I guess I don’t know what you mean by “minimize.” To me, that would mean making it have as little import as possible–and the least possible import is no import.
But what do you mean by “minimize?” And why do you think he’s doing that rather than (doing what he seems to me to be doing, which is) attempting to make it seem less important than it currently seems to some people?
I think I may have said this before, but I’m not sure: I am much more likely to do amazing things when I believe I have support. If I don’t think I have support, I am likely to do the boring thing, playing it safe, not going for the glory. I can’t assume I’m identical to the general population here–but I’ll admit I’d be surprised if I weren’t.
I mean–are you telling me you’re more likely to do great things when told you’re on your own?
He wasn’t trying to stroke the ego of business owners, he was making the point that we need to continue to invest in the infrastructure that allowed businesses to boom and that those who benefit the most can afford to pay rates that are higher than they are now - but considerably less than they have been historically.
Until the crazies took over this would have hardly been a controversial position.
I stand by what I’ve posted in this thread. If you take issue with something I’ve said, then go ahead and challenge it. But, your post that I think “everyone else is brainwashed into this massive group think cult that’s against you and small businesses for some reason.” is just silly.
And you know it.
Just stop it, and respond to my actual posts without making things up. I mean, why do that when you have me so overwhelmingly outnumbered anyway? You shouldn’t need to.
I didn’t say anything about people’s opinions on small businesses that I can recall, just on their opinion of Obama. I don’t think there is a cult or a conspiracy against me. I do think that there is a groupthink on the SDMB in that it’s an overwhelmingly liberal board. I don’t think anyone even denies that anymore.
People here, because of that political leaning, tend to be more forgiving of Obama than someone doing an honest analysis.
It’s clear from reading the words Obama spoke that what he was saying was much more negative in tone than what Romney was saying to the athletes. Any normal fair minded person would be able to see it.
Perhaps so, for certain values of “negative.” However, I’m unaware of any movement among athlete akin to the Randian cult among business owners. Are there a huge number of athletes who out-and-out deny the support they receive from their community, who claim they and they alone are responsible for their success?
If there were such a group-think among athletes, it would have been entirely appropriate for Romney to chastise them for it, just as Obama may have chastised the “I Am John Galt” doofuses who own businesses. As it was, Romney was just repeated the obvious statement that everyone agrees with, so he didn’t sound confrontational; Obama was repeating the obvious statement that a certain cultish subset of business owners categorically denies, so he did sound confrontational.
I think you are the one that is confused about what you’re saying.
So we are not groupthink, but then later you say we are? If we are all thinking with one mind, with noone thinking for themselves, how is that not a cult or conspiracy? Either we are all thinking with one mind and we all agree with Obama that small businesses need to be scolded and/or punished, or we aren’t. You seem to be conflicting with yourself here. Which is it?
You’ve been saying all along that Obama has enormous hostility towards small businesses, but you haven’t explained why he is so hostile. Aren’t you curious about the motivations of your enemy? Don’t you care to understand why it is that he has all this animosity towards small businesses? Or is just that fact that he’s evil Obama enough for you so that it doesn’t even have to make sense. He’s just evil and evil is evil? Is that it? Please explain to me why he would be so openly hostile to small business and why politically he would ever openly take that position? If you can.
Or, you’re just wrong and blinded by partisan passion and or the echo chamber you first heard these ideas from, and that isn’t actually remotely close to Obama’s actual opinions on small businesses.
Which makes more sense to you?
And stop claiming that I’m making things up about you. I quoted you exactly. You may not agree with the conclusions I drew from your statements, but you did make those statements. Repeatedly claiming that I am making things up about you is very close to calling me a liar, which as I’m sure you know, is not allowed on this board outside of the pit.
So make up your (hive)mind. Was he chastising them? Or not. We’ve got some posters saying yes he was chastising them and they deserve it. Meanwhile other posters are denying that there was any chastising and saying it’s all my bias that it’s even occurring.
Of course he was. Hey, at least we’re making some progress. I think.
The total philosophical underpinning of the modern Republican party is that one line from Reagan: “the government isn’t the solution to the problem; government IS the problem”.
(Personally, I think electing officials who think government is nothing but a problem is like going to a barber who hates cutting hair, but I digress.)
