Intro: "Nothing makes the 1% angrier than any suggestion that anyone else helped them acquire their beautiful, beautiful cash."
Portrait, Michael Moore, 04/03/09. (photo: Ann-Christine Poujoulat/Getty)
Mitt Didn't Build That
02 October 12
othing makes the 1% angrier than any suggestion that anyone else helped them acquire their beautiful, beautiful cash.
So I was a little surprised to find out from the New Yorker magazine this week that one of Bain Capital's very first deals was buying "a small airline that ran military shuttles between Tonopah, Nevada and Las Vegas."
Here are the details, from the Financial Times:
In the mid-1980s Tonopah, also known as Area 52, was home to the newly developed, top secret F-117A stealth fighter. Pilots and support personnel lived in Las Vegas and spent their working week in the desert.
A $10m-a-year contract to shuttle them back and forth was the prize asset of a small charter company called Key Airlines, which became a formative deal for Bain Capital…
So from the start, Bain Capital had support from the government. We all built that. Just don't ever mention that in public, or come around asking Mitt and his billionaire friends to kick in a little more so your aunt can pay for her breast cancer treatment or your 5-year-old can have a good kindergarten teacher. That would make them very angry, and you wouldn't like them when they're angry.
P.S. A federal judge ruled in 1992 that Key Airline management had illegally suppressed a 1985 attempt by its pilots to unionize. According to the pilots, they had to form a union to stop unsafe conditions; according to Bain, they were just pissed off with their "admittedly low" salaries.
Of course, if you owned a company and were being paid a lot of money by your fellow citizens to fly stealth fighter pilots to work, you might not care what the reason was - you might be happy to improve safety OR pay your employees more. Or even both! But that's why, unlike Mitt Romney, you're not worth 230 million dollars.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 15 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
You mean the way Obama put GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy?
You are ignorant of the bankruptcy laws, that is a fact!
The GM company that was there is DEAD,DEAD,DEAD!
The owners of GM LOST EVERYTHING, their retirement savings, EVERYTHING!!!
The GM listed on the stock exchange is a NEW COMPANY!!!
Fact: Neither the president nor his administration put GM OR Chrysler into bankruptcy.
Fact: Neither company went into bankruptcy at all.
Fact: Mitt Romney SUGGESTED that Obama let Detroit (including GM and Chrysler) to bankrupt.
Fact: Obama REFUSED to do so, and instead propped up the companies through partial ownership (NOT nationalization as suggested by some right wing nuts)
Fact: The automobile companies recovered while under government care.
Fact: The government held stock in the companies was then mostly sold. (some is still held but will be sold when the price point is right, the same as a private investor would do).
Fact: BECAUSE of the government's intervention (whether leeches like it or not) GM and Chrysler are now privately held PROFITABLE companies again.
So no, Mitt and his crony's bloodsucking is NOTHING like what Obama did.
Obama's cronies forced many INDEPENDENT dealers to close their doors.
For the tax payers to recover the money stolen from them to perform this fascist fiasco of propping up a private business the stock has to be at $50/share -- it is $23.
What have we gotten in return for bush's multi-trillion dollar bailout of the banking industry?
That multi-trillion bail out had Senator Baracks blessing along with the democratic senate majority and democratic hiouse majority - and as president OweBama has prosecuted 0 banksters.
The dems own just as much of that fiasco as the Republicans. To claim otherwise is a lie.
I worked for GM in the 80s. They screwed up in a dozen ways (I don't have enough characters to list them all), and I could see the early warnings of disaster even back then. I completely agree with Martinfre. There were other options, but they might have cost votes in the states with auto plants and suppliers. When other companies go out of business, they sell off the viable parts (surely there would have been takers to buy, say, Buick as a separate car company) and pay off everybody else. GM brands could continue to exist, just not under a single inept corporate leadership.
If you want to help get the President re-elected PLEASE KEEP refering to what he did to GM!!!
Ignorance is Bliss!
GM went out of business, what you see is a NEW GM!
What was done was what Romney suggested, except Romney wanted to use the Constitution and not some phony Obama plan that destroyed the law!
Dude Vultures only eat what is already dead as was GM.
