The blatant truth about Republicans and the word "that"

[The Rabbi]

You haven't proven that the "new" regulation exists.

Provide a link to this regulation you are speaking of.

Prove where it came from, who implemented it, and when it took effect.

The law is Dodd-Frank and the regulations made pursuant to it. It has totally screwed up the mortgage business. And probably everything else financially as well. Another albatross of a piece of legislation thanks to the Democrats and Obama.

Then link the bill and the specific text that is germane to Mud's claim.

Go read the bill, jerk off.

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo.......such refreshing honesty. Why the switch?

What the ever living fuck are you talking about?

 

[Article 15]

Wrong.



If you've got a business - you didn't build that.


The antecedent of that is business. Simple grammar. Simple English. Simple rules.

Bullshit. In full context, it's clear that the "you didn't build that" is referring to everything surrounding that one sentence i.e. the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc.

Now, you're too smart to believe otherwise so I'm just chalking this up to you being obtuse for partisan purposes which is fine but don't think you are fooling anybody who doesn't share your agenda and/or has two brain cells left to rub together.

It's simple grammatical rules. Sorry about that.

There's no need to be sorry. Dishonesty and warping context is part of the game. I'm just saying don't think you are fooling anyone other than the brain dead or hyper-partisan.

 

[Article 15]

The law is Dodd-Frank and the regulations made pursuant to it. It has totally screwed up the mortgage business. And probably everything else financially as well. Another albatross of a piece of legislation thanks to the Democrats and Obama.

Then link the bill and the specific text that is germane to Mud's claim.

Go read the bill, jerk off.

Another poster who when challenged to back up what he is saying gets all huffy and puffy but brings nothing else to the table.

 

[salem.hills]

That = what you built

 

[Seawytch]

The left crying about being taken out of context is pathetic.

Remember the way they tied into Mitt Romney when he said he