Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

Originally posted by Andcoulter


How could they do that if Dems had control to pass anything they wanted?

Yawn.......

Seriously, you need to learn how things are done, on Capital Hill. LOBBYISTS control it.

Since we are keeping it simple.

Half of America didn't want Obama care, and Obama pushed it, and passed it, with the help of those very Dems, that complain about the GOP, and the filibustering. It should show you how pointless your argument is.

And you wonder why people claim Obama has Polarized this country.......

Imagine my shock.
Politely discussing the thread topic does not work.

I cannot believe it.
Gosh Neo, I really feel bad now for hurting your feelings. I feel you must be a strong and intelligent man that feels passionately about things he does because he has researched and really thought about them.

I just really want to share in the shining light that is you, here, in this thread, about this topic.
Pretty please.

Otherwise, I am pretty convinced I was just right from my first post on since it has never been corrected.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Andcoulter


How could they do that if Dems had control to pass anything they wanted?

Yawn.......

Seriously, you need to learn how things are done, on Capital Hill. LOBBYISTS control it.

Since we are keeping it simple.

Half of America didn't want Obama care, and Obama pushed it, and passed it, with the help of those very Dems, that complain about the GOP, and the filibustering. It should show you how pointless your argument is.

And you wonder why people claim Obama has Polarized this country.......

edit on 6-10-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

Obamacare?

You attempt at deflection is pretty weak don't you think?
Obamacare has nothing to do with anything I posted.

Do you understand how anything works on CH?
If you do, then you can actually address what I did write in my post instead of trying to change the topic to Obamacare.
Do you need me to ask it again?

Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

entitled 1 : to give a title to : designate 2 : to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something

Success the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors. 2. the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like. 3. a successful performance or achievement: The play was an instant success. 4. a person or thing that is successful: She was a great success on the talk show. 5. Obsolete . outcome.

Obama We don't believe anybody is Entitled(see definition) to success(see other definition) in this country.

Meaning Obama does not believe people have any title,right or claim to the attainment of their wealth except the middle class.

As per the video.

This is piss poor, Neo. Even for you.

The president is absolutely right, but if you lack the understanding of what "entitled to success" means, then you're just going to stay angry and red in the face.

Growth of a nation does in fact come from a strong middle class and it grows outward.
Why you believe that demand and consumerism has nothing to do with the economy, and only that wealthy people being able to afford more employees is the lone factor, is beyond me.

No one is entitled to success. If one wants success they are entitled to pursue that success dream through work.

reply to post by Andcoulter


Sorry, YOU don't run how the thread goes. Everyone makes Points and Counter Points. Ive answered your question. Did I not?

I brought up Obamacare, as a counterpoint, to what the Dems, FORCED down the Citizens throats. You are too busy trying to demonize the GOP, who I can care less of. What I do care about, is a majority, forcing bad Policies, on the American Public. You cant say, with an honest answer, that it WASN'T forced on the American Public. Its the epitome, of Obamas failed Policy's, here at home, and abroad. Just another Ego filled policy, along with the thought, that "We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country". If you dont know what "POLARIZING" this country is, just look to Obama, for the definition.

Peace Out.

Originally posted by neo96
Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

entitled 1 : to give a title to : designate 2 : to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something

Neo, please do not take this the wrong way but did you actually read that definition? It says right there that it means to give or furnish something not earned.

Success the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors. 2. the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like. 3. a successful performance or achievement: The play was an instant success. 4. a person or thing that is successful: She was a great success on the talk show. 5. Obsolete . outcome.

Who was confused on what success is?

Obama We don't believe anybody is Entitled(see definition) to success(see other definition) in this country.

Meaning Obama does not believe people have any title,right or claim to the attainment of their wealth except the middle class.

You just contradicted your own thread title.
Your title says Obama said that no one is entitled to success.
You say this means he said that the middle class is entitled to success.

I am not sure what the most polite way to ask how you just add words magically like that and do not feel bad for being so wrong when it has to be on purpose.

As per the video.

edit on 6-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

You do not seem to be able to keep the topic on topic here. You need to shift and add. Why?

Neo, just please tell me who is entitled to success.
What else are you entitled to?
These are polite questions, right?

I mean, I kind of feel like you outright making things up and expecting people to believe it to be rude to me and yet still I am going to be polite to you.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Andcoulter

 

Sorry, YOU don't run how the thread goes. Everyone makes Points and Counter Points. Ive answered your question. Did I not?

No you did not. You completely changed the topic.

The question was how is that possible if the Dems had total control.
I do not see that question answered anywhere by you.

Originally posted by sonnny1
I brought up Obamacare, as a counterpoint, to what the Dems, FORCED down the Citizens throats. You are too busy trying to demonize the GOP, who I can care less of. What I do care about, is a majority, forcing bad Policies, on the American Public. You cant say, with an honest answer, that it WASN'T forced on the American Public. Its the epitome, of Obamas failed Policy's, here at home, and abroad. Just another Ego filled policy, along with the thought, that "We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country". If you dont know what "POLARIZING" this country is, just look to Obama, for the definition.

