Why?

[sirs]

Since words, mean something, yea.  Since "have to" is a far cry than "should" yea.  Since Obama's track record as a liberal/socialist is one of mandating federal involvement, yea, you bet I'm going to get anal as to what he actually says

Ignoring for now, your egregious hyperbolic mispresentation of my POV regarding successful company policy, are you going to demonstrate how all these other Presidents are preaching how corporations "have to" do x, or not??  That was YOUR claim.  By all means, demonstrate all these other quotes in context, so that we can downgrade Obama's current verbage to that of merely pleasant encouragement.

[BT]

Do you have an official position concerning a successful companies policy?

How does it differ from what Obama said?

And since you are the one who got their tutu twisted hopefully you can show where Obama's words were not the norm.

[sirs]

Do you have any plan on addressing the point??  Hint, it's not about what a company decides to do or doesn't do.  It's about the Fed mandating what a company is to do.....i.e. "having to share profits"??

Hint 2, I already showed how Obama's words are not the norm, backed up by his track record as a hard core liberal democrat.  It's not my job to prove a negative.  It's your job to debunk it with YOUR claim, that Obama's words were part and parcel the norm, in telling what companies HAVE to do

Your the one with the obsession in trying to prove sirs wrong.  Ball in your court

[BT]

It's about the Fed mandating what a company is to do.....i.e. "having to share profits"??

When did they do that? Perhaps you can point to a piece of legislation or an executive order that proves you correct.

[sirs]

Perhaps you can point out where I claimed of pending legislation.  WHAT I HAVE CLAIMED ALL ALONG IS WHAT OBAMA HAS SAID.....CORPORATIONS MUST SHARE THEIR PROFITS. 

And BASED ON THE FACT HE HAS CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYED THE GOVERNMENT TO MANDATE ACTIONS HE BELIEVES ARE NECESSARY (i.e OBAMACARE), ITS NO LEAP OF ILLOGIC THAT HE WOULD WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE CORPORATIONS SHARE THEIR PROFITS

Given the current state of the legislative body, that is unlikely to happen, but I'm getting quite peeved at this continued misrepping me Bt.  WHY?  Why do you keep pulling this garbage??

[BT]

Usually mandates carry the force of law, thus my query concerning either an executive order or perhaps some legislation. Otherwise what ever he said really isn't a mandate. But that was the word you chose, so perhaps you can show how you are correct and i am wrong, then i get to claim victimhood and feel persecuted because sirs has it out for me or some such nonsense.

[sirs]

You see...I never claimed, or even implied that what Obama said was a mandate.  That was your leap of illogic.  I can only imagine why 

I claimed what Obama said, is what Obama said.  It was very clear, no ambiguity about it.  He could have chosen the word should, he could have phrased it in such a way that its good business for companies to share their profits.  He chose the words HAVE TO.  When a liberal President makes such a term, there's a logical connection that he would be supporting Government in making corporations share, especially given his Presidential track record.  If he still had his Dem majorities, he just might try pushing that, like he did Obamacare.  The point being that it's what Obama said

Now, ignoring the laundry list of misrepresentations you tried to pull, you claimed that this is nothing more than what any President says, all the while providing no examples of such.  Then even demanded that I prove a negative.  Do you have any examples of Bush declaring what private corporations have to do, as it relates to their business practices?  It's not a "mandate", merely hoping you'd actually try to back up your claim, in your effort to refute my premice

[BT]

It's about the Fed mandating what a company is to do.....i.e. "having to share profits"??

[BT]

Now, ignoring the laundry list of misrepresentations you tried to pull, you claimed that this is nothing more than what any President says, all the while providing no examples of such.  Then even demanded that I prove a negative.  Do you have any examples of Bush declaring what private corporations have to do, as it relates to their business practices?  It's not a "mandate", merely hoping you'd actually try to back up your claim, in your effort to refute my premice

John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both claimed rising tides raise all ships.

[Christians4LessGvt]

John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both claimed rising tides raise all ships.

Such a true statement.
And yes it works both ways.
A rising educated middle class helps the rich
But I think Obama thinks the gvt is the best arbitrator of such decisions
Were as Conservatives view the marketplace as the best arbitrator in these matters

[BT]

But I think Obama thinks the gvt is the best arbitrator of such decisions

Absent a mandate, i don't believe it matters what Obama thinks.

[BT]

You see...I never claimed, or even implied that what Obama said was a mandate.  That was your leap of illogic.  I can only imagine why 

 A president absolutely should use the bully pulpit, to ADVOCATE that which he believes is the right course of action.  NOT to MANDATE it.  You understand the difference?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Absent a mandate, i don't believe it matters what Obama thinks.

Depends what ya mean?
Can Obama force companies to give a certain percentage of profits to workers?
No....no at this time.
But do we both agree he'd like to?
Yeah we both know that's probably part of his vision...
consequences be damned..
to me that's part of the major problem with liberalism..."consequences be damned"
"free health care for everybody"?....yeah sounds great....but what about the details?....lol
so yeah BT he can't do this....
but Obama can appoint Supreme Court Justices that are anti-business
Obama can appoint Gvt agency bureaucrats that are anti-business
zealots with a hatred of business in charge of agencies can hammer business which imo hammers consumers..and soccer moms
so it matters what he and leftist in power think about business....and it trickles down to all us..

[BT]

Absent a mandate, i don't believe it matters what Obama thinks.

Depends what ya mean?
Can Obama force companies to give a certain percentage of profits to workers?
No....no at this time.
But do we both agree he'd like to?
Yeah we both know thats probably part of his vision...
consequences be damned..
to me thats part of the major problem with liberalism..."consequences be damned"
"free health care for everybody"?....yeah sounds great....but what about the details?....lol
so yeah BT he can't do this....
but Obama can appoint Supreme Court Justices that are anti-business
Obama can appoint Gvt agencey bureacrats that are anti-business
zealots with a hatred of business in charge of agencies can hammer business which imo hammers consumers..and soccer moms
so it matters what he and leftist in power think about business....and it trickles down to all us..

I think Obama is a one termer. I doubt he will be able to change the face of Scotus much more.

And i think he has harmed his constituency (unions) more than he has helped them, if the state budgetary problems driven by pensions is any indication. So no, i don't think what he thinks carries much weight, at least not enough to stop talk of a challenge from within his own party and a net roots base whose disappointment is palpable.

[Christians4LessGvt]

So BT do you agree with me that there is a great chance Hillary is
the nominee if the unemployment rate stays where it is or gets worse?