This Zombi corp is costing the tax payers and the fascist rationalization s for propping it up are wrong
-- unless you think it is right to plunder from millions of successful people/business to prop up politically connected and otherwise failing companies.
I do not know whether Romney was aware of what is being charged here (assuming it is true). Moore may know but he isn't saying. He is implying very strongly that Romney knew but he doesn't come out & say it. Why?
Some tome ago Moore was running his mouth about how the rich should pay more taxes. He said his taxes should be raised. It was pointed out to him that all he had to do was write a check to Uncle Sam. He didn't have to wait for a tax increase. He shut up in one big hurry. Liberals spend other people's money, not their own.
Divine Barry couldn't run a shoeshine stand. His knowledge of the business world would fit comfortably on an index card as he has demonstrated many times. Of course being divine it is impossible for him to screw up. It just constantly looks like he did - the political form of optical illusion. The devoted members of his Adoration Society all know those screw-ups were really Bush's fault. But since Captain Clueless really is clueless the safe approach is to keep attacking Romney instead of bragging about Barry.
Moore is strongly implying that Romney knew what was being done. However he does not come out & state that Romney knew. Why? If his research is diligent, as you claim, then why would he not eliminate any doubt? Come out & say it - Romney knew. This is just character assassination.
First of all, you can't just "write a check", unless you're donating for public campaign financing (something repugs don't believe in).
Apparently defense contractors are "liberals"?
Again with "divine Barry"? Keep it up! It just makes your side look like sore losers!
Are you saying that only a poor person would realize the rich don't pay enough in taxes? I think only a rich person would insist they shouldn't. My 99% against your 1% doesn't stack up very well for you, unless you want to undermine the democratic process - the "Divine Democratic Process".
Defense contractors??? I was talking about Moore. Obviously you didn't notice.
Divine Barry is not meant to reflect my opinion of Captain Clueless. It is meant to reflect his opinion of himself.
I have absolutely no idea what your 99% vrs 1% has to do with this. In fact the whole paragraph makes no sense.
BTW - I am far from being rich. What I have I earned. I simply do not like a bunch of self-appointed righteous morons deciding how my money should be spent.
2. You said, "Liberals spend other people's money, not their own". Defense contractors spend other people's money, not their own. Therefore, defense contractors MUST be liberals.
3. "Divine Twit" has to do with the idea that someone who "is far from being rich" would vote for someone who CLEARLY thinks of them as a subject of his realm rather than as a U.S. citizen.
Defense contractors spend other people's money??? How did you arrive at that?
You shouldn't mind paying more in taxes afterall, since it's not your money, right? It BELONGS to those defense contractors.
Obama has almost no knowledge of the business world. Those who believe his job doesn't call for it are simply ignorant. As Calvin Coolidge once noted: "The business of America is business." Obama thinks the business of America is to build the biggest government he can & get everyone dependent on it so they will only vote for those who promise to keep the status quo.
GIVE IT UP. You're embarrassing yourself.
Why did I choose that example. Primarily because it is not a complex business. A box with a footrest, some shoe polish, a rag & a brush are all that is needed. It is a single price service payable in cash at the time of service. However the basic attributes of a business are there.
Any shoeshine stand owner has more business experience than Divine Barry. Yet Barry tries to pass himself off as knowledgeable. He understands the economy. I guess that in his mind being a community organizer provided him with all the knowledge of the business world a president needs. But then someone who believes he deserves a Nobel prize for doing nothing is easily deluded.
YOU CAN NOT write a check to fund public education, or infrastructure. You have no say in that. The money comes exclusively from tax dollars and is apportioned according to the will of politicians - many of whom want to spend ALL of it on the military.
Let's suppose I have 20 trillion dollars to give the government. That's enough to pay off the entire debt with several trillion to spare. What happens?
My money is used to pay off the debt accrued by unfunded wars started by conservatives. Meanwhile these same conservatives claim we STILL can't afford public education and we STILL shouldn't help each other out. They claim that anything we do to help the poor, EVEN if it helps the economy and further enriches the already rich, is just plain IMMORAL. Apparently, Jesus was a "pull yourself up by the sandal-straps" kind of guy who despised the poor. They claim that, even if we could afford it, it would be wrong. Plus, we just can't afford it.