Peace Out.

This is all in your imagination.
None of it is relevant.
Either the Dems had total control, or the Republicans had filibuster power.
It is an either or situation.
You said that they did indeed use the filibuster so I can only ask how that is possible if the Dems had total control so many different ways.
Obamacare and what was rammed where still has nothing to do with any of what I asked you.
Are my simple questions too simple or not simple enough?

Originally posted by Andcoulter


No you did not. You completely changed the topic.

The question was how is that possible if the Dems had total control.
I do not see that question answered anywhere by you.

Wrong.

I answered your filibuster question, with a yes.

The Topic is NOT what Andcoulter DICTATES.


I changed the subject,as you changed the OP's subject, to something you obviously feel uncomfortable, talking about, because it shows those very Dems, and Obama, as Hypocrites, and those that support them, as hypocrites also, for not being able to call it for what it was.

FORCED, on the American Public.

I guess success is only defined, when Democrat's can "dictate" what is said, what is spoken about, and what they "think" is right, regardless if the other half, or if a majority, disagrees. Thanks for clearing it up for me......







Trust me, there is nothing else you can say to me, that would change my mind, when it comes to Obama. 4 years of "Hope and Change", is a failure. BTW, I wont be voting for Romney either. I vote 3rd Party.

It is sad to see middle class and working class people hate themselves so much in America. It just shows that the elitist media propaganda and adverstising which has been shoved down your throats since birth is working very well.

It is time that America caught up with the rest of the world. A progressive tax rate system has worked far better all over the world. It has redistributed wealth to some degree, which is not just a marxist notion you halfwits, which in turn has increased the purchasing power of the middle and lower class who are the largest proportion of consumers, which has further driven the capatalist economies of much of the rest of the world.

Some elitist stooges will have you believe that progressive tax rates undermine work ethic. That is not true, as long as the progressive tax rate is reasonable.For instance, in Australia, no matter how much you earn, wether it is $1,000,000 or $20,000, you will not pay anything on the first $18,600 you earned in the financial year. As your income rises you enter new tax brackets, and incrimentaly you begin paying more tax. For instance from $18,600 - $30,000 you will pay %15 tax on the $11,400 between $18,600-$30,000. Someone who earns $150,000+ will pay 40% tax on every dollar earnt over $150,000 but not on the previous $150,000.

This may seem infeasible to many of you brainwashed sheeple in America, but the fact is that while it does piss of rich people to have less money to spend on diamonds, more property and another BMW, it really does not undermine thier standard of living. The fact is that wealth, not income, is the largest source of inequality, meaning that rich people earn more from their wealth (i.e. property) than salaries. Wealth is also taxed in Australia and many other countries. But this has only worked to improve everyones standard of living in the long term. If it wasn't for the poor and middle class workers spending money on your products, you wouldn't be employed in the first place.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, and it is not the rich feeding the poor, it is the poor that feeds the rich. So man up and sacrifice a little or be taken out into to the streets, Russian Revolution style (shouts out the Anastasia who also got a bullet in her brain).

Ahhh America, built by the blacks and owned by the Chinese.

Originally posted by beezzer
Punishing people because they inherited money is like punishing people because they were born with a genetic disposition to be tall.

This absolute hatred towards anyone with wealth astounds me.

Growing up, we all talked about working and getting jobs where we could all be wealthy.

Now?

People look at wealthy folks and say, "Git 'em!"

I guess it's easier and lazier to get money redistributed from government than working for it. But it sets such a lousy precedent!

edit on 6-10-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Your arguement is totally one dimensional and biased in fantasy land. This is the sad truth. Quantative easing has been a total failure; corporations took trillions of dollars and ran.



Let me know what you think....in the meantime I could use a few aspirins...my head hurts from so much evil stupidity!

reply to post by neo96


Whatever happened to the Pursuit of Happiness? Obama has got to go.

What about people who already have what they consider to be success? Does he feel entitled to take what they have? Seems like he does.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Your arguement is totally one dimensional and biased in fantasy land. This is the sad truth. Quantative easing has been a total failure; corporations took trillions of dollars and ran.

Let me know what you think....in the meantime I could use a few aspirins...my head hurts from so much evil stupidity!

edit on 6/10/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: add video

First off, I must apologise for all my evil stupidity. But I have quotas I must fill.

And WTH? QE 1,2,3? They all suck! TARP was Bush's final nail as well! It all was a failed attempt to manipulate fiscal appearances by creating inflation and giving money to the banks! And that failed as well!

Any time government trys to influence policy with OUR money, WE end up paying for it!

Originally posted by sonnny1
Wrong.

