| Barack Obama is the anti-Lincoln. Before voting, please view Abraham Lincoln's words in the comments below. |
|
|
|
Asked 3 years ago
by WiseOne  United States |
|
About
Conservative, experienced, rational, thoughtful, astute, open-minded, retired.
|
| 8 Points |
“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do themselves.” Abraham Lincoln
Yawn
No yawn. One may agree or not - but its interesting. Ideas usually are.
I agree, new ideas usually are.
Then you must be bored to death by those of Obama. :-)
After the last 8 years those ideas are refreshing, but he is way to far to the right for my liking.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I'm sure he is. By the way, just how far to the left of Obama is your cell of insanity?
Again you are trying to attacking the messenger, not the message! Obama is just right of center, witch is just not as extreme right as Bush, McCain or Palin. He is also way lower on the scale of authoritarian then Bush, but still leaning authoritarian.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
As for me I am closer to Gandhi, Nelson Madella or the Dalai Lama. If you hate Obama, you must really dislike those three.
Closest U.S. politician would be Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyWhat year was this quote?
Hmmm. Can you find a quote by Abraham Lincoln that talks about the evils of slavery? Because even though nobody is OWNED, what does it say about a company that rakes in billions in profits every month paying wages so low to workers that they have to go on the government welfare system? (Wal-mart, in case you didn't know).
So you want to defend those folks making the millions (I'm talking their incomes, as opposed to their profits), while they sit around on their piles of money crying that we're being mean to them by taxing them more? And at the same time you want to bitch that we're having to use OUR tax dollars to support their underpaid employees?
Shit - why don't you just GIVE that tax refund you got this Spring to the WalMart owners. Just drive over to their house and give them your money.
They've got their lobbyists to protect their interests. They've had everything going their way since Reagan was in office. It's time for the pendulum to swing back to the MIDDLE!
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
In MY country, supply and demand establish appropriate wages. It is likely that the demand for unskilled labor will always be lower than its supply. Individuals should respond to this by developing marketable skills.
In YOUR country, which happens to also be mine, people need to work for a living. The more people who NEED a job, the more likely they are to accept ANY job. Including one that pays so little you have to accept welfare and food stamps to feed your kids.
So now you are blaming the people who are WORKING for a living for being too stupid to find a job that pays more. Soooooo ... let's all get a degree in mechanical engineering. Or in nursing. Or in business. In a couple of years, I wonder what THOSE job will pay. Or will those who can't FIND jobs in the new "educated, skilled labor" glut will be working at Wal-Mart?
Why is it I suspect your answer will be "well ... if we didn't have so many illegals in this country ..."
Some times I think the corporations in this country have the right wing by the ass. It's like they keep grabbing your tail and saying "ooooo! THIS is what the problem is!" and then you chase your own damn tail thinking if you bite it off, everything will be better.
And when you finally succeed, there you will sit, bleeding and confused trying to figure out what happened. And they're laughing at you the whole time getting big kick out of how easy it is to manipulate you.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
You are confused on so many levels that my effort here is likely a waste of time, but I'll give it a shot for the sake of my stubbornness.
Employees want to earn as much as possible for their efforts. That is why you don't find many people who claim to be overpaid!
Employers want to pay their employees as little as they can for their efforts. That is the primary reason that illegal immigrants have had such an impact on low-end jobs.
It is the responsibility of the employees to maximize their skills and, hence, their marketability. College degrees are proven ways to accomplish this, but so are trade schools.
I presume you would prefer to have Barack Obama set every wage for every employee in the country.
Let me end with: Do you have any employees in your business? If so, do you pay them $100,000 per year plus benefits? If not, why not?
Okay - I see what you are getting at, and I understand your reasoning. But you are arguing it from an extremist point of view while not looking to find a middle point.
If Wal-Mart announced tomorrow that they would raise the price of every single item in their store by $.05 - and announce they were giving every bit of that nickel to their employees as wage increases and health care benefits - I can not BEGIN to imagine what that would do to raise the standard of living for every employee of Wal-Mart. Imagine the publicity factor! Imagine the no-longer-have-to-be-paid Welfare dollars!
But that won't happen! Why? Because Wal-Mart would say "you expect us to give millions of dollars per month to our employees in wage increases? We can't afford it!" And all the people who buy 20 items per week from Wal-Mart will say "that's going to cost me hundreds of dollars per week!" instead of calculating it will cost them a whopping $1 to help out their fellow citizens. And people like you will sit around saying "Hell ... why don't we just pay those stupid, unskilled, uneducated immigrants $100k a year ..."
If you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there. If enough people feel the same way they will close their doors. The fact is that Wal-Mart is good at what it does and until you find a better way they will prosper.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI don't shop there.
Well when enough people feel the same way you do then Wal-Mart will close its doors....
Lincoln is right.
What does Lincoln's statement have to do with Obama?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Even YOU can't be that stupid. Obama wants to bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift, strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer, further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred, help the poor by destroying the rich, and take away man’s initiative and independence.
Well...that may be what he ran his election on but lets see how much of that he passes into law. I have a feeling that once the deep pockets get to him, and they will, he wont get as much done as he set out to do. But we will see....
I don't agree that these are Obama's values, or that he is trying to these things, at all.