Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

you didnt build that


CaP'N GRuNGe
 Share

Recommended Posts

It also bears mention that, at least to a microscopic business like mine (I avoid "small" business because that term gets misused so much and should never be used to describe the mom and pop sort of places if it's going to be used to describe companies that are so much larger than that). At any rate, local gov't has a far bigger impact on my business than the Feds do. It's not even close.

 

I've opened and run restaurants under Clinton, W, and Obama and can't speak to any difference in terms of regulation that could be pinned to any of them.

 

 

See, my situation was far different ... the only regulations that mattered for the first 7 or 8yrs of my business were those established in DC; only in the last couple of years have state regulations really played any material role at all.

 

I refer to the last 5-6 years of my life as "death by papercut". Let me tell you, it's been a real hoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as my opinion on Obama's deal, I already stated that before and it has zero to do with the post Chavez was referring to. To repeat, I think people are getting carried away with what I feel was a poorly worded way of saying that we shouldn't forget all the things that we were fortunate to build our businesses upon. If you didn't literally find an island and start 100% from scratch, you didn't build that thing entirely by yourself.

 

That said, I do think the post Chavez referenced does merit inclusion in the conversation as I've been in a number of debates on this issue in several places and someone always mentions the business-crippling attitudes of our current POTUS. Now, perhaps these people actually do have first (or even legit 2nd) hand knowledge. However, if it goes any length at all to chill out those who are just repeating what they've been told, I do think it's important to bring up the fact that, at least for the little guy (you know, the bootstraps, feel-good story that virtually every person running for office pretends they're a champion of), there's truly very little, if any difference at all who is POTUS.

 

Fair enough, I see now that it was in response to what Muck said. I suppose it's worth noting that it all just amounts to rhetoric, and not an attack on "micro" businesses (though I also think that is an apt distinction for different reasons, since it is actually "small businesses" seeking to grow into larger ones that tend to be burdened by excessive regulations, often serving as barriers of entry to compete with the big boys).

 

It still seems to me that he's trying to score easy political points with the left, because could you imagine if he said, "If you use more services than you pay for, you didn't build those roads. You didn't fund the police to stop crimes and firemen to put out fires. Business did."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, my situation was far different ... the only regulations that mattered for the first 7 or 8yrs of my business were those established in DC; only in the last couple of years have state regulations really played any material role at all.

 

I refer to the last 5-6 years of my life as "death by papercut". Let me tell you, it's been a real hoot.

 

For the record, I was sort of adding mine as a "by the way" to yours. You, fairly pointing out that both sides of the political aisle have made your life as a businessman hell, me as a "I'd like to add that there are a lot of us who don't even deal with the Feds at all".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I see now that it was in response to what Muck said. I suppose it's worth noting that it all just amounts to rhetoric, and not an attack on "micro" businesses (though I also think that is an apt distinction for different reasons, since it is actually "small businesses" seeking to grow into larger ones that tend to be burdened by excessive regulations, often serving as barriers of entry to compete with the big boys).

 

It still seems to me that he's trying to score easy political points with the left, because could you imagine if he said, "If you use more services than you pay for, you didn't build those roads. You didn't fund the police to stop crimes and firemen to put out fires. Business did."

 

 

Why would Obama need to score political points with the left? Are they suddenly switching teams and voting for Romney?

 

Anybody see his campaign ad in rebuttal to this whole thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infrastructure is obviously Socialism.

 

 

It's been a while since I read the rascal, but isn't maintaining postal roads a governemental duty mentioned in the Constitution? Not that this would mean the task isn't a sign of socialism, it would just mean that if it where socialism that the founders tolerated socialism and enshrined that bit of it in the Constitution.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops, I see the mention is of establishing postal roads. It does not mention building or maintaining them. We could have a fun debate whether establishing meant merely setting aside land or designating routes, or whether it went further to building and maintaining them. Who is in?

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a chunk of you people here who would have fought against the establishment of the US Highway system because they are not said postal roads. Seriously Dumb.

 

 

But the interstate system did provide for the common defense, or at least enhance the capability of defense. I remember reading something about that in the Constitution, though I don't believe it set forth in specific detail what common defense entailed.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the interstate system did provide for the common defense, or at least enhance the capability of defense. I remember reading something about that in the Constitution, though I don't believe it set forth in specific detail what common defense entailed.