So that’s what Obama is pushing back against. Government isn’t just the extra form you had to fill out to satisfy some regulation, or the extra 4.6% you might have to pay out of the very top dollars of your salary. It’s roads and bridges and schools and colleges and clean water and courts to resolve disputes and police and air traffic control and hospital safety standards and…the list goes on. The government solves a LOT of problems. If Grover Norquist ever succeeds in his wet dream of drowning the government in a bathtub, a lot of good things will go away because there’s no good way to make a buck on them.
Adults understand this. Small business owners who think the government never did anything for them but get in their way are just parroting the rhetoric. If there really are such business owners who feel that way (and unfortunately I know a few) then IMO Obama’s words weren’t harsh enough to them.
And besides, whenever Republicans talk about giving a break to “small business owners”, what they really want to do is give a really LARGE break to LARGE business owners, and they’re content to let the little guys have some of the crumbs.
I’m sure that you aren’t this slow to grasp my meaning. Really. Just respond to the actual words that I say and don’t make things up. It’s not hard.
I’ve said this as plainly as is possible. It’s a liberal board, so conservative or often even a fair minded view doesn’t occur here. For you to make the jump that there is a “cult” or “conspiracy” is just you making things up. I never used those words. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary?
It’s very funny that in a simul-post right above you we’ve got Left Hand of Dorkness saying exactly that.
There is a groupthink here in the sense that the board is overwhelmingly liberal. Does that mean there is never a difference of opinion at all? Of course not. Again, don’t be silly.
First of all, cite for me saying that? This is another example of you just making things up out of whole cloth. It really is impossible for you to police yourself regarding this, isn’t it?
I’ve specifically avoided stating my opinion on Obama’s motives because I don’t want to get dragged down that rat-hole. I’m being very small in scope in this thread. Obama’s remarks were insulting to small businesses and that’s obvious for any fair-minded observer to see. That’s it. I feel like if I can just accomplish the one small thing of adding this plain truth to the board I’ve done something good for the universe. I’m clearly right, so even though there’s ten of you denying it for every one person who might agree with me I’m going to give it a shot.
To quote Gordon Gekko “I’ll make you a deal. If you stop saying lies about me I’ll stop telling the truth about you.”
I’m correcting your factually incorrect statements regarding my posts. That’s all.
No kidding. I said that in my last post. The broad range of opinion on the SDMB ranges all the way from
“Obama didn’t insult them in any way, he’s perfect.”
to
“Obama insulted them and they deserve it, he’s perfect.”
I’d appreciate it if you didn’t insult me by insinuating that I’m a liar. I haven’t insulted you. I’m only using your own words and the logical conclusions drawn from those words.
You’ve repeatedly referred to those that disagree with you in this thread as a ‘hivemind’, and said that we suffer from ‘groupthink’. You even described your opponents as ‘overwhelming groupthink’. Now there are two possibilities here, either you really believe that this is true, or you do not.
If you do believe that everyone who has a different opinion on this than you is part of a groupthink hivemind, then you must ask yourself, how did they get this way? I can only think of two possibilities, either it’s a giant cult being lead by some leader, or a huge brainwashing operation. If all of your opponents have been brainwashed, though, it couldn’t just be one person, its too large a project. So there must be a group behind something this large and complex, which is otherwise known as a conspiracy. There may be other ways to accomplish this, but I haven’t thought of them yet. So which of these is the one that you believe? Or do you have another theory on how this groupthink hivemind was created?
I supposed they all could have arrived at this opinion through completely independent means, but that would mean that you’re wrong about the groupthink hivemind hypothesis wouldn’t it? So just being outnumbered on the issue would not imply that everyone else is part of a groupthink hivemind would it?
On the other hand, if you don’t actually believe that this is the case, then you should probably stop using the terms altogether. I wouldn’t think that you’d want to be thought of as someone that would repeatedly throw inflammatory terms at your opponents that you know not to be true. There are some unfriendly terms out there about those that engage in this practice that you probably don’t want associated with you.
Oh, so there is a groupthink, but not everyone that disagrees with you thinks the same thing? Uh … what?
Please cite anything that I’ve made up out of whole cloth.
