Yours seems based on ignoring the "WE THE PEOPLE" at the top of the document creating US government.
Joel Send a noteboard - 02/09/2012 02:48:45 AM
Which, I might add, is a common disconnect in conservatives, and causes the various contradictory positions you rightly note in many Republicans. Another good example: Government has no right to take, and every obligation to defend, all life—except those too old, infirm or underpaid to feed, house and provide themselves medical care, who are on their own, and, of course, heinous criminals, whom government is actually obligated to KILL. The rule of thumb is that when politicians do things one supports they are faithful public servants implementing the democratically expressed will of those who elected them; otherwise, they are tyrants.
Community does not mean government. But hey, nothing like drawing a false choice between all or nothing alternatives where "more than one person's involvement" equals proof of the moral supremacy of government solutions, and a straw man position of individual accomplishment defined as accomplishments that relied on nothing from no one else. SOMEBODY ELSE MADE THE FOOD YOU ATE WHILE INVENTING THAT DEVICE IN YOUR HAND_BUILT GARAGE! OMG! YOU ARE TOTALLY RELIANT ON THE COMMUNITY, THEREFORE SOCIALISM WORKS!!!
In republican and democratic states, community DOES mean government, or rather, government means community: Community exists in many other forms than government, but unless one believes all elections rigged, it manifestly exists throughout that one. Collectives mean community; any human collective can be accurately defined as a "a community of individuals," and largely is. Even were that not true, the statement "We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together" covers far more than just government, though it obviously covers that, too. It covers entrepreneurs and investors, as well as employees, consumers and yes, even government.
The only people who made it exclusive to one facet of community are the Republicans who had entrepreneurs and investors on stage to pat each other on the back while employees, consumers and government workers who contributed watched on TV, wondering why the Republican Party does not think them worth mentioning.
That claim was conceded the moment the RNC brought business owners on stage to thank people without whom their success would have been impossible. Now we are just debating whether they included everyone they should have, or whether "Mitt Romney built that."
The roads were already built and the municipal bonds already bought by whom, the Magical Capitalist Individualism Fairy? How 'bout GOVERNMENT. Government did not create community, no, but community created government as an extension of itself. Or at least you better hope it did; if the US government, at the local, state or federal level, represents any single individual exclusively, I guarantee it is not you.
The people built the government, which is an extension and servant of them; it is right there in the first words of our highest national law: "WE THE PEOPLE...." The Framers even wrote it much larger than the rest of the words in case someone was so myopic they thought the federal government some tyrannical individual instead of MANY individuals democratically chosen by all legally voting individuals to represent them.
If that democratically elected government does not do everything you think it should, or does do things you think it should not, that does not mean it is tyranny, it means you should run a more effective campaign in the next election. I am no more fan of adventurism (as distinct from defending the US and its existing overseas interests) than you are, but the Senate legally authorized the Iraq war so all I could do is try to elect a president and Senators who would legally end it.
Convening in a stadium mostly built with municipal (i.e. government) bonds and trotting out successful entrepreneurs to thank Romney and Bain for all the help that got them started is a poor example of self-reliance. It says Staples, Steel Dynamics etc. only succeeded thanks to investor, supplier, employee and consumer contributions IN ADDITION TO (not instead of) its owners notable ones. Successful American businesses are the result of the American economic system, and are therefore community, not individual, achievements.
Community does not mean government. But hey, nothing like drawing a false choice between all or nothing alternatives where "more than one person's involvement" equals proof of the moral supremacy of government solutions, and a straw man position of individual accomplishment defined as accomplishments that relied on nothing from no one else. SOMEBODY ELSE MADE THE FOOD YOU ATE WHILE INVENTING THAT DEVICE IN YOUR HAND_BUILT GARAGE! OMG! YOU ARE TOTALLY RELIANT ON THE COMMUNITY, THEREFORE SOCIALISM WORKS!!!
In republican and democratic states, community DOES mean government, or rather, government means community: Community exists in many other forms than government, but unless one believes all elections rigged, it manifestly exists throughout that one. Collectives mean community; any human collective can be accurately defined as a "a community of individuals," and largely is. Even were that not true, the statement "We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together" covers far more than just government, though it obviously covers that, too. It covers entrepreneurs and investors, as well as employees, consumers and yes, even government.
