Mitt Romney: Okay, businesses do need government, after all

[Sallow]

Romney did an "etch a sketch" in the very same speech.

It was amazing.

First he called Obama "foreign" for saying such a thing.

THEN..he agreed with it.

We're not supposed to notice that Mittens got help in starting Bain, that he got financial help from daddy to dodge the draft and hide out in the lap of luxury in Paris, that Mittens just gave his son $10MILLION to start a business.

And of course, we're not supposed to notice that Mittens lied (AGAIN) about what the president actually said.

when Obama serve?

What war was ongoing when Obama was of age?

Mittens could have went to Vietnam. He supported the war and the draft. Just not for him.

 

[Stephanie]

We're not supposed to notice that Mittens got help in starting Bain, that he got financial help from daddy to dodge the draft and hide out in the lap of luxury in Paris, that Mittens just gave his son $10MILLION to start a business.

And of course, we're not supposed to notice that Mittens lied (AGAIN) about what the president actually said.

when Obama serve?

What war was ongoing when Obama was of age?

Mittens could have went to Vietnam. He supported the war and the draft. Just not for him.

so did a lot of other men in Congress..
friggen pathetic argument

 

[ecinicola]

i see alot of people did not understand Romneys comment. Yes, we get help from other sources, but the person who works hard at achieving something gets the credit for doing it himself.
I found Obama's comment to be totally wrong. It is up to the person to achieve something and not be dependent on someone else. The individual himself accomplishes something for himself by his own efforts, not the efforts of someone else or some source. The source is only the place or situation that the individual can accomplish something himself, by his own efforts.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

I don't recall anyone EVER saying we don't need government.. that is another liberal lie just like the term trickle down economics.

I'll agree that trickle down economics are a lie, but a conservative one.

Trickle down....aka Reaganomics? hmmm....

 

[Mac1958]

I don't recall anyone EVER saying we don't need government.. that is another liberal lie just like the term trickle down economics.

Just remember the new paradigm: If you were insulted or even annoyed about what Obama and his followers say, that means that you...

... are saying that you don't want any government anywhere, ever, whatsoever, period...

... are a hypocrite for using roads...

... are lying about the difficulty of building and running a business...

... are a lazy bastard who reaps millions off the sweat of your receptionist...

... don't work as hard as you think you do...

... aren't as smart as you think you are...

... don't appreciate how hard your government is working to make you successful, since you're incompetent.


So, especially if you're a business owner, you'd better shut the fuck up or you're an idiot.

.

 

[Vel]

.

Funny thing is, none of us who were insulted by Obama's comments have claimed otherwise.

.

Then you shouldn't have been "insulted". Obama stated a fact.

The schism is the taxes to pay for all those services.

Like it or not..the government needs revenue to exist. And constant cuts in that revenue is patently stupid.

Obama made his remarks during a speech about why the government should be raising taxes on those that make more money than others. His premise was that if you happened to be more successful than others, then you owed more back to the government because it was the government that gave you the chance to be more successful. It wasn't that you really "earned" your success.
What Obama failed to mention was that every single person out there has that same chance for success and therefor should be under the exact same obligation as the person who succeeded.
To simplify: You have four children, raised in the same manner by the same parents. Three are successful, one is not. Should the successful children be obligated to do more for the parents than the one who is not successful? They were raised with the same opportunities.

 

[8537]

every single person out there has that same chance for success

I'm just trying to see if I understand your comment: Are you saying that Mitt Romney, who inherited millions and was granted a thousand important connections in life, has the same chance for success than a child growing up impoverished in Detroit?

 

[Erand7899]

.

Funny thing is, none of us who were insulted by Obama's comments have claimed otherwise.

.

Then you shouldn't have been "insulted". Obama stated a fact.

The schism is the taxes to pay for all those services.

Like it or not..the government needs revenue to exist. And constant cuts in that revenue is patently stupid.

Government is like medicine, a little bit can help, but too much can kill you.

Over 300 million Americans enjoy the roads, bridges, and other government infrastructure, but only a small minority of those Americans create businesses, or make them work. Are the rest too damn dumb to realize what government can do for them?

 

[Vel]

every single person out there has that same chance for success

I'm just trying to see if I understand your comment: Are you saying that Mitt Romney, who inherited millions and was granted a thousand important connections in life, has the same chance for success than a child growing up impoverished in Detroit?