When the next repug President gets into office, his administration goes on the talk show circuit to claim, "debts don't really matter". All conservatives suddenly and temporarily agree with him. Trillions more are spent on the military and no bid contracts to further pillage the 3rd world. MY money goes to finance this. I HAVE NO SAY IN IT.
CONT.
The talk about taxes is a big fat f****int lie. Your side of the argument doesn't care what the national debt is or how it's paid back as long as none of it was used to fund something for the good of all Americans.
No. I can't fund the U.S. education system myself. For that to happen, people HAVE TO BE TAXED.
"Your argument is that liberals can pay for everything they want without bothering conservatives who don't care about our country, by simply writing a check." I never said that & it is too stupid to warrant more comment.
You hypothesize about the future & then make supposedly factual statements about what will happen & why. Since you cannot possibly know what will happen these go into the stupid column also.
I didn't say a "check to the IRS", I said a "check to Uncle Sam". You CAN write a check - YOU even say how. The check CAN go against the debt.
Conservatives have a track record. EVEN YOU can see that.
THAT'S WHY the rich's taxes need to be increased.
Also, what were you implying about shining shoes? If you want to know why the repug party is losing and has angered 75% of the electorate, it's comments like that.
You are right, it is a very exiting country, and there are so many interesting stories. I think it is wonderful that you managed to get a fine education, which I am sure meant a lot of very hard work by you. But YOU DID IT. Bravo for you.
I was also born during the depression, in 33. in Denmark.
I rarely got new clothes, my mom altered clothes given to us from my older cousins. I am sure we were poor, but it was not something I thought much about.
Particularly because during the German occupation both my parents were in a sanatorium because they had Tuberculosis. My dad was there for two years, my mom for one year. If we did not have socialized Medicine, they would probably both have died.
When I was 25, I came here as a bride, my husband was also Danish, an engineer.
During the Vietnam war the inflation was so difficult that I had to help earn money.
I started catering parties, because I was a good cook and had artistic sense,
I saved up money and expanded, buying a small cafe. It is now a thriving business, I gave to my daughter when I retired. We are many people who came here from around the world. And I think we all help making it a great country
I love America very much, so it disturbs me a lot to see all the monkey business being perpetrated by the t bag republicans. Hopefully we can rescue the remnants of our democracy.
In case you haven't noticed, Barack Obama is not running a business. He is the President of the United States. An elected position, of which one's business acumen is of trivial or even no importance whatsoever.
The reason is that the President's constituency is not the survival of any one business, or any industry; it is the citizens (Natural persons, that live, breathe, eat, sleep, laugh, cry, and most natural persons have real sex not just metaphorically fuck other persons both natural and fictional.
I am really sick of the phony, greedy argument against raising taxes on persons that have more than they deserve is that they actually deserve that money, or that those in the same wealth bracket don't just write a check to the government. Why don't we just lower all taxes to zero and run bake sales to fund the government.
I read your posting and it is filled with hate, and just plain rudeness. First you insult Michael Moore because of his weight, then you totally disrespect the President of the United States.
Just to break the code in Mr. Moore's article for you, the message is in the title. Your welcome!
The fact that you believe it is meaningless. The fact that Obama believes is catastrophic.
I offered no argument against raising taxes. I merely pointed out Moore's hypocrisy. He called for sky high taxes on the rich knowing it wouldn't happen. It gave him an opportunity to do the liberal's "I'm righteous" bit. When it was pointed out that he could put his money where his mouth was he backed off completely.
There is mo hate in my posting. I suggest you look up the word. Rudeness? It is impossible to be too rude on this board.
I did not & do not disrespect the President of the United States. I did not & do not respect Barack Obama.
The message is not in the title. You're welcome.
I am very sorry to inform you that at the present time the United States of America is a sovereign nation, not a corporation. A corporation differs from a nation in that it is created to generate income for its stockholders. A nation regulates the corporation and other businesses in order to protect PEOPLE from abuses in any form that a business may attempt. To do that, one does not need to know doodly squat about running a business since the government does not run a business.
