Nerdfighters

I was watching the Lion King and I noticed that Scar was almost the same as Obama. He took over and gave all of everyone's resources to the less fortunate (the hyenas)

I honestly think the same thing is happening to most of the nations in the world right now, just at a much slower pace than in the movie.

Please answer with thoughts about this!

Tags: king, lion, obama, scar

Views: 165

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Are you serious right now? Well obama didn't kill his brother for the throne and totally destroy all the fertile land and drive out all the animals that live there. Before you go making crazy statements, watch the ENTIRE movie. Anyways he doesnt even give shit to the hyenas, they just do his dirty work, his evil minions.
In my personal opinion. I think Obama is an idiot. Redistribution is a bad idea. If 2 people are working in a factory. The one who works harder should be able to reap the benefits.

If you have a handout society. You eliminate the drive. The man who is a hard worker. He no longer has a reason to work hard. The man who is slower, he gets a free ride.

The best thing to do in my opinion is dergulation. It worked for the trucking industry, as well as the railroads. Competition is what drives a market.

Competition between business, and even other countries have always driven the market of the US. Most people don't seem to realize the impact that it has. It makes people want to work harder. Of course it has started a war inside our borders before.

I have said this before, and I will repeat it. These are my opinions. I really don't care if you like them.
of course - what if businesses find out that if they work together and for partnerships, they can find a way to control the consumers power and make mass profits and keep the system always in their favor? This would effectively eliminate competition right?

But that's never happened I'm sure.
I'm not wanting a lazze fair economy. I want a free market. Basically one where there is anti-monopoly laws and a very few amount safety precautions. That's all we need.
'Cause you know, one point of comparison makes two things the same.
Maybe you intended ~ (similar), not = (equal), but that is just semantics for you.
Either way, this just ends up a the butt of contention between factions within the sliding fiscal and social belief-spectrums.
And in order to have avoided many many angry people, explaining your point better would have been helpful. My thoughts are that proof and citation and concrete examples are win, while broad generalizations are the muck that a lot of this discussion has become.

As for my own opinion, I am for social programs to a certain extent, but I am conservative fiscally. Rich people, poor people aside, the government has way too many entitlements to keep up with that gobble up the majority of every year's spending (interest on debt, social security, other running programs, etc.). If only there were a feasible method of knowing what really happens when certain choices are made. Alas that is not possible as the world is much too complicated for that. No ONE anything has made enough of an impact; everything is a combination of perspectives, context and history combined.
I'm also not convinced most people would give so much more if they had to pay less tax. Most people give what they think is an appropriate amount already, when being asked for donations, and I don't think that will automatically increase even if they would get more to spend. They would soon forget this, and would much rather spend their extra coins on redecorating the house, go on vacations, and buy a nicer car and so on. Expensive things they've dreamt of, but haven't really had the funds for at the moment.

And why shouldn't a young mother to a child with a serious condition for instance, get support from the state? I think it's really degrading to have sick people left to the mercy of random handouts, when they are not to be blamed for their misfortune. It should be a birthgiven right to be taken care off as soon as possible and as long as necessary!
And why do we think that Obama is distributing resources? Because he just took over a position that has had welfare and aid programs instituted in it since the 20th century?

I don't think you really know anything about what President Obama has been doing if you think he's just sitting there all day taking money away from hard working individuals and giving it to poor people. Do you realize that he hasn't once raised taxes for the middle or middle-upper class?

There are certainly legitimate criticisms of Barack Obama's policies but it sounds like all you've been doing is listening to Concervative Talk Radio/ Fox News.
He is trying to distribute more than is being distributed right now. He may not have raised taxes, but he is trying to make us pay for certain things with our private money. Like the health care bill he wanted would make us all buy health care, which isn't raising taxes but it is making us pay for something we may not want.
I just thought it was interesting that you said obama "took over". He was actually elected into office, like all the other presidents were voted into some office. Unless the lions voted scar leader? I haven't seen lion king recently, but I kind of remember him pushing Mufasa off a cliff? Or were the cliff-pushing and the taking over unrelated events?

RSS

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service