Are you saying that the child growing up is Detroit doesn't have the opportunities in this country to become a guy like Mitt Romney?

Sam Walton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Murf76]

What a pathetic attempt to mitigate Obama's collectivist commentary in Roanoke last week.
This isn't about Anarchy. Seriously, is that what you libs think this is about???

It's about Limited Government... government which limits itself to its constitutional function and lives within its means. Even the staunchest Republican wouldn't want laissez faire practices in the market place, but we don't want to be strangled either. What we mean by "free market" is that citizens from all walks of life should be able to readily participate in it, not only as consumers but as entrepreneurs.

What Obama said the other day infers a vested public interest in PRIVATE businesses. He said what he did in the context of his argument to raise taxes on these entrepreneurs. What Romney said was different. He acknowledged the argument that 'no man is an island', but that doesn't mean that what one builds with his own hands isn't his.

Comprehending the difference between the statements of these two candidates doesn't require a whole lot of nuanced thinking. One of them was trying to justify his platform of higher taxes on the very people he's referring to. The other pointed out that the 'no man is an island' argument isn't enough justification for doing it.

 

[8537]

every single person out there has that same chance for success

I'm just trying to see if I understand your comment: Are you saying that Mitt Romney, who inherited millions and was granted a thousand important connections in life, has the same chance for success than a child growing up impoverished in Detroit?

Are you saying that the child growing up is Detroit doesn't have the opportunities in this country to become a guy like Mitt Romney?

No, I'm responding to your claim that every single person has "that same chance for success".

Are you of the opinion that Mitt Romney, a Kennedy scion and the Bush daughters have the same chance for success as a kid growing up impoverished in Detroit?

 

[Murf76]

.

Funny thing is, none of us who were insulted by Obama's comments have claimed otherwise.

.

Then you shouldn't have been "insulted". Obama stated a fact.

The schism is the taxes to pay for all those services.

Like it or not..the government needs revenue to exist. And constant cuts in that revenue is patently stupid.

Obama made his remarks during a speech about why the government should be raising taxes on those that make more money than others. His premise was that if you happened to be more successful than others, then you owed more back to the government because it was the government that gave you the chance to be more successful. It wasn't that you really "earned" your success.
What Obama failed to mention was that every single person out there has that same chance for success and therefor should be under the exact same obligation as the person who succeeded.
To simplify: You have four children, raised in the same manner by the same parents. Three are successful, one is not. Should the successful children be obligated to do more for the parents than the one who is not successful? They were raised with the same opportunities.

GMTA...
This was my first thought as well. How is it possible that all the lefties yesterday, falsely declaring that Obama's statements were taken "out of context", manage to MISS the actual context of these two commentaries? That's just exceptionally obtuse, even for them.

 

[Vel]

I'm just trying to see if I understand your comment: Are you saying that Mitt Romney, who inherited millions and was granted a thousand important connections in life, has the same chance for success than a child growing up impoverished in Detroit?

Are you saying that the child growing up is Detroit doesn't have the opportunities in this country to become a guy like Mitt Romney?

No, I'm responding to your claim that every single person has "that same chance for success".

Are you of the opinion that Mitt Romney, a Kennedy scion and the Bush daughters have the same chance for success as a kid growing up impoverished in Detroit?

Yes, They have the same chance to make their own success in the United States of America. Starting rich doesn't ensure success either. The ability to build success from poverty is what made this nation what it is.

 

[8537]

Are you saying that the child growing up is Detroit doesn't have the opportunities in this country to become a guy like Mitt Romney?

No, I'm responding to your claim that every single person has "that same chance for success".

Are you of the opinion that Mitt Romney, a Kennedy scion and the Bush daughters have the same chance for success as a kid growing up impoverished in Detroit?

Yes, They have the same chance to make their own success in the United States of America. Starting rich doesn't ensure success either. The ability to build success from poverty is what made this nation what it is.

Oh gawd. Really? If you believe that I have a ski hill in St Lucia to sell ya.

Yes, the children of Steve Jobs and the children born into poverty have the same chance of success! That makes perfect sense. I mean, they have the exact same access to great schools, capital, business partners....Yes, of course they do.