Now explain why it would be advantageous to have a money launderer as President instead of a person that is concerned with implementing policies to benefit everyone.
By the way, thats quite a story you made up about Michael Moore's intentions. Did you think up that doozy by yourself or did Rush or Sean invent it for you. The point is that in order to get out of the financial hole we are in; we must increase revenue. All I ever hear from the Obama haters is the fix is to lower taxes. So, can you answer this? How low is too low?
The message is that Mitt built Bain from public financing of his new company. Don't look too deep.
FWIW, business is a terrible training ground for the presidency. Our two businessman presidents have been Hoover and Bush II. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for businessman presidents, that ringing is the fire alarm.
Great point and of course we should have known they would suck as Presidents. Hooveer's vacuums and Bush II's nose.
Ba-doomp!
I love it, man becomes rich fat capitalist at stupid communist expense.
I wonder if there is any statistic that shows, of all of the wealth in the world, who started with nothing and who started with a fortune to begin with? Who started with nothing and built it on a good idea and hard work or by being "fortunate" and getting a "big break"?
That would be one very interesting statistic I think.
As for all the name calling, I'll just heed the wise words of Eleanore Roosevelt;
"Great minds discuss ideas;Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people".
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/made_from_scratch.php
From the above link:
"Just 35 percent of the Forbes 400 last year were raised poor or middle class, compared to 95 percent of the broader public, as (reasonably) defined by UFE. Twenty one percent inherited enough money to join the 400 without lifting a finger, what UFE calls being “born on home plate.” Another 7 percent inherited at least $50 million or a 'large and prosperous company,' 12 percent inherited at least a million bucks or a decent-sized business or startup capital from a relative, and 22 percent were 'born on first base,' into an upper class family or got a modest inheritance or startup capital (UFE says it was conservative in assigning people to bases, so its report understates their advantages somewhat). So, at least 62 percent did not, in fact, make their fortunes 'entirely from scratch.' "
I'd add that NO ONE makes a fortune "entirely from scratch" if they live in a country with a PUBLICLY funded infrastructure, and PUBLICLY funded education. NOBODY. PERIOD.
Some that made it on their own, from modest means, that come to mind are, Michael Moore, Barack Obama, Richard Nixon, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak; Just to name a few.
It would be a good statistic to know, just for the sake of a reality check for everyone. It may well be true that the number of people that made it big from nothing, outnumber the ones born into wealth. Of course, then it becomes a contest of who among them has the most, and did THEY have a leg up?
I have had "above average" success in life and I can attribute some, but certainly not all, to a few opportunities I stumbled onto and help from others. I know a lot of people with similar stories of "lucky breaks" and opportunities. So I'm sensitive to the idea that some people may work their butts off and never get ahead because of no opportunities or their station in life from birth.
On the other hand, I have actually "worked hard" and, when I presented better opportunities to kids I have known, they didn't take advantage of them or want to put forth much effort.
So it's an issue with two very valid points of view, I think.
The argument on the left has never been that the rich didn't work hard (even though we know that many of them didn't). The right, on the other hand, claim that NONE of the poor work hard (even though most of them DO).
If the very same people who worked their butts off to be rich didn't have safe water or food, didn't have roads to drive on, didn't have safe communities to live in, didn't have free public schools to attend and get employees from, didn't have the garbage picked up and working sewers to prevent disease, didn’t have a working power grid, didn’t have access to publicly funded modern technology, THEY WOULD NOT BE RICH, no matter HOW hard they worked.
The ONLY reason to believe the poor all "deserve" to be poor and the rich all "deserve" to be rich would be a thinly veiled form of racism - or a cultural elitism that's profoundly unamerican.
If the bills for public infrastructure are not paid because the rich have an attitude that "I got mine from hard work", they've effectively shut the door on anyone else making themselves rich from scratch. Don't believe me? How many self-made millionaires are there in Somalia (NOT including American-govern ment-fed-bloate d defense contractors)?
CONT.
