Indians came dozens of years after enterprising citizens tamed the frontier. Both the US government and foreign governments craved the wealth and power being developed in the West. DC treated the frontier as a source of revenue and votes to exploit, not a civic duty to protect. Back then, we were far closer to our Constitutional roots. People understood they didn't live at the permission of government.
Apart from irrelevant squabbling over a phrase quoted out of its context and siezed upon... Gov't needs to be smaller. No doubt. Most of us are paying too much tax. Agreed. So, you can vote GOP, where the ULTRA rich (read: they make more than you) own the government, and therefore essentially write policies that protect their profits at the expense of the nation's prosperity, the environment, public health, etc. while paying an effective tax rate of about 14%. In the meantime, people in my family are paying close to 40%. Or you can vote Dem, where they attempt to invest some money into projects that help ensure a bright future for as many as possible (and there is a cost, no doubt). If the dems got their way, and didn't have to deal with senseless obstructionism, we'd have sensible business regulations, environmental protections, a single payer healthcare system, a fair tax code and reasonable social programs.
The problem as I see it is that the GOP sabotages every useful piece of legislature under the guise of fiscal responsibility, when their true intention is to screw everyone but their elite buddies/owners. If you look at truly socialist states, the Republican party seems much closer to that kind of ideal. An tiny elite class that protects themselves and tells everyone else how to live their lives? That manipulates the uneducated with propaganda, enticing them to believe that they're working for their best interest while systematically oppressing them? Looks pretty GOP to me.
I understand that most here are libertarian-minded. I sympathize with your goals of shrinking government spending and involvement in our day to day lives. Really. In the world of reality, how do we do that while effectively regulating business (because history teaches us over and over again that pure capitalism doesn't work. People are flawed, rules need to be in place.), protecting our environment and public health, and being good human beings?
Let's frame the discussion about where the government shouldn't be involved. Frankly, most people complaining about social programs come off as heartless. I don't think that most simply don't care about people who need help, but that the real issue is that individuals should take responsibility for helping those in need, rather than the government taking a forced contribution.
While I don't agree with some of what Obama's goals are, I understand that he's the president, and I beleive my God when He says that He is responsible for appointing leaders of nations in their due times. I think Obama is incredibly bold, and is the first president we've had in a while who really cares about the nation. You certainly can't make a legitimate argument that he's setting policy to line the pockets of his owners, like you can about Romney.
Frankly, I think Romney is a remorseless liar with no experience doing what needs doing. When Newt Gengrich tells people that they should vote Obama over Romney, and McCain says Palin was a better candidate than Romney, the idea that his winning the presidency would be disastrous for our country has to at least cross your mind.
Give us all a break, Jeff H!
The GOP is NOT the party of the super-rich. The median income of Republicans is nearly the same as the median income of Democrats.
During the last two presidential elections, those earning over $1 million per year voted slightly in favor of Republicans, but those earning over $10 million per year voted HEAVILY in favor of Democrats.
The list of Heavy Hitters on OpenSecrets.org is dominated at the top by Democrat PACs and Labor Unions, NOT large corporations (with the exception of AT&T). For those few powerful corporations at the top, they break heavily into campaign donations for Democrats, e.g. Goldman Sachs.
So you can unload your wheelbarrow full of bullshit about the Republicans being the "party of the rich" somewhere else. They didn't take control of the House because middle class people were duped into voting against their own interests.
There is no evidence whatsoever that there is any difference, on average, in either income or education between Democrat and Republican voters in general.
Supporting a proportional (flat) tax which would greatly reduce marginal tax rates for the rich is NOT about favoring the wealthy. It's about fundamental FAIRNESS and EQUALITY for all taxpayers. Those of us who support flat taxes also support ending many corporate subsidies and unnecessary spending.
Those of us who favor reduced social welfare payments are NOT hostile toward the poor. We understand that their perpetual dependence on government is part of the reason they remain in poverty.
I grew up in a lower-middle class family and became dirt poor in my late teens/early 20s. I earn above-average wages because of an advanced education and lots of experience, but by no means am I rich.
In fact, only two things stand between me and financial security. 1)ONEROUS TAXES that prevent me from saving as much as I would like. 2) Government bureaucracy, favoritism, cronyism, and incompetence that has impeded my achievement and burdened me unnecessarily.
ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS! KEEP THE COLLECTION GOING!!
Context? He didnt build any context for this....so stop preaching about context!
Back to obama's statement - he misses the point. The teacher he talked about (as a proxy for the education system) and the infrastructure he mentioned are available to everyone. So why ain't everyone rich?
Because some people are smarter or work harder than others. That's what really irritates progressives.
Ahh, the myth of the self-made man. Amazing how some people think magnificent rich guys got there without labor doing the actual work, without architects or engineers or suppliers, without infrastructure or clients or anyone but the blowhard on top talking about how he did it all, all by himself.
Dear Obama defenders,
what is the proper context for saying " 'If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen'
Go ahead, I'm listening
To those who claim that evil rich people are republicans,
"...An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats. Furthermore, if you look at it from a “family” point of view and not as indivisuals, thereby eliminating duplication caused by people from the same family being included in that Top 20 list (Wal-Mart & Koch) that ratio widens even further to:
25% Republican / 75% Democrat..."
Read the whole thing - and have your head explode if you are a democrat - at,
http://newamericangazette.com/2011/01/politics/top-20-richest-people-democrats/
"Ahh, the myth of the self-made man. Amazing how some people think magnificent rich guys got there without labor doing the actual work, without architects or engineers or suppliers, without infrastructure or clients or anyone but the blowhard on top talking about how he did it all, all by himself."
Who hires the labor? Who pays for the services of the architects or engineers or scientists or suppliers? The 'rich' guy.
And how did he get 'rich'? By identifying a good or service that the clients were willing to pay for, and then providing it.
To do so he leveraged the abilities and skills of other people, but he also compensated them for their services.
That's how successful businesses are built.
Sounds like more than a myth to me.
Dear folks who think that Obama was referring to roads and bridges: You don't understand the meaning of "context". In context, Obama was saying that people who built businesses didn't really build those businesses. It was a horrible blunder on his part.
All,
How many loans did government employees, contractors, direct laborers, teachers, cops and firement took out loans against their houses in order to finance the business of your employer?
Well, why don't we look at what government really does in cooperation with businesses, in order to help them succeed:
http://www.dailywealth.com/1449/This-Is-Why-There-Are-No-Jobs-in-America
Oh, gee, businesses that succeed do so in spite of government rather than because of it.
Who'dve guessed...
Most folks miss the point of the "organizer" like Henry Ford. ALmost every guy who went to work at Ford's first plant in Dearborn was hanging around Dearborn in the weeks and months before Ford started up the plant. So why didn't they, the labor force, spontaneously appear on the scene as the Dearborn Motor Company.
Oh wait, I know. They really did have the Dearborn Motor Company, and that sneaky bastard Henry crept in the night before they opened and put his name on it, thereby stealing their labor!! Yeah, that's it!! And none of them noticed until it was too late.
Right.
Post a Comment