The Most Ignorant Line in the History of Man

[The Rabbi]

It's easy to take a statement like that, standing alone, seem like something it was never intended to represent. But when the full context is revealed, so is the truth.

Here is the quote in its full context"

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that [the roads and bridges]. Somebody else made that happen."

Some folks might think you don't know what the phuck you're talking about. But, hey, I know you must not have done due diligence and checked that out properly, right? You wouldn't try to mislead others on purpose now, would you?

Sure. That's what he meant.

After all, everybody speaks that way.

For example.....

Joseph Smith hit a foul ball and it hit a fan in the stands. Jim Jones hit a home run but he didn't hit that (the fan). Someone else hit it.

Sure...that was what he meant.

It amazes me how you guys are so easily fooled when the President says something and his speech writers find ways to spin it to minimize the damage.

Like when he referred to Benghazi as an act of terror.

No shit Sherlock...it WAS an act of terror because innocent people were killed by people that wanted them dead for personal reasons..

But it was not what we all refer to as a "terrorist attack"....which it was proven to be after the fact.

You guys are tools.

Now I really gotta say something about the "tool" comment! You have assumed facts not in evidence, Jarhead. From a single post you have me classified, compartmentalized and labeled as an Obama supporter and leftist. That is Pure D Bull Shit! Were you on that other board when I called for Obama's impeachment and trial for willfully violating the War Powers Act. No, and you are clueless regarding my political leanings.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. When the parrots, who genuflect and cling to a given faction, mindlessly repeat that faction's distorted talking points over and over, who is the tool? Is the person who points to the error the one at fault or the one who mindlessly repeats false or misleading BS without investigating the truth of the matter simply because they are following the lead of their faction like a good little sheeple?

Now look at my signature line. Madison was so very correct. That is why I belong to no corrupt faction and am able to think for myself and not be lead around by a Shepard. Nixon settled that for me back in Aug 1974.

You're a tool.

 

[g5000]

Gimme gimme gimme roads and bridges, and make that guy over there pay for it.

 

[g5000]

Another thing.

When you raise the income tax on rich people, is that extra revenue going to magically be tagged for roads and bridges?

Nope.

Obama the populist wants more money from the rich for lots of things. Read his campaign speeches from 2008. Lots and lots of promises and government expansions. He wrote a lot of checks the taxpayers can't cash.

He and Warren are using "roads and bridges" as a smokescreen.

 

[hazlnut]

Another thing.

When you raise the income tax on rich people, is that extra revenue going to magically be tagged for roads and bridges?

Nope.

Why not?

In your hypothetical budget, why would you not spend on infrastructure?

I mean, that notion is yours and yours alone -- not based on any real examples of how budgets are arrived at.

Obama wants more money from the rich for lots of things. He wrote a lot of checks in the 2008 campaign the taxpayers can't cash.

Like what?

Show us some proof -- not just your idiot speculation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Another thing.

When you raise the income tax on rich people, is that extra revenue going to magically be tagged for roads and bridges?

Nope.

Why not?

In your hypothetical budget, why would you not spend on infrastructure?

n.

You mean like holding Social Security funds in a lock box?
Yeah, that's why. The money would be diverted to something else. Like always happens. Money from the tobacco settlement was supposed to go to anti smoking programs. Instead states grabbed the money to expand other programs or make up shortfalls. Same here.
Only someone who is a total ignoramus and hack would not understand that.

 

[g5000]

Another thing.

When you raise the income tax on rich people, is that extra revenue going to magically be tagged for roads and bridges?

Nope.

Why not?

In your hypothetical budget, why would you not spend on infrastructure?

I mean, that notion is yours and yours alone -- not based on any real examples of how budgets are arrived at.

An increase in income taxes goes to the same place every other tax dollar goes. Into a general fund.

Did you not know this?

Obama wants more money from the rich for lots of things. He wrote a lot of checks in the 2008 campaign the taxpayers can't cash.

Like what?

Show us some proof -- not just your idiot speculation.

This is not speculation. Read his 2008 campaign speeches.

Like what? Okay, here's like what:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will invest $10 billion per year in early intervention educational and developmental programs for children between zero and five. Their plan will help expand Early Head Start to serve more children with disabilities, and will spur states, through programs like Early Learning Challenge Grants, to expand programs for children with disabilities, such as IDEA Part C, and integrate these programs with other early childhood programs."

http://www.thearc.org/document.doc?id=3073

Barack Obama would use part of increased U.S. assistance to establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund to "offer an alternative to extremist schools."

http://obama.3cdn.net/417b7e6036dd852384_luzxmvl09.pdf

Will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.

Issues - An economy built to last ? Barack Obama

 

[g5000]

CBS News and various independent experts estimate Obama's total first year spending could exceed $280 billion.

The fact is the savings Obama has identified do not cover his spending.

Reality Check: The Cost Of Obama's Pledges - CBS News

 

[g5000]

Obama wrote big checks the taxpayers could not cash. He slammed into that hard reality about six minutes after taking the oath of office.

That has not stopped him from trying to find ways to soak the rich to bring to fruition the liberal dream of immanentizing the eschaton.

 

[hazlnut]

Gimme gimme gimme roads and bridges, and make that guy over there pay for it.

Strawman much.


Without roads and bridge, the American companies that I'm making 6 figures in dividends off of couldn't distribute consumer products and services.

So, yes, I'm happy to pay more for the roads and bridges.

The clerk at Target or Walmart doesn't have to pay as much as me because they don't benefit dollar-wise the way I do.

 

[hazlnut]

Obama wrote big checks the taxpayers could not cash. He slammed into that hard reality about six minutes after taking the oath of office.