The point of MY post however, was to imagine having the ability to bring some fact checking to the claims used in the discussion, and to point out that rich people aren't "the cream of the crop" but mostly the "fortunate ones" and poor people aren't lazy and entitled but "less fortunate".
I see claims on both sides that seem to stretch the point and, in so doing, change the topic or turn people off to the discussion.
We believe the same things; I just like better, more fact based dialog about the ideas being discussed.
The fact that you've met some poor kids who didn't want to work hard is more a testament to the hopelessness that's drilled into these kid's heads from birth. It's a psychological disadvantage that few liberals will even admit, because right now the idea of psychology is very politically incorrect. The reason some poor people won't take advantage of what little opportunities are available to them is the same as the reason why some fat people literally CAN'T avoid eating those few extra calories. It has something to do with the idea that one's had a history of disappointment and the potential benefits from taking the only course of action available are painfully slow, far off in the future, and by no means assured. The ONLY thing that can combat this sense of hopelssness is TOTAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT - like a Martial Plan for America. Lyndon Johnson had the right idea. Too bad it was never actually tried or given any time and resources to prove successful.
Additionally, the fact that you've had any "lucky breaks" at all or any help at all from others sets you appart from the vast majority of the poor. The implication that the rich have "worked hard" and the inherent implication that the poor have not is nothing more than a right-wing lie to ease the conscience of rich people who don't want to be burdened with taxes.
CONT.
I agree that my points are a bit off the topic of the article but are related to the extent that, we tend to see too many topics as black and white with no gray in between. My points are in that gray area.
I was not born poor nor rich, and the kids I refer to are not poor either; They were born into better circumstances than I was. These are all "average" people who might even be considered quite well off, compared to the very poor, but peasants to the very wealthy.
So consider the context of my comments as coming from a middle class person that has achieved "comfortable, middle class" status, if that's the word, from minimal means to start with. The "breaks" I refer to are no more grandios than most people get but take for granted.
In the "black and white" world and the right wing versus left debate that you reference, I agree with your comments and your critiques.
“ So it's an issue with two very valid points of view”
But it’s a false dichotomy. It’s a well-funded and very polished form of disinformation. You seem like a very intelligent, thoughtful and even caring person, so I’m in no way trying to put you down.
However, the only way to validate the point the right-wing wants to make would be to dishonestly represent the argument made by the left. As I said above, NO ONE on the left is arguing that all of the rich inherited their wealth. It’s an intentional misreprentation with the purpose of clouding the issue.
It's called "Corporate Socialism". Their money buys access, there by hand-outs via lobbyists (burrowers) to all those anti-socialist -for the rest of us- seats of power, who are bent on getting every cent they can out of the grassroots.
That's not the kind of government we want, is it?
Who is OBamas jobs czar? Oh yea GE CEO Jeffery Immelt.
So how many rocket scientist here buy into the propaganda that democrats are for the little guy?
What is regulatory capture?
What is fascism ? Feel Free to use the tax payer forced bail out of GM to explain.
While it is true that he is a consummate BS artist he did claim to be running on "change".
No solutions to problems? What problems are you referring to?
No, your President is not Divine. He simply thinks he is.
Hatred? I don't hate Obama. He is not worth the time & effort necessary to truly hate someone. He is an incredibly incompetent egomaniac. Unfortunately he is also POTUS.
Pray to Ronald Reagan? Actually - no we don't. Just more liberal BS with no factual basis.
No Billy Bob, Obama's popularity doesn't bother me. His gross incompetence bothers me. I think he could & would take this country to the point where recovery would be impossible.
If Obama was so wonderful why is everything on this board devoted to bashing Romney, Republicans, Conservatives & any other real or imagined opposition to Divine Barry?
Why is it that all of you aren't beating the opposition over the head with his accomplishments ? "Look at what he has done. Give him a chance to do more". The answer is simple. He is a walking screw-up. He can't get in on his own. He has to drag down the opposition.
Judy Barr Topinka. Not better than Obama, but clearly head and shoulders above Mittens.
Ron Paul -- but that ship has sailed.
we could -- and probably should pick the president randomly from the phone book.
we would be way better off on average and the likelyhood of anyone with soo much baggage in the form of political pay offs would drop to zero.
