Seems Obama does not believe that anyone with a successful business actually built it. I guess he thinks all business's were inherited or bought. Of course with his gov't, I would suspect that it would be extremely difficult to actually create any successful business. Gov't would find a way to destroy it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...ss-you-didnt-/

 

All he believes in is destroying this country and turning it into Europe.

 

What surprises me more than our president talking about our country as though it's a commune, is that it's pretty likely that he will be elected for another four years.

It's hard to believe that we are watching the dismantling of our country in real time. I'm sure none of us expected to see this in our lifetimes, but here it is, right in front of our eyes. I feel guilty because I feel like I've let the generations before me down, by not doing enought to stop this.

 

Wittom, go wash your mouth out with soap! Jk

Landslide 2012------DUMP-O!!!!!!!!

 

What's even more amazing is there still is a bunch of people openly supporting him. I honestly can not see how you can say you would vote for him again after the miserable failure he has been so far.

 

Obama needs 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency.

Romney only needs 269.

 

Splain that to me.

 

Obummer...what a damn Fanook...

 

Actually, Romney may not even need 269 if there are any 3rd party votes and Obama gets less than 270.

The majority of states have a Republican majority of members.

 

Even without a third candidate in the mix, in the event of a 269-269 tie, as glc posted above basicly the House picks the next President.

 

A few years ago this would have surprised me, now, not so much. The number of people who want something for nothing is astounding. Their logic is so backward that I have little hope for this country. I mean you have feminists yelling that they want the government out of their uterus, then complaining that the government is not providing birth control. You either want the government out or you want it in.

I have a dumbarse brother-in-law who complains that the government is getting involved in too many things. Then he starts to complain that cellular companies are screwing people and something needs to be done because he bought a phone that had 4G in an area where 4G doesn't exist. It was explained that within 40 minutes of our area there are large areas that do receive 4G service and many people live here and work there or vis-versa. He still wanted the government to step in and save his butt because he was too stupid to determine his needs and what the access was for the area he lived and worked. This is the idiot who has been going around asking who would join if a rebellion started today.

My point is that there are people on both sides who need to grow up and determine what they want. Quit bitchin that the government isn't giving you everything you want then complaining that the private is taking advantage of you. You either have the specter of government over your head or you have the buyer be ware of to private sector choose your poison. Personally I'd rather have the private sector over my shoulder. I can look out for myself. Not too mention they can be sued much more effectively and can't force you to do anything, like the government can.

 

This actually goes directly to the topic of the thread. I have seen many liberals use the same logic to justify taking your property. If you used anything from the government then you have the duty to give some of your property back to the community. What seems to be lost on these people is our personal wealth is not the wealth of the country, but it does make the country wealthy. Another thing that is lost on these people is that everybody had the same access to the government resources but only a few had the drive and initiative to become successful. The idea of equal opportunity is also lost on these people being replaced by the idea of equal outcome regardless of effort. Everyone has the ability to become successful if they chose to. The drive and initiative to become successful is not a government provided resource, yet that is the cause of a person's success. I think the taxes paid by the top 52% are enough to pay for the portion of the generally provided government services used by the top 52%. Especially since, if you take out the entitlement spending there would be more than enough money to go around.

 

Obama campaign now states he was misquoted. Then as proof show video of the exact words as previously stated. Sounds like Obama and friends are getting confused to say the least. Maybe even desperate.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ma_648762.html

 

Obama is taking a page directly from the Animal Farm, which happens to be a critique of Socialist Russia from the point of view of someone who helped fight against the Russians. The problem is at least the Soviets knew you had to wait more than a day or two to rewrite history.

 

I get a lot of time to think about various things. Since this was in the news and has been covered extensively it has been in the forefront of my thoughts. A few things I have figured out that makes this such a ludicrous statement. Obama's assumption is that without the help of someone else you would not have been successful. Going with that assumption leads me to believe that without the help of someone else you would be in a lower tax bracket. Wouldn't that increase in your tax bracket be repayment for the help of the other person? I mean if a teacher in your 10th grade history class inspired you to greatness, shouldn't you only be liable for the year you had contact with that teacher? And factoring in not all of their time was spent with you shouldn't you only be liable for the amount of their compensation actually spent on you, plus interest? Going down that thought, since we are talking about federal taxes, shouldn't you only be liable to the federal government the portion of any grant money used to reimburse the local school district for hiring that teacher. Once all of that is figured out the amount you should give back should be no more than a few dollars, to the federal government. That would include any interest accrued. That would be more than reimbursed in your improved tax bracket. Since only 52% of Americans pay taxes, aren't you already paying back your share since you are actually paying taxes? Shouldn't those on welfare receive a reduction in their welfare benefits to reimburse the government for using the roads and all of the rest of the government provided services? Heck the services are provided to everyone, and since the poor are not successful they are wasting government resources. That sounds like fraud, waste, and abuse to me.

What if the person who influenced you wasn't provided by the government? What if your parents or brother or sister provided you with that assistance or encouragement? Shouldn't you have to pay pay your family back instead of the government? Wouldn't that mean you should pay less taxes. What if you went to a religious private school? Should you then be required to pay a mandatory amount of money every year to the private school instead of the government?