 

Interstates are still considered "Defense Highways", and parts can be used as emergency runways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the interstate system did provide for the common defense, or at least enhance the capability of defense. I remember reading something about that in the Constitution, though I don't believe it set forth in specific detail what common defense entailed.

 

 

So you're not in the group, good to know. :tup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're not in the group, good to know. :tup:

 

Who, you mean the hypothetical, probably non-existent group that you used to call dumb, because you've run out of ways to defend Obama's gaffe? That chunk? Seems to be a common theme with "you people here" as you say, to deflect to the "yeah, well you..." attack. Truly the mark of not having any more valid arguments.

 

First off, if you hadn't noticed, most conservative leaning are both in favor of national defense and commerce, so your fictional ad-hominem doesn't even hold water..

 

I'd prefer that roads be purely a states matter issue (most every state would have quickly realized that it was in everyone's common interest for the ease of transporting goods and services, in addition to things like travel and tourism, and would have funded and collaborated. I have little doubt of this); But I do realize that it is also a matter of national defense. I have absolutely no problem with the federal government conducting true matters of national defense (just not offense).

 

Maybe you'll have an easier time twisting what Obama "meant" to say than to make false unfounded assumptions about the people you're arguing against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those business owners typically end up paying a lot more for the use of that infrastructure in the way of taxes both as a percent of their income and dollars paid.

 

The point is that people before you paid for/built the roads you used when your business started. The point is that we all have a greater opportunity for success because of the foundation laid by our predecessors. Do you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who, you mean the hypothetical, probably non-existent group that you used to call dumb, because you've run out of ways to defend Obama's gaffe? That chunk? Seems to be a common theme with "you people here" as you say, to deflect to the "yeah, well you..." attack. Truly the mark of not having any more valid arguments.

 

First off, if you hadn't noticed, most conservative leaning are both in favor of national defense and commerce, so your fictional ad-hominem doesn't even hold water..

 

I'd prefer that roads be purely a states matter issue (most every state would have quickly realized that it was in everyone's common interest for the ease of transporting goods and services, in addition to things like travel and tourism, and would have funded and collaborated. I have little doubt of this); But I do realize that it is also a matter of national defense. I have absolutely no problem with the federal government conducting true matters of national defense (just not offense).

 

Maybe you'll have an easier time twisting what Obama "meant" to say than to make false unfounded assumptions about the people you're arguing against.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that people before you paid for/built the roads you used when your business started. The point is that we all have a greater opportunity for success because of the foundation laid by our predecessors. Do you disagree?

 

 

If the roads (and infrastructure) are available to all people equally, then wouldn't it be immaterial to consider in what one person accomplished that another did not? Success factors that are limited to some but not all would be worthy to discuss in how someone was successful and others failed or did not try. Every generation should stand on the shoulders of the one before it just as the future relies on us now. We also have to deal with the problems of the past as well.

 

I guess the argument could be my starting The Huddle required the internet to exist which is absolutely true. I could not have done it without everything that went into creating the web. But so what? Everyone had the exact same access to the internet that we did. And trust me, there have been literally hundreds of fantasy football sites in the last 16 years which have failed and shut down. While I agree the internet was a platform that I was able to use but it was our vision, extensive sacrifice, hard work and diligence that made us one of the top FF sites for the last 16 years.

 

Seems like telling a sprinter that he did not set a record because he did not make his own shoes or lay the gravel on the track. Everyone has shoes...

 

I want no part of any political argument. I am just not understanding how the infrastructure of a society is germane to one person's success or failure. I do understand how words are used out of context and with political agendas. Just seems like a strange discussion to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that people before you paid for/built the roads you used when your business started. The point is that we all have a greater opportunity for success because of the foundation laid by our predecessors. Do you disagree?

 

 

Do you honestly think that was the point and the only point? Did you not percieve that this was intended to presage a political point or argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the roads (and infrastructure) are available to all people equally, then wouldn't it be immaterial to consider in what one person accomplished that another did not? Success factors that are limited to some but not all would be worthy to discuss in how someone was successful and others failed or did not try. Every generation should stand on the shoulders of the one before it just as the future relies on us now. We also have to deal with the problems of the past as well.