The only people who made it exclusive to one facet of community are the Republicans who had entrepreneurs and investors on stage to pat each other on the back while employees, consumers and government workers who contributed watched on TV, wondering why the Republican Party does not think them worth mentioning.
Since the Republican National Convention culminated in that admission, what remains to debate?
Obama's implict claim that someone else is entitled to a claim for the credit and/or profits.That claim was conceded the moment the RNC brought business owners on stage to thank people without whom their success would have been impossible. Now we are just debating whether they included everyone they should have, or whether "Mitt Romney built that."
The road was already built from taxes already paid, the municipal bonds were voluntarily purchased (not that I agree with bonds being sold for such purposes), and the community which enabled all this to happen, was established and built well before the socialist ball got rolling. Government did not create that community, it subsists off of it. Government is more concerned with interfering in the community when it does not meet the racial makeup the government thinks appropriate, or wants to consume substances the government disapproves of it buying and selling, or wants to engage in private business transactions that people who know nothing about business dislike on the grounds that the transactions might make people rich.
The roads were already built and the municipal bonds already bought by whom, the Magical Capitalist Individualism Fairy? How 'bout GOVERNMENT. Government did not create community, no, but community created government as an extension of itself. Or at least you better hope it did; if the US government, at the local, state or federal level, represents any single individual exclusively, I guarantee it is not you.
Your comparison is like saying that anyone who buys health insurance but opposes Obamacare is a hypocrite. Not that there aren't more than their fair share of hypocrites at the RNC (i.e. anyone who opposes or supports some but not all of the various Wars on Abstract Concepts: War on Terror, War on Poverty, War on Drugs etc). Sure we'll trumpet free enterprise and lack of regulation, but pot, oh HELL no! Romney has explicitly declared military cuts off the table, IIRC, but we have no land enemies, and our naval dominance makes the British Empire's Admiralty look like pikers for merely settling for a navy bigger than any two. Ours out-floats the REST OF THE WORLD, but no. THAT government program is untouchable. If the government did not build this country, the greatest in the world (and I dare any speaker at the RNC to say otherwise), why is it okay for government to try building the Happy Democratic Utopias of Iraq & Afghanistan (and presumably Iran)?
Not that it really matters. Chris Christie effectively threw in the towel for the presidential race with a speech that was not so much in support of the Romney 2012 Campaign as the Christie 2016 Campaign.
Not that it really matters. Chris Christie effectively threw in the towel for the presidential race with a speech that was not so much in support of the Romney 2012 Campaign as the Christie 2016 Campaign.
The people built the government, which is an extension and servant of them; it is right there in the first words of our highest national law: "WE THE PEOPLE...." The Framers even wrote it much larger than the rest of the words in case someone was so myopic they thought the federal government some tyrannical individual instead of MANY individuals democratically chosen by all legally voting individuals to represent them.
If that democratically elected government does not do everything you think it should, or does do things you think it should not, that does not mean it is tyranny, it means you should run a more effective campaign in the next election. I am no more fan of adventurism (as distinct from defending the US and its existing overseas interests) than you are, but the Senate legally authorized the Iraq war so all I could do is try to elect a president and Senators who would legally end it.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 02/09/2012 at 02:50:39 AM
Does Not a "WE [Not I] BUILT THIS!" Banner Concede Warren and Obama Were Right?
01/09/2012 02:45:52 PM
- 820 Views
It amazing how much the left doesn't get tis issue
01/09/2012 02:55:44 PM
- 550 Views
It is amazing how well every sentence but your last covers the "We [not I] built this" view
01/09/2012 03:29:27 PM
- 565 Views
+1 - nicely said. The "built it" comment drives the left crazy, since they know.....
01/09/2012 04:25:52 PM
- 463 Views
Nope, it drives us crazy because it's an out-of-context fragment quote
01/09/2012 07:01:24 PM
- 458 Views
they all know what he said and context doesn't change it *NM*
01/09/2012 07:11:01 PM
- 269 Views
This is the kind of shit that makes me and my family not want to vote Republican.
02/09/2012 12:01:01 AM
- 549 Views
Interesting response....
