Yes. I agree with the notion that anyone other than the business owner “built his business”. No one disputes that, collectively we all build the infrastructure. And if the business owner does not open and build a business, he simply deserves the same credit as any who pays taxes. But once he takes the extra step to open and build a business, HE deserves that credit.
Oh, poor innocent little you. Buck up, princess and take responsibility. You obviously chose words to minimize their relationship—to the point of entering fantasy land.
Funny thing is, that while we mostly disagree on things, I know you’re better than this. And also the general of your posts in the last few weeks. ::shrug::
He said that black fathers abandon their children and because of that the children are more likely to live in poverty, commit crime and wind up in prison. You think that’s “proper supervision”?
Obama said that due to the above abandonment by fathers, blacks are nine times more likely to drop out of school. You know, school, that teaches you skills and how to read and speak.
I have to give you that. Obama didn’t speak of neck tattoos.
Good question. Here’s the O’Reilly quote:
[QUOTE=Bill O’Reilly]
“And what’s going on, as you know, is the dissolution of the family, and you don’t have proper supervision of children, and they grow up with no skills, and they can’t read and speak, and they have tattoos on their neck, and they can’t compete in the marketplace, and that’s what’s going on!”
[/QUOTE]
Where’s the part about it being all their fault that they’re simply inferior and less worthy?
Exactly. Those are your words, so you do get it. Odd.
Higher than what?
I think it means higher than what they’re paying now. The notion of abolishing progressive tax rates have not been on the table in any recent election, so that’s not something you would have to agree with Obama about if you accepted.
“That” in the original quote refers to infrastructure, and I don’t see what’s negative about the quote except to Galtists.
This is goddamned hilarious–you’re still gonna die on that hill, because you don’t know how to abandon a hill, no matter how dumb it is.
And you’ve used this “you’re better than this” line on me before, to which I’ve responded: I know you’re not better than this. This sort of idiocy is how you operate. You’re not always quite this blatant about it, but it’s pretty much the best you got. So yeah, when your idiocy is funny, sure thing I’ll point it out for other’s amusement. As such, your opinion about what I’m better than is profoundly uncareaboutable.
(bolding mine)
[QUOTE=Reality]
Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, “If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we’ll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine.” This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.
There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another. For example, you could argue that legalizing marijuana would cause more people to consider the use of mind-altering drugs acceptable, and those people will support more permissive drug policies across the board. An alternative to the slippery slope argument is simply to point out that the principles espoused by your opposition imply the acceptability of certain other policies, so if we don’t like those other policies, we should question whether we really buy those principles. For instance, if the proposing team argued for legalizing marijuana by saying, “individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies,” the opposition could point out that that principle would also justify legalizing a variety of other drugs – so if we don’t support legalizing other drugs, then maybe we don’t really believe in that principle.
[/QUOTE]
Higher than nothing, which is what GE pays. Or at least higher than Warren Buffett’s secretary. For examples.
Obama was calling for basic fairness in the tax code and its enforcement. Only in the fantasyland that is today’s Republican Party could that be objectionable, and even the centerpiece of a convention.
So why do you dispute it anyway? Out of sheer ignorance of what he actually said? Ignorance born of sheer bone-laziness that prevents you from basic Googling? Or ignorance born of simple absolute mindless partisan loyalty?
What are you babbling about? You were talking about infrastructure. I agreed a=n that point. I’m now asking about beyond the collective accomplishment. Try rereading the exchange. What you’re saying is not tracking. You’re just repeating a point we’ve moved beyond. This is what I asked you at this pony in the conversation:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
So once we all get credit for the infrastructure—deservedly—each of us should enjoy the credit for those things that we might have done beyond it. Right?
[/QUOTE]
Obama didn’t say “black fathers abandon their children”.
Of course. This doesn’t dispute anything Obama said.
OK, here’s the full text of his speech. The context was his call to not extend the Bush tax cuts to those making over $250K.
Okay. So, we all share in the infrastructure, and we deserve the credit for anything above and beyond that. Well, a person’s business is one of those things that is above and beyond it. So, you seem to actually agree that when referring to a person’s business, that saying, “You didn’t build that” is incorrect.
There are a lot of things that would be incorrect if anyone had actually said them. That is one.
Was that an attempt at a coherent point of some kind? That’s so cute!
Are we playing “two year old out-of-context quotes turned buzzwords” or something ?
If you’re talking about the Obama quote, I’m talking about it within context of the rest of what he said. Everyone seems to agree on the larger point, about the infrastructure.
You quoted a question of mine—twice—and didn’t answer it either time. Let’s try for a third:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
And no one would dispute that. So once we all get credit for the infrastructure—deservedly—each of us should enjoy the credit for those things that we might have done beyond it. Right?
[/QUOTE]
Right. And Obama wasn’t referring to a person’s business. In context, he was referring to infrastructure when he said “you didn’t build that”, not anyone’s business.
In case anyone’s confused and not just lying, here’s Obama’s paragraph:
If you read the sentences before and after and think “that” in “you didn’t build that” references “a business,” you’re an idiot. Which is of course entirely plausible.