 

I guess the argument could be my starting The Huddle required the internet to exist which is absolutely true. I could not have done it without everything that went into creating the web. But so what? Everyone had the exact same access to the internet that we did. And trust me, there have been literally hundreds of fantasy football sites in the last 16 years which have failed and shut down. While I agree the internet was a platform that I was able to use but it was our vision, extensive sacrifice, hard work and diligence that made us one of the top FF sites for the last 16 years.

 

Seems like telling a sprinter that he did not set a record because he did not make his own shoes or lay the gravel on the track. Everyone has shoes...

 

I want no part of any political argument. I am just not understanding how the infrastructure of a society is germane to one person's success or failure. I do understand how words are used out of context and with political agendas. Just seems like a strange discussion to me.

 

 

And we have a winner. As long as everyone has the same access to the same infrastructure which is the case, then obamessiah could be dubbed "captain obvious" in this instance. Unless it really was his true feelings toward capitalism/business, which taken into context with the rest of his public career/statements/writing is really not that hard to believe, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come we haven't had 3+ page threads on multiple Romney gaffe's like "I like to be able to fire people who have provided services to me," or "I'm not concerned about the very poor," or "I'll take a lot of credit for the fact the industry has come back?" How bout his recent attempt at a foreign diplomacy trip (the Olympic comment) that backfired and pissed off the Londoners?

 

No-one takes Romney seriously?

Obama gaffes less often so it's more noteworthy?

Or is there a certain group of anti-Obama posters here who are more prone to ZMOGGGGn on f'n stupid non-issues?

 

Probably all three, with the last reason being most prominent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come we haven't had 3+ page threads on multiple Romney gaffe's like "I like to be able to fire people who have provided services to me," or "I'm not concerned about the very poor," or "I'll take a lot of credit for the fact the industry has come back?" How bout his recent attempt at a foreign diplomacy trip (the Olympic comment) that backfired and pissed off the Londoners?

 

No-one takes Romney seriously?

Obama gaffes less often so it's more noteworthy?

Or is there a certain group of anti-Obama posters here who are more prone to ZMOGGGGn on f'n stupid non-issues?

 

Probably all three, with the last reason being most prominent.

 

 

Because when you take Romney's comments in context they make sense and most american agree with them. When you take Obama's comment in context considering his past speeches, past interviews, past writings and past legislation most people have a problem with it.

 

Most people would agree they would like the idea of firing service providers. How many of us haven't fire one phone carrier for another, or one bank for another.

 

His comment about not concerned with the poor, is because they are already taken care of with programs in place. Most rational people understand what he was saying.

 

I'm not familiar with the taking credit for industry comment, so I won't comment on it.

 

With regard to the Olympics as a past CEO of the Olympics he has a perspective that most don't. Additionally he didn't say anything most of the brits weren't saying themselves. Sometimes the truth hurts. Maybe it is time we start telling the truth more instead of just trying be politically correct. Is anyone under the illusion that we are going to go to war with GB over his comments? Are his comments more demoralizing to the brits than removing Winston's bust from the Whitehouse? Are they any more arrogant than sending the queen a DVD set of yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come we haven't had 3+ page threads on multiple Romney gaffe's like "I like to be able to fire people who have provided services to me," or "I'm not concerned about the very poor," or "I'll take a lot of credit for the fact the industry has come back?" How bout his recent attempt at a foreign diplomacy trip (the Olympic comment) that backfired and pissed off the Londoners?

 

No-one takes Romney seriously?

Obama gaffes less often so it's more noteworthy?

Or is there a certain group of anti-Obama posters here who are more prone to ZMOGGGGn on f'n stupid non-issues?

 

Probably all three, with the last reason being most prominent.

 

Maybe because it was much more obvious what Romney meant when you take his words into context. When you read his full statements it becomes obvious - with Obama's statements in full context it makes it seem even worse. Look at the word allowed - so the government allows us? Kind of like mom and dad allowed me to stay an hour past curfew. His words show that he is not trying to praise people who take initiative he would rather THEY praise and thank government - in my opinion he has it backwards.

 

Take the "I like to fire people" quote - he is obviously saying he likes to have the ability to choose a different service provider if that provider sucks - are you against having the ability to choose who provides you a service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information