In 2010, every Republican ran on jobs, jobs, jobs. This after filibustering 44 jobs bills to death and after they got in, where were the jobs bills? Finally this year they came up with one. Problem was that it would have decreased taxes to the point it would have caused a depression and a bipartisan judgement of the bill showed a net loss of 1.3 million jobs.
Anyone who buys into any Republican idea at all is as dumb as the proverbial box of rocks.
Governments legit role is to make sure the playing field is level for every one - and that must start with government its self never granting special favors or disparagement's .
No I do not - we are not a democracy, we are a republic. The diff is not small.
The founders knew that democracies always vote them selves largess from the public treasury (what we are experience the 'fruits' of now) go bankrupt and murder them selves and it usually ends up with a dictator in charge.
I suspect BB you will be first in line cheering for that strong leader.
He is, and has been working very hard to repair the UNBELIEVABLE DISASTER you republicans caused.
While he is trying very hard to move the "car of state" up the hill, the republicans are stepping on the breaks ALL THE TIME, and screaming why is the damned car not moving??
The T-bag republicans are nothing but destructive obstructionists . SHAME ON YOU.
(and NOT Fox News propaganda).
Yes Michael Phelps did that HE no one else earned all those Olympic medals.
While Millions (my self included) had the opportunity to achieve - Phelps had the ability the motivation and the unique ability to put it all together -- HE DID THAT!
Irony #1: That you STILL want us to think the President's phrase taken out of context was about atheletes instead of businesses. You DO know what we're talking about, right?
Irony #2: That you think starting a business with help from public dollars, driving to work on public roads, taking advantage of public tax incentives, hiring workers educated in public schools, relying on YOUR OWN public school education, etc. means you "did it all yourself" without the help of the community in which you live.
CONT.
Irony #3: The fact that EVEN Michael Phelps (why do you always mention him by the way?) didn't "do it by himself". Do you not realize how much public money is invested in Olympic atheletes? How much swimming practice would he have gotten without the use of public pools? Does Michael Phelps drink water, eat food, and breathe air that is publicly regulated for the good of us all? Yes, in fact he does. How healthy would he be if the food he ate was dictated completely by an unregulated private market? Ask anyone in the 3rd world.
----------
If you want an example of a "rugged individualist", they're no further away than your nearest homeless person. Next time you see a homeless person, THANK THEM for exemplifying conservative rugged individualism in practice!
ANYBODY else, is reliant on the entire community as a whole - INCLUDING YOU.
There is another reason so many people just can't stand the president. They won't say it aloud because it is "politically incorrect", but I know some of these "upstanding" citizens. They simply can't stand to see someone of color in charge. They can't say it, but it eats them up, inside. GOOD!
I am against much of what he has done, but I don't care about the person's race, gender or background. Only their politics that affects the country should be of concern.
This thinking for others then damning them for what you decided they were thinking is lame, politically motivated and false.
When I pointed out that Bush spent too much money - it was not racist it was policy. When I point out that Obama spends too much money -- surprise surprise same rules apply -- it is still against bad over spending policy.
Adding 5 trillion debt in less then 4 years is unprecedented burden towards slavery to the debt in any time of peace.
The fact that conservatives are rabidly racist is no secret. The cat's out of the bag. The beans have dun bin spilled already.
Besides, you don't need US to do your thinkin' for ya. Ya got rush and fox for that!
There are people who are homeless through no fault of their own & there are homeless who choose to live that way. Which group are you championing? There are people on welfare who have no choice & there are those who could work but choose not to. Which group does your righteousness target?
The "entire community" BS was just Obama trying to cater to the masses. If reliance on the entire community is all it takes how come you don't live next door to Bill Gates?
As far as me "championing" anyone I was merely pointing out that ALL of the homeless represent the repuglican ideal in practice. If anyone doesn't rely on the community it's someone who doesn't reap any of the benefits of that community - i.e. the homeless.
On the contrary, Democrats are individuals who blossom into true humanhood acknowledging the social support that we, like Phelps, need to succeed. We succeed because many take an interest in seeing us succeed. So when Armstrong walks on the moon, Phelps touches gold and Obama gets a second term, we rightly and proudly realize: WE DID THAT!