 

[Vel]

No, I'm responding to your claim that every single person has "that same chance for success".

Are you of the opinion that Mitt Romney, a Kennedy scion and the Bush daughters have the same chance for success as a kid growing up impoverished in Detroit?

Yes, They have the same chance to make their own success in the United States of America. Starting rich doesn't ensure success either. The ability to build success from poverty is what made this nation what it is.

Oh gawd. Really? If you believe that I have a ski hill in St Lucia to sell ya.

Yes, the children of Steve Jobs and the children born into poverty have the same chance of success! That makes perfect sense. I mean, they have the exact same access to great schools, capital, business partners....Yes, of course they do.

Go read a little American history. And if you think that Steve Jobs children were given a head start , who do they owe that head start to? Government?

 

[SniperFire]

No, I'm responding to your claim that every single person has "that same chance for success".

Are you of the opinion that Mitt Romney, a Kennedy scion and the Bush daughters have the same chance for success as a kid growing up impoverished in Detroit?

Yes, They have the same chance to make their own success in the United States of America. Starting rich doesn't ensure success either. The ability to build success from poverty is what made this nation what it is.

Oh gawd. Really? If you believe that I have a ski hill in St Lucia to sell ya.

Yes, the children of Steve Jobs and the children born into poverty have the same chance of success! That makes perfect sense. I mean, they have the exact same access to great schools, capital, business partners....Yes, of course they do.

He was speaking from a Constitutional perspective, moron.

 

[8537]

Yes, They have the same chance to make their own success in the United States of America. Starting rich doesn't ensure success either. The ability to build success from poverty is what made this nation what it is.

Oh gawd. Really? If you believe that I have a ski hill in St Lucia to sell ya.

Yes, the children of Steve Jobs and the children born into poverty have the same chance of success! That makes perfect sense. I mean, they have the exact same access to great schools, capital, business partners....Yes, of course they do.

Go read a little American history.

I've read a little American history. Can you just answer the question:

Does a kid growing up in poverty in Detroit have the same chance of success as the kid who grows up the scion of a family with generational wealth?

 

[8537]

Yes, They have the same chance to make their own success in the United States of America. Starting rich doesn't ensure success either. The ability to build success from poverty is what made this nation what it is.

Oh gawd. Really? If you believe that I have a ski hill in St Lucia to sell ya.

Yes, the children of Steve Jobs and the children born into poverty have the same chance of success! That makes perfect sense. I mean, they have the exact same access to great schools, capital, business partners....Yes, of course they do.

He was speaking from a Constitutional perspective, moron.

Eh, apparently you didn't read his next few posts. He's been hard at work defending the proposition that a person born impoverished in Detroit has the exact same chance of success as a person born a scion to a family fortune. He's offered no equivocation about it being a constitutional issue.

Go ahead, read his posts. Then tell the class who the moron is.

 

[SniperFire]

Oh gawd. Really? If you believe that I have a ski hill in St Lucia to sell ya.

Yes, the children of Steve Jobs and the children born into poverty have the same chance of success! That makes perfect sense. I mean, they have the exact same access to great schools, capital, business partners....Yes, of course they do.

He was speaking from a Constitutional perspective, moron.

Eh, apparently you didn't read his next few posts. He's been hard at work defending the proposition that a person born impoverished in Detroit has the exact same chance of success as a person born a scion to a family fortune. He's offered no equivocation about it being a constitutional issue.

Go ahead, read his posts. Then tell the class who the moron is.

I did. Everyone knows what he was talking about with the possible exception of you.

The moron would be you.

 

[8537]

He was speaking from a Constitutional perspective, moron.

Eh, apparently you didn't read his next few posts. He's been hard at work defending the proposition that a person born impoverished in Detroit has the exact same chance of success as a person born a scion to a family fortune. He's offered no equivocation about it being a constitutional issue.

Go ahead, read his posts. Then tell the class who the moron is.

I did. Everyone knows what he was talking about with the possible exception of you.

The moron would be you.

Oh really now? So when he used Sam Walton as an example, what he really meant to say was that Sam Walton had the same opportunities under the Constitution? When he said

"Starting rich doesn't ensure success either. The ability to build success from poverty is what made this nation what it is."

He was referring to the Constitution?

Do you really wish to continue defending your position here?