02/09/2012 12:07:01 AM
- 453 Views
They're both acting normal (for politicians)
02/09/2012 12:12:31 AM
- 589 Views
I disagree; they both did something downright bizarre (again, for politicians; see link.)
02/09/2012 12:20:32 AM
- 530 Views
Heh.
02/09/2012 12:25:10 AM
- 572 Views
Bah, everyone knows Taxachusetts residents are mad, and tyrants to boot.
02/09/2012 03:04:57 AM
- 689 Views
Yes the GOP really need to make more effort into trying to win Massachusetts
02/09/2012 02:17:49 PM
- 529 Views
Exactly, the context doesn't help. Libs believe government knows all and makes all possible.
01/09/2012 08:25:51 PM
- 429 Views
Sigh... what words a quote contains is not a matter of "POV."
01/09/2012 09:01:17 PM
- 671 Views
Seriously. Like, I'm not debating policy here- I am saying that those are the literal words. *NM*
01/09/2012 11:53:39 PM
- 261 Views
I do not understand how that can be debated, yet it keeps happening.
02/09/2012 12:03:44 AM
- 489 Views
What should disturb you is what a bunch of unhinged hypocrites your party has become
02/09/2012 02:38:34 PM
- 543 Views
I have no party, and have already said mischaracterizing "corporations are people" is just as bad.
02/09/2012 04:15:01 PM
- 602 Views
Would you give a me link to where you created post upset about how Romney was being treated?
02/09/2012 09:10:03 PM
- 439 Views
Sure; the last time was about three days ago in response to you.
02/09/2012 09:20:55 PM
- 557 Views
are you on crack? that is a post of you defending the stupid Bain attacks on Romney
02/09/2012 09:30:00 PM
- 472 Views
You brought up Bain there; I merely responded and noted Romneys "corp." line was also misused.
02/09/2012 10:12:52 PM
- 706 Views
Joel. That's the thinking of a 12-year-old. You're better than that. *NM*
01/09/2012 05:17:25 PM
- 254 Views
Saying "you didn't build that" denigrates individuals is twelve-year-old thinking:I merely note that
01/09/2012 05:45:06 PM
- 430 Views
I know what Obama meant to say. If he said it to me I would want to punch him in his liberal mouth.
02/09/2012 12:23:47 AM
- 571 Views
Ok, I'll put this very naively.
02/09/2012 12:36:33 AM
- 829 Views
Obama had his chance.
02/09/2012 12:43:25 AM
- 566 Views
True, I think. I just wish the RNC had taken a more concrete approach like you did. Could fuck them. *NM*
02/09/2012 12:52:58 AM
- 333 Views
"The Democratic health care bill that bears Obama's name for no good reason"
02/09/2012 03:44:18 AM
- 545 Views
and you really want us to believe it is a few comments that are keeping you from voting republican? *NM*
02/09/2012 02:40:13 PM
- 252 Views
Your suggestion that what I floated to Tom is somehow antithetical to the GOP is laughable. *NM*
02/09/2012 05:29:33 PM
- 329 Views
In fairness to rt, that sounds a lot like a welfare state, which is pretty antithetical to the GOP.
02/09/2012 07:10:47 PM
- 536 Views
Most are willing to enter the debate, and give a measure of ground. Hence Romneycare. *NM*
02/09/2012 10:40:21 PM
- 699 Views
Fair enough, but once the show goes national we get Romneys pledge to repeal Romneycare.
02/09/2012 11:10:55 PM
- 544 Views
"If you don't want to root for your team, then you should get the hell out of the stadium."
02/09/2012 02:15:11 AM
- 526 Views
Your political philosophy seems based on ignoring the difference between voluntary & compulsory
02/09/2012 12:38:50 AM
- 602 Views
Yours seems based on ignoring the "WE THE PEOPLE" at the top of the document creating US government.
02/09/2012 02:48:45 AM
- 599 Views
I think there is something to be said for charitable interpretation.
02/09/2012 02:10:10 AM
- 501 Views
I am not sure what the best argument against the best reading of his argument would be.
02/09/2012 03:13:46 AM
- 523 Views
I don't think so
02/09/2012 01:47:03 PM
- 477 Views
True, but self-reliant individualism goes poorly with plural nouns.*
02/09/2012 04:18:22 PM
- 498 Views