Originally Posted by Guest

That's the problem with most die hard liberals...they lucked out so they don't know the hardships others went through to get where/what they did. Most women are like that too, if they have a job, they have these EASY jobs (compared to the physical jobs many men do) and have no comprehension what it REALLY takes to get things done. They sit inside at a desk while the REAL work gets done outside in the heat, cold, rain, wind. I'm against women in the work force in general, they should be doing their ONLY job...raising their children to be the best people they can be. Childless women, have at it, do whatever you can quality for...REALLY qualify for...and are willing to do. Don't SAY your a fireman if you're never in a burning building. Don't SAY you're a soldier when you work in the admin office. Don't SAY you're equal to men, when you're not. BE equal or get out of the way. For most women...someone else DID build it!

It's the same with race "equality", I'm tired of the lies about it. Either BE equal, or shut up about it. You can't say you're equal when all the standards are lowered. I'm not going to be an NFL linebacker. To get me that position would require lowering the standards...a lot. So, I don't try to be a linebacker. I don't push and push to be a linebacker. Women and minorities need to learn this lesson. Do what you're made to do, do what you're good at. Don't try to be a 4'11" 97 pound linebacker... Don't try to be the boss with an IQ below 100.

Nature made us what we are, we're different, work with it, not against it.

Wrong thread. There is another one related to your "women's equality."
And even though I can agree with you to a certain extent on women not being equal to men, you are generalizing and encompassing ALL women. Women are equal to men in just about every way other than physically and "generally" speaking, emotionally. And the second part is only due to how they may have been brought up. If they can do the exact job of a man, then they deserve the same pay. But, this is not the thread for it.

Originally Posted by Guest

Wrong thread. There is another one related to your "women's equality."
And even though I can agree with you to a certain extent on women not being equal to men, you are generalizing and encompassing ALL women. Women are equal to men in just about every way other than physically and "generally" speaking, emotionally. And the second part is only due to how they may have been brought up. If they can do the exact job of a man, then they deserve the same pay. But, this is not the thread for it.

The highlights above say it all.

Originally Posted by Guest

Somebody else made that happen. Yeah right, tell that to someone who has worked 60+ hours a week for years just to keep a business solvent. You liberals always love to take credit for someone else's success and hard work. What would Obama know about starting a business?

Didn't he mean that someone before you built your business built the roads and bridges? Didn't he mean that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants? Didn't he mean that we should be grateful for what out parents and their parents built for us?

Originally Posted by Guest

Didn't he mean that someone before you built your business built the roads and bridges? Didn't he mean that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants? Didn't he mean that we should be grateful for what out parents and their parents built for us?

Did he say what he meant? Or, was he insulting and talking down to everyone, just as he always does? It appears that the Harvard grad has a difficult time speaking in a comprehensible manner.

Originally Posted by Guest

Didn't he mean that someone before you built your business built the roads and bridges? Didn't he mean that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants? Didn't he mean that we should be grateful for what out parents and their parents built for us?

No one before me built my business. It was started from scratch. And, the building of 100,000 additional roads and bridges would not have made it any easier for me to succeed...hard work and dedication made the difference, not your roads and bridges.

I guess when you attribute your success (Obama's success in this case) to riding on the backs of others, you begin to think that everyone else should do the same. Liberals.

Originally Posted by Guest

No one before me built my business. It was started from scratch. And, the building of 100,000 additional roads and bridges would not have made it any easier for me to succeed...hard work and dedication made the difference, not your roads and bridges.

I guess when you attribute your success (Obama's success in this case) to riding on the backs of others, you begin to think that everyone else should do the same. Liberals.

How did you get to work?

Originally Posted by Guest

How did you get to work?

I walked.

Originally Posted by Guest

Didn't he mean that someone before you built your business built the roads and bridges? Didn't he mean that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants? Didn't he mean that we should be grateful for what out parents and their parents built for us?

You infer from your post that the availability of roads and bridges are the key to ones success. Tell that to the less fortunate who sleep under the bridges along the interstate...so much for Obama's theory of success based on the availability of roads and bridges.

Originally Posted by Guest

You infer from your post that the availability of roads and bridges are the key to ones success. Tell that to the less fortunate who sleep under the bridges along the interstate...so much for Obama's theory of success based on the availability of roads and bridges.