So, in your Sci-fi fantasy mind, W. morphed into Obama?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gimme gimme gimme roads and bridges, and make that guy over there pay for it.

Strawman much.


Without roads and bridge, the American companies that I'm making 6 figures in dividends off of couldn't distribute consumer products and services.

So, yes, I'm happy to pay more for the roads and bridges.

The clerk at Target or Walmart doesn't have to pay as much as me because they don't benefit dollar-wise the way I do.

Write your check to the Treasury and shut the **** up.

 

[g5000]

Gimme gimme gimme roads and bridges, and make that guy over there pay for it.

Strawman much.


Without roads and bridge, the American companies that I'm making 6 figures in dividends off of couldn't distribute consumer products and services.

So, yes, I'm happy to pay more for the roads and bridges.

The clerk at Target or Walmart doesn't have to pay as much as me because they don't benefit dollar-wise the way I do.

Without roads and bridges, the clerk at Target couldn't get his happy ass to work. He would be penniless, so I would say he definitely benefits more than you do from them. He can pay "a little bit more", too.

 

[Google]

"If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Spoken by someone who clearly never built anything.

It's easy to take a statement like that, standing alone, seem like something it was never intended to represent. But when the full context is revealed, so is the truth.

Here is the quote in its full context"

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that [the roads and bridges]. Somebody else made that happen."

Some folks might think you don't know what the phuck you're talking about. But, hey, I know you must not have done due diligence and checked that out properly, right? You wouldn't try to mislead others on purpose now, would you?

Yes, because business owners do not pay taxes at all. They, according to the left, are not apart of society. They do not contribute to roads and bridges being funded.

Tax payers did build that, and business owners are in the highest tax bracket.

 

[g5000]

OBAMA: We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.


He then uses the examples of the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Internet.

Then he says: "We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people."

ONE people. Not "the wealthy" and then everyone else.

EVERYONE benefits from the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Internet. Therefore, EVERYONE must pay "a little bit more".

 

[rightwinger]

Gimme gimme gimme roads and bridges, and make that guy over there pay for it.

Strawman much.


Without roads and bridge, the American companies that I'm making 6 figures in dividends off of couldn't distribute consumer products and services.

So, yes, I'm happy to pay more for the roads and bridges.

The clerk at Target or Walmart doesn't have to pay as much as me because they don't benefit dollar-wise the way I do.

Without roads and bridges, the clerk at Target couldn't get his happy ass to work. He would be penniless, so I would say he definitely benefits more than you do from them. He can pay "a little bit more", too.

Workers could live within walking distance of their place of employment. That is the way it used to work

Companies could not survive without a way to distribute their goods and services

 

[Google]

[ame=http://youtu.be/Rv_Dl2tcaoQ]Adam Carolla on class warfare, hard work, and Obama's speech - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Google]

What is the point of his statement? It is to divide. It is disingenuous to suggest that business owners do not contribute the same, arguably more, than anyone else in society to the building and funding of road and bridges. Those business owners employ untold number of workers who pay their mortgages, feed their families, and live their lives. If you are running a business, growing the economy, and providing workers with employment--yeah they ******* did build that.

Again, the most ignorant, divisive, and disingenuous statement made by a modern president. The man whose entire private sector employment is working briefly at an ice cream store, what can you expect. He is presiding over, joyfully, America's decline.

 

[The Rabbi]

Strawman much.


Without roads and bridge, the American companies that I'm making 6 figures in dividends off of couldn't distribute consumer products and services.

So, yes, I'm happy to pay more for the roads and bridges.

The clerk at Target or Walmart doesn't have to pay as much as me because they don't benefit dollar-wise the way I do.

Without roads and bridges, the clerk at Target couldn't get his happy ass to work. He would be penniless, so I would say he definitely benefits more than you do from them. He can pay "a little bit more", too.

Workers could live within walking distance of their place of employment. That is the way it used to work

Companies could not survive without a way to distribute their goods and services

Companies usd to distribute their goods and services within the same area as the workers. Now with internet you dont really need roads and bridges.
The argument over who benefiits more is silly. Such things are labelled communal goods precisely because you cannot quantify who benefits more than someone else We all benefit, period.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Strawman much.


Without roads and bridge, the American companies that I'm making 6 figures in dividends off of couldn't distribute consumer products and services.

So, yes, I'm happy to pay more for the roads and bridges.

The clerk at Target or Walmart doesn't have to pay as much as me because they don't benefit dollar-wise the way I do.

Without roads and bridges, the clerk at Target couldn't get his happy ass to work. He would be penniless, so I would say he definitely benefits more than you do from them. He can pay "a little bit more", too.

Workers could live within walking distance of their place of employment. That is the way it used to work

Companies could not survive without a way to distribute their goods and services

Yeah in the good old days of company housing.

Why do you want to go back to those days?

 

[Google]

Without roads and bridges, the clerk at Target couldn't get his happy ass to work. He would be penniless, so I would say he definitely benefits more than you do from them. He can pay "a little bit more", too.

Workers could live within walking distance of their place of employment. That is the way it used to work

Companies could not survive without a way to distribute their goods and services

Companies usd to distribute their goods and services within the same area as the workers. Now with internet you dont really need roads and bridges.
The argument over who benefiits more is silly. Such things are labelled communal goods precisely because you cannot quantify who benefits more than someone else We all benefit, period.

What is your point?

The argument is that businesses, the evil rich, utilize public services and public roads--all of which occur in a vacuum in which they contribute nothing--benefit from them and thus should pay higher taxes instead of reinvesting it, increasing employees, paying larger Christmas bonuses, whatever the hell they choose to do with other than forcefully giving it to a wasteful, inept, and ever increasingly politicized federal government.