AMEN!
If he was his own team he would of beat many countries.
IF Phelps owned his own island, where he was the only lone native and had to fend for himself from birth, he wouldn't have had time for the Olympics.
While Michael Phelps’s talents are truly amazing, he did NOT, in fact, earn those medals on his own. At the same time that Phelps was honing his swimming skills, there was another (much more talented) kid from Detroit who was also pursuing his dream of being an Olympic swimmer. However, this kid came from a school that shut down their swimming pool due to lack of funding. Therefore, all of his training had to be done at either the local YMCA; which cost $3.50 a trip for the kid to get there, or his parents had to pay to send him to a distant training facility at a substantial cost. After the kid’s father lost his job, the family lost their home and had to move to an even more poverty stricken district in order to afford housing. With such little income, the kid had to stop pursuing his dream so that he could both go to school and work an almost full time job in order to helps his family’s budget problems. If you think Michael Phelps did Everything on his own, you are sadly mistaken…
And what did Romney himself say about Olympians? That they had to thank their parents, their supporters, their coaches... Sounds a lot like "you didn't do that (alone)".
OK, Mitt amassed a wad of dough. Using other people's money and with a head start. Tell me how that qualifies him to represent or help the elderly, the sick, the poor, the wage-earner, the environment, or democracy itself.
What Democrats despise is sociopaths and sycophants.
He KNOWS he has had assistance and is willing and humble enough to say THANK YOU!
Care to take a swing at the fact that Romney needed the feds to send him a check for the Utah Olympics? No one gets anywhere alone - the difference is some of us pay it forward, some pay it back and folks like Romney just get paid.
Who taught Einstein E=MC^2?
Who taught Tesla about Alternating current?
Who taught Newton about gravity?
no one -- they did it!
All those who achieve - while you benefit by their accomplishments you show your selves to be the very selfish greedy petty people who can't stand the fact that we all advance when the individual is given a chance to shine cause your not the one who shines - the selfish If I'm mediocre so must every one else be.
Your missing totally what America is about. You worship the central power the dumbing down the individual to a pathetic troglodyte existance of the expendable and replaceable so they can be dragged down to your own pathetic level. That is the same nonsense that stagnated humanity for many many centuries -
Your move forward is forward into a prison of mediocre conformity. No one shines, no one achieves all are equally miserable.
You didn't do that is a terrible mind set - but easy for terrible little minds.
NO ONE on the left is standing the way of individual achievement. The right, by defunding public education and infrastucture IS preventing millions from achieving their potential.
Unlike Martinfre, Michael Phelps is intelligent and decent enough to appreciate his trainers.
The right-leaning tends to lump individuals as "consumers" - sources of wealth, and given current anti-worker attitudes, would treat us about the way a beef gets handled in a feed lot. They also seem to support the daft argument that "corporations" are individuals.
You might want to consider that historically, the senate and congress determined that where in most parts of the world, things like roads, buildings and other goverment property were accounted for as assets, in the US they are not so classified. That is one reason that despite doom forcasts, the economy continues to stagger along.
and falling ::
You guys really do hate the individual achiever.
Mediocrity at best must be your motto.
as of 8pm sep 3 I tallied 19 replies to my post "Democrats despise the individual..." which where neither the individual who achieves or Michael Phelps an individual specifically brought up as a topic for discussion or deserving any credit.
I saw 4 post (vendada, pegesas and my self) that gave Phelps or any individual who achieves new heights any credit for the fact that they actually did it.
So the numbers -- you can cross check me I assume it will all stay on line -
19 against individuals
4 pro individual -
(and my 2 out of that 4 can't be counted for any dems cred)
FYI: the Like/dislike counter is at -89
The political propaganda is to get us to ignore what we all saw.
The political propaganda is to
discount the greatness of that man's accomplishments , to demean him, to spread around the wealth of his accomplishment until he is nothing but a replaceable cog.
the rationalization s to deny what we actually saw are infinite and stupid. Here are a few
Phelps didn't do that - cause his mama had to give birth to him, Phelps didn't do that because he needed line painters on the roads so he could get to practice, Phelps didn't do that because it required the drunk to say in the bar for one more so Phelps could drive past the bar to get to his meet ...