I answered your filibuster question, with a yes.

Then I asked you a follow up. You read it, hit reply, and then spewed all of this nonsense about Obamacare.
No, you did not answer my question. It is obvious why you will not. It kills your argument.

The Topic is NOT what Andcoulter DICTATES.

I know, it is what the OP dictated with his title and opening post but none of you are even willing to touch that. Even he sees how toxic it is and refuses to even admit what he wrote.

I changed the subject,as you changed the OP's subject, to something you obviously feel uncomfortable, talking about, because it shows those very Dems, and Obama, as Hypocrites, and those that support them, as hypocrites also, for not being able to call it for what it was.

In a response to a question I asked you? That sounds a lot like brain damage or stupidity to me. That is all I can see that as.

FORCED, on the American Public.

I guess success is only defined, when Democrat's can "dictate" what is said, what is spoken about, and what they "think" is right, regardless if the other half, or if a majority, disagrees. Thanks for clearing it up for me......

Trust me, there is nothing else you can say to me, that would change my mind, when it comes to Obama. 4 years of "Hope and Change", is a failure. BTW, I wont be voting for Romney either. I vote 3rd Party.

I really do not care how far off topic you go. You changing the subject does not make me forget what I asked.

I get it. You have no idea. You have no idea how reality can be what you claimed it was.

It is an either or. I asked you to explain it and you went "OBAMACARE!!!!!!"

So saying the Dems had TOTAL CONTROL for two years is a lie. You admitted it. When I asked you to explain your lie, you changed the subject to "Obamacare."
I guess you think you get to dictate the topic?
You can bring up whatever you want. But if you cannot answer my simple questions, do not bother to hit reply to a question of mine just to change the subject.

Just stand up like a big boy and change the subject yourself and leave me out of it. I see you and Neo cannot explain the lie you both pushed.

That really answers my question better than anyone else ever could.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by neo96

 

Whatever happened to the Pursuit of Happiness? Obama has got to go.

What about people who already have what they consider to be success? Does he feel entitled to take what they have? Seems like he does.

So the word entitled is still confusing you guys this far into the thread?
Let me ask you what else are you entitled to.
The OP has no idea. I have asked many times. Real nice too.
Can you pretty please tell me all you are entitled to?

Okay...I just love how my post was virtually ignored and the question not answered, Especially love how I also mentioned the fact thet Romney said loopholes for taxes have to be closed as well, I saw this with my own two eyes and heard it with my own two ears during the beginning of the debate, I love how that's just glossed over.

And I don't want to hear arguments like "Income tax should not even be taken" Ok because 2 things are certain they are and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. I also don't want to hear this BS that the "evil middle class and poor" (haha) should pay more because 1 where we gonna get it from first of all, and 2 this country by necessity has a progressive tax always was and always will be...

Now let me give you my insight to as to what Obama meant...
He meant that it should be easier for anybody who wants to succeed to get three things (at the very least)
The education they need
The Job experience they need (Notice he's been saying we need to open up more manufactoring jobs here)
And the people who want to start businesses have a better chance of getting business loans...

That is simply it.


Oh and to the idea of college being the end all...be all...meaning that those who have college are more intelligent....so not true... I mean I know several people that own their own successful business or are contractors and they never went to college, I know a person who has an Master's and is homeless, jobless, in jail, and probably has prostitued to live day to day, of course the prostitution thing is just my guess since it is a woman and they seem to always have "$20" increments but they'll tell you they "write articles" and sell them yeah ok.,...but the point is college doesn't mean smarter, you can have book smarts and have no common sense or business savvy.... Just saying. And another good example....Einstein...he never went to college and I think we all can agree he was one of the most intelligent people that ever lived.


And since it's been put on this thread already to the point of detriment...I don't want to hear about less spending they know this we know this needs to be done. We and they also know it's not going to be. So unrealistic answer. You're also aware that Romney's closing loopholes and Obama's ending of tax breaks mean two different things, even I am aware of this...Romney means closing loopholes for everybody but the higher wage earners, Obama means ending breaks for the higher wage earners....but realistically it can't work that way, realistically it has to be for everyone....you're either fair meaning it's equal when it comes to loopholes and tax breaks or you aren't fair at all and pick and choose who gets the breaks. Only one of those is right....doesn't take a college graduate to realize which way it should be.

Originally posted by seeker1963
(except for those who are born into wealth and that pretty much "entitles" them to a position to be smarter and wiser than those of us who are not born with a silver spoon in their mouths) but YET, as you have mentioned, he is doing his best to make sure that the average Joe has NO chance in being successful!!!

You are wrong on the first part but quite correct on the second.
The children of the rich are 'not' smart in fact since they have never been required to apply themselves to any task they are almost without fail quite dull mentally. they maintain their position by keeping the common person down. By regulation and systematic poisoning of their food and water.