Why?

[BT]

You're starting to catch on     

Well don't hurt yourself with all this backtracking.

Because the difference between advocating a mandate and actually mandating is minuscule.

[sirs]

Is this lying going to become a habit?  Your blatant inability to grasp a simple POV the 1st time presented has nothing to do with any backtracking, since none was given.  It has everything apparently to do with this ridiculous predisposed bias you now seem have with my posts.  You read into my original position some mandate that was never there, yet you kept pushing it, and pushing it, and pushing it.

Frelling amazing

[BT]

Is this lying going to become a habit?  Your blatant inability to grasp a simple POV the 1st time presented has nothing to do with any backtracking, since none was given.  It has everything apparently to do with this ridiculous predisposed bias you now seem have with my posts.  You read into my original position some mandate that was never there, yet you kept pushing it, and pushing it, and pushing it.

Frelling amazing

There is no lying involved.

You took issue with Obama using the words "have to". You said that with his track record that that was tantamount to mandating that companies share their wealth with their employees. When it was gently pointed out that "have to" did not carry the weight of law you claimed that you never claimed that Obama mandated anything. You simply did not like his choice of words and in fact if he had used "should" you probably wouldn't have an issue with his statement at all, because that would pretty much be business as usual.

So if the "have to" is what set you off then the one who is lying would be you. Because without the "have to" there is no mandate and without a mandate there is no cause for alarm, backpedaling, victimhood and the subsequent denials and deflections.

[sirs]

Yea there is, at this point.  There is a distinct difference between advocating and mandating.  1 is merely supportive, the other is required.  You're so bent on claiming I said something I never did, you've largely invented the notion that there's no real difference in the 2 terms.  Which at this point, with the repetitive demonstrations where I made it clear my points were never about Obama's speech acting as a mandate, you've concluded I had to have been.  So, yea, now you've lowered yourself to lying.  You dislike me that much now, you've lowered yourself to that level?  Just ask me to leave Bt, if that's what I bring out in you

[Xavier_Onassis]

Quibble, quibble, quibble. The national Anthem in the Nation of sirs.

[Christians4LessGvt]

good grief guys....
why not discuss/debate the real stuff instead of always semantics?
can't there be a "level of trust" that "you know what I mean"
isn't that the way we converse with most people everyday in real life?
there has to be some level of assumption in every conversation
it seems it is now more about "gotcha" than the discussion topic
with the new format & trying to attract new members semantics be damned!
all it takes is one to "stop taking the bait"
sometimes that's the best revenge....just don't "bite"
it takes two to tango

[sirs]

good grief guys....
why not discuss/debate the real stuff instead of always semantics?

Excellent question, C.  Let's see if we can facilitate such. 

Given your grasp of current reality and the man we know as Obama, and how he has mandated healthcare upon us all, despite an overwhelming majority of the citizenry that said no, do you believe, given the opportunity he used up with Obamacare, he wouldn't want and/or attempt to create a level of Government bureaucracy & regulation that would force private corporations to share their profits?

[BT]

There is a distinct difference between advocating and mandating.

Yeah advocating is what i said he was doing. You seem to think given the chance he would mandate it, see your post to CU, while denying you are saying he would mandate redistribution.

And I am a liar for pointing out that inconsistency? No I think not.

[kimba1]

well

at the moment no company needs to share anything with the workers. greener pasture is a few years away. but profit sharing would be a smart investment for business to maintain it`s staff for future profits. I used to be a temp worker and by sheer numbers all workers are replaceable. but getting a good worker is a whole nother issue. lets just say no matter what economic situation the talent pool is always shallow.

[sirs]

There is a distinct difference between advocating and mandating.

Yeah advocating is what i said he was doing.

It's also what I was saying he was doing as well. 

Strange you saying this though, when at the top of the page you were claiming "Because the difference between advocating a mandate and actually mandating is minuscule"  So....you're "backtracking" now?  You "obviously" must mean mandate.  Is that how it works?