I'm grateful that I was born in a first world country. Like you I want to help the less fortunate.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm grateful that I was born in a first world country. Like you I want to help the less fortunate.

Join a church and donate your time and money. You liberals want to help others by taking from someone else; by using others earnings.

Originally Posted by Guest

You infer from your post that the availability of roads and bridges are the key to ones success. Tell that to the less fortunate who sleep under the bridges along the interstate...so much for Obama's theory of success based on the availability of roads and bridges.

Hey, they must have strong bridges that don't leak to make good shelters for those less fortunate.

Originally Posted by Guest

Somebody else made that happen. Yeah right, tell that to someone who has worked 60+ hours a week for years just to keep a business solvent. You liberals always love to take credit for someone else's success and hard work. What would Obama know about starting a business?

Since you know everything, tell us about all the corporate welfare that was received! Be fair and unbiased.

Originally Posted by Guest

Since you know everything, tell us about all the corporate welfare that was received! Be fair and unbiased.

Corporate welfare is a term that analogizes corporate subsidies to welfare payments for the poor. The term is often used to describe a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations or selected corporations, and implies that corporations are much less needy of such treatment than the poor. The term is used interchangeably with crony capitalism; to the extent that there is a difference, the corporate welfare might be restricted only to direct government subsidies of major corporations, excluding tax loopholes and all manner of regulatory and trade decisions, which in practice could be much larger than any direct subsidies. The term, "Corporate Welfare", was reportedly invented in 1956 by Ralph Nader; conservatives like Grover Norquist prefer "Crony capitalism".

What does that have to do with the projects of the WPA that help make this a first world country?
What does this have to do that I appreciate the work of the generations before me, the roads, bridges, infrastructure and you seem to feel entitled.

Wealth was fairly distributed back then. Under Eisenhower the very, very wealthy paid 90% in taxes. Did you appreciate Eisenhower?

Originally Posted by Guest

Corporate welfare is a term that analogizes corporate subsidies to welfare payments for the poor. The term is often used to describe a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations or selected corporations, and implies that corporations are much less needy of such treatment than the poor. The term is used interchangeably with crony capitalism; to the extent that there is a difference, the corporate welfare might be restricted only to direct government subsidies of major corporations, excluding tax loopholes and all manner of regulatory and trade decisions, which in practice could be much larger than any direct subsidies. The term, "Corporate Welfare", was reportedly invented in 1956 by Ralph Nader; conservatives like Grover Norquist prefer "Crony capitalism".

What does that have to do with the projects of the WPA that help make this a first world country?
What does this have to do that I appreciate the work of the generations before me, the roads, bridges, infrastructure and you seem to feel entitled.

Wealth was fairly distributed back then. Under Eisenhower the very, very wealthy paid 90% in taxes. Did you appreciate Eisenhower?

Tax myth. No one actually paid 90%. After the "marginal tax rate" it was more like 40%. Just guesstimating, of course. Here's a table of tax rates to tax revenues. Notice, no big difference between then and now. And the tax rate was actually higher before Eisenhower, something like 94% and then went down to about 91% during Eisenhower.

Originally Posted by Guest

Corporate welfare is a term that analogizes corporate subsidies to welfare payments for the poor. The term is often used to describe a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations or selected corporations, and implies that corporations are much less needy of such treatment than the poor. The term is used interchangeably with crony capitalism; to the extent that there is a difference, the corporate welfare might be restricted only to direct government subsidies of major corporations, excluding tax loopholes and all manner of regulatory and trade decisions, which in practice could be much larger than any direct subsidies. The term, "Corporate Welfare", was reportedly invented in 1956 by Ralph Nader; conservatives like Grover Norquist prefer "Crony capitalism".

What does that have to do with the projects of the WPA that help make this a first world country?
What does this have to do that I appreciate the work of the generations before me, the roads, bridges, infrastructure and you seem to feel entitled.

Wealth was fairly distributed back then. Under Eisenhower the very, very wealthy paid 90% in taxes. Did you appreciate Eisenhower?

You need to elaborate what you mean by the wealth being fairly distributed.
The only change of significance is the population is much bigger now, more people are now dependent upon the government.....then and now....... the haves had/have it however the got it and the have nots had/have what they worked hard for.....

So please explain.