Truth be told - Yes Michael Phelps did that HE no one else earned all those Olympic medals.
We all can see that fact for our selves.
But let's address the stealth issue you bring up. Key Airlines probably had to bid on that route (which most likely no other airline was covering)to be paid to provide services? Would this be in the same fashion that Haliburton and Blackwater bid on their contracts to provide services in Iraq?
Actually, you don't know that if the goverment had run the shuttle service it would have cost twice as much. What is known is that government contractors often charge outrageous amounts for simple everyday items - $400 toilet seats leap to mind. God only knows what outrageous fees we paid to private contractors for "services" in Iraq and Afghanistan because we have not and never will receive an accounting. So it may have been that if Key Airlines had not bid on the route and it had been provided through, say, a military shuttle flying out of a commercial airport, it would only have cost $5 million.
You mean WE are paying the Blackwater guys.
They are payed with TAXPAYER MONEY.
BTW, when the government runs things it nearly always does it cheaper and more efficiently, quite different from the reputation. For instance, back in the 70s my mother in law living in Tennessee under the TVA, which made a profit every year then, paid $35 a year for her all electric house, while I paid nearly $100 a month electric bills for my gas heat and cooking house.
When you need to make a profit you either charge more or slash services. Privatization is one of the dumbest things you can do.
or for foot ball stadiums for that matter or convention centers and other expensive boondoggles foisted upon the tax payer when a free market (if we had one) would supply it at customer expense rather then at tax payer expense.
The philosophy is called, "socialize costs and privatize profits". Many so-called industries COULD NOT EXIST without government handouts like this. The only other option would be to have the government do it themselves and take away the arbitrary (to the consumer) need for profit. BUT, as we all know, conservatives would stand in the way because that, afterall, is "socialism".
Private industry can't do that. Only Government with a tax collectors gun and a politicians mandate can socialize the cost.
Yes I understand you perfectly,
to wit:
From each slave according to their ability, to each master according to their need.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829
Bring out a legacy project so magnificent it would help everyone forget about the Mitt's deficits of character and coterie of hide-bound advisers. Such a project is the "North American Water And Power Alliance", found on the Lyndon LaRouche website.
If one is good, let's go for superproject #2- Dealing with the Peak Oil phenomenon, the Gordian Knot binding America & NATO to the Middle East. Transport relies on motor fuel, so changing transport to a better mix; more railway capacity and connectivity. WWI and WWII, Vietnam (Strait of Malacca) and the coming catastrophe in the Middle East have oil in the brew! We like our "convenience"...
The GOP would rather perish than ever say nay to Happy Motoring. So that is what is about to happen...
Plus the GOP would never cooperate with that because it would undermine their most precious belief, which is the idea that the welfare of our nation gets in the way of their own personal ability to profit from the misery of their fellow countrymen.
If ANY of these right-wingers had an ounce of the "patriotism" they all claim to be solely capable of, they'd actually be concerned about the country whose flag they hide behind. Instead, the more patriotic they pretend to be, the more they actually HATE AMERICA and everyone in it.
Nothing else could explain their motivation for cheering on those who profit at the expense of our entire nation without admitting they owe anything in return for the public investment.
It is also a shame (or worse) that SCOTUS has expanded the rights of corporations far in excess of what the law intended. Talk about activist judges!
The result as we all know was that the American Colonists took up drinking coffee and more beer. The higher caffeine content along with the increased consumption of alcohol fueled a revolution.
I'd say that his intrinsic worth as a human being isn't 230 cents.
and the other is a 'cultural annihilator.' Where is the candidate who believes in human responsibility? We lost last year.
Since I am using only coins my life became so much simpler and peaceful!
Try it!
from The Fountain Head"
-- describing what we see today as
The "You didn't do that collectivist"
vs
the individual.
(you tube link to 6 min clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4
While you have a right to your own life,
No one has a right to the life of another.
From the Book of James:
2 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right. (...)
CONT.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
CONT.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” [e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
RSS feed for comments to this post