You seem to think given the chance he would mandate it, see your post to CU, while denying you are saying he would mandate redistribution.

Do you see how you're completely twisting my POV.  Yes, given the chance he would.  He does not have that chance under the current political climate/reality, thus he can NOT mandate it.  He sure as hell can ADVOCATE it though, which is what I'VE been saying all along

And I am a liar for pointing out that inconsistency?

No, that's merely being disengenuous for pointing out an inconsistency, that you invented.  I've been consistent from the beginning.  The lying crept in when you kept claiming a mandate presented by Obama at this CoC speech, that I never once claimed, or even implied, and a supposed "backtracking" that didn't take 1 step back or forth.  It remained firmly entrenched, page 1.  That was all your doing

If you don't mind, since you have no intention of discussing this reasonably, will you allow those of us who wish to, to continue.  We thank you, in advance

[BT]

Yet you were the one who quibbled about "have to" vs "should".

Why? Because you fear a mandate.

And my point all along was that he wasn't mandating anything , that he was saying nothing different than the rising tides raises all ships quotations of Reagan and JFK.

Yes, given the chance he would.  He does not have that chance under the current political climate/reality, thus he can NOT mandate it. 

Right. That is why you went into the whole in light of his track record rant.

[sirs]

Yet you were the one who quibbled about "have to" vs "should".

You're the one who turned that into a non-existant mandate

Why? Because you fear a mandate.

Fear of one, even if that were the case, is not stating that there was one on the table

And my point all along was that he wasn't mandating anything

SO THE HELL WAS MINE. 

that he was saying nothing different than the rising tides raises all ships quotations of Reagan and JFK.

Which, most illuminatingly, you have yet to provide even one example of any conservative, or even modern Republican President, using their bully pulpit to tell corporate america what they "have to " do.  We DO have a current President that ramrodded Obamacare down our throats, because we apparently had to have it.

Yes, given the chance he would.  He does not have that chance under the current political climate/reality, thus he can NOT mandate it. 

Right. That is why you went into the whole in light of his track record rant.

Your opinion on "rant" not withstanding, it still doesn't excuse your blatant misrepresentation and diengenuous tactics at claiming what I was supposedly saying.  Be it about business policy or non-existant mandates.  I made that clear page 1, and here we are page 4, and you're still pushing the same garbage.  That's all you big fella

One can only wonder "Why"





I'm trying Cu4, but Bt doesn't appear to want to let this go or actually discuss the issue brought forth at the beginning of this thread.  Irks him to no end of Sirs is right, apparently.  I do appreciate your efforts at trying

[BT]

Irks him to no end of Sirs is right, apparently.  I do appreciate your efforts at trying

What are you right about?

[Christians4LessGvt]

sorry guys....this is all making me dizzy!
but i think it boils down to a basic distrust of Obama
we think Obama would mandate limited profits/limited incomes if he could
so when Obama makes the kind of statement he made it worries us
yes it could be an innocent JFK/Reagan statement, but our gut says no
we think he is anti-free-market
we think he is anti-business
we think he thinks business and corporations make too much money
we think he is basically clueless about business and only knows things he read in books
so again....there is a deep distrust on what his motives are when he makes these statements

[BT]

sorry guys....this is all making me dizzy!
but i think it boils down to a basic distrust of Obama
we think Obama would mandate limited profits/limited incomes if he could
so when Obama makes the kind of statement he made it worries us
yes it could be an innocent JFK/Reagan statement, but our gut says no
we think he is anti-free-market
we think he is anti-business
we think he thinks business and corporations make too much money
we think he is basically clueless about business and only knows things he read in books
so again....there is a deep distrust on what his motives are when he makes these statements

One would think that a man who is in the midst of moving to the middle as he launches his 2012 campaign wouldn't make a statement that would be so anti-business. I mean we had a long thread right after Tucson about this lurch towards electability.

But now it appears he is up to his old leftist ways at least for today.