So you are willing to accuse the president of being insulting to small businesses, and as I’ve quoted you before, rude and disparaging, as well as that he is scolding businesses, both large and small, but you don’t want to get into why he has this position? Isn’t that kind of important? If you can’t explain why he would have these opinions, then how is it reasonable to insist that he does indeed have them? Its like saying that you know you are right that someone committed murder, but you’ll be damned if you can think of even a single motive for why? But you want the case to be over and the person convicted anyway? You don’t want to get dragged down into why he hates businesses, you just know he does. Is that it? What kind of conversation is that? That’s just a blatent, unfounded attack, that has zero substance. Why should anyone take you seriously?
I mean it in its plainest sense: to make less. Going from 100 to 0 minimizes, as does going from 100 to 99. I think either is unhelpful.
Wait, you’re conflating two different things: infrastructure—bridges, roads, police, etc.—and a safety net, aren’t you? I’m not aware of their being a safety net for entrepreneurs. And if there were, I’m not sure it would help the success rate. My guess is that many businesses succeed simply because the people who start them know that there ass is on the line and will do almost anything to not fail.
The financially successful can ALWAYS afford to pay higher rates. But I don’t think that’s a solid rationale for having them pay those higher rates. It’s the difference between what you can do and should do. As far as tax as a measure of pain, Bill Gates would feel less pain by paying 95% than most people would by paying 20%. That doesn’t make taxing 95% the right, the moral, thing to do.
This is just crazy. You’re pulling my leg, right? You make up two silly, crazy theories, and then want me to spend time quoting post for post discussing them? Is this some kind of performance art? I’d sooner argue with a homeless person yelling on the street that Jesus is coming.
The “hivemind” of which I speak is the pro-Obama, liberal orient of this board. It’s like I said earlier, the opinions range from Obama didn’t do anything to he did it and that’s OK because it’s true. I’m more interested in the first of course, and not dealing really with the second. It’s like that bar from the Blues Brothers. They had both kinds of music: Country AND Western.
That’s what’s fascinating to me. A board devoted to fighting ignorance where you’ve got somebody like Frylock who honestly can’t seem to tell the difference in tone between Obama and Romney’s statements. He’s that blinded by partisanship.
I already quoted it once, when I first said that, so here it is again:
Since I know you aren’t capable of figuring it out on your own, I’ll explain why this is wrong. I’ve said that Obama’s statement, the one we’re discussing in this thread is insulting to small business and he shouldn’t have said it. That’s it. I haven’t said anything about his motives in saying it or how he feels about small businesses. I’ve specifically avoided that.
Maybe he just was in a bad mood. I doubt that, but I haven’t said anything about how he feels about small businesses. You just made it up.
Reagan was talking about government at that particular time. There is no Conservative that believes that all government is bad. Nor that we should not all pay taxes. Yeesh!
How about if, as an adult and all, you embrace a little more of reality. No one is advocating no taxes or no government. Not even Norquist.
I Invited you to suggest your own theory if you had one. If you don’t believe that everyone that disagrees with you is in a hivemind then why are you replying to the part of my post that began with “If you do believe”? If you don’t you should have disregarded it. Obviously these are preposterous theories, but so is you continuing to use these terms when describing anyone that disagrees with you. That’s what I’m trying to point out to you, so you did sort of get it partway anyway.
So this hivemind is comprised of many homogeneous minds? Then how is it anything like a hive If the members of the hive are not all the same? It is then by definition not a hivemind, right?
He’s blinded by partisanship? Ok, but your a paragon of impartiality? Is that right? Jeez.
No, you’ve just repeatedly insinuated it with every post with the way you have been describing what he said in that speech. My summation was simply an inference gathered from your many hyperbolic descriptions of how he “came across” in the speech.
Your words all have meaning when you put them together too. They don’t just exist all by themselves in a vacuum. Each word you type isn’t an island to itself. They all work together to make something with greater meaning that just each individual word. Just because everything I write isn’t comprised of only words that you have used yourself in previous posts, that doesn’t mean that I’m “making things up”.
You referring to all of your opponents as being in a groupthinking hivemind? Now that’s making something up with no substance whatsoever. You even know it isn’t true and you still use the terms as if they give you some credence or scores you some points.
