Originally Posted By theinvisibleheart:
sorry, you didn't build that" was referring to bridges/roads as anyone who has background in English language can attest.

You don't take phrase/sentence out of context. That is dishonest because if you did that, you can distort the intended meaning.

Originally Posted By Col-W:
And here's the proper answer-

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors...since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v Henkel 201 US 43, 1906

In other words, when civil government performs a legitimate function such as building roads and bridges, or protecting people from crimes, it confers no duty upon the individual citizen and he owes nothing to the public. But like a good communist Obama believes that these things are government benefits from which you derive rights of property and thereby imputing an entitlement into your property. Union workers look at it the same way, if you hire someone and pay them a wage they believe their work imputes an entitlement into your property beyond their wage, and if you profit you are exploiting them.

These people believe that man derives his being from society and his rights from the State, and he exists to serve the State and his property should be equalized by the State distributed unto all, they view due process of law and the Constitution as an infringement upon the State's omniscient benevolence. Or as one liberal government official told me several years ago - "due process of law is the problem, we want to take your property and you prove your right to have it."

Our civil government was not framed upon such ideas; rather, that God created man and endowed him with inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and property, governments are instituted to protect these rights. Our being and rights exist antecedent to the organization of the State and the State obtains a benefit from us in delegating a portion of our rights, without surrender, for it to fulfill its limited function.

In other words Mr. Obama, you did not build that, others built that civil government others delegated a portion of their rights, without surrender, and everyone else submits to voluntary consent to be governed as long as you obey the law and realize you have a very limited and derivative authority, lest we withdraw our consent to be governed, and establish new guards for the protection of our Liberty.

Originally Posted By FMJ3:


Again I ask, why does that matter since all Americans have access to that infrastructure?

Some Americans were smarter and did work harder and did make more sacrifices to build businesses, do you think they were all just fucking lucky and shit a successful business out of their ass one day by accident

Originally Posted By thatwhichisnt611:


You are missing the point. The point is that no one lives on an island. Those who made themselves wealthy did not do it on their own. Without their effort they would no be successful, that is true. But without the help of others and the government to assist them, then they would not be successful either. We rise and fall together.

Originally Posted By FMJ3:


No, you're missing the point. In America we all have the same access to success, but we all don't have the same drive for success.

Just putting the tools for success in front of someone is only a small piece of the puzzle.

Originally Posted By FMJ3:
Bullshit! Cry me a fucking river

I was raised by a high school dropout, lived in shitty areas, went to shitty public schools and had little opportunity of post high school education since I was busy working to help my mom and younger sister.

None of that kept me attaining a very comfortable life. Was it easy? Fuck no. Sure some people may have it easier, but I've known many people with all the opportunities in the world do nothing with them and end up where I started.

I know many more people just like myself and I'm sure there are millions more around this country.

Again, how do roads and bridges give any Americans an economic advantage over other Americans?

Originally Posted By FMJ3:
I see, you're just jealous of those born with more than you - how sad
People like you will one day say the same shit about people like my daughter

PS. You might want to check into that whole obama working his way up the socio-economic ladder the hard way

Willful ignorance is the worst kind.

Originally Posted By theinvisibleheart:
LOL, it has to be on a statistical basis.

If your experience is representative, then social mobility in US should be independent of parent's income/wealth/education/etc. But it's not.

If you were born in Scandinavian countries with public education superior to most countries and free/affordable university education combined with XLNT healthcare, public infrastructure, would you have being worse off, same, or better off, compared to US?

Most folks in middle/lower social strata would be better off in countries with higher social mobility.

Originally Posted By FMJ3:


Probably worse, I doubt the American spirit of rugged individualism is as highly prized over there. Seems to me you'd be more like a union worker in that society - you'll do OK, but be regulated from doing too good.

I still think the US has the most opportunity for anyone and still believe we probably have the most mobility up (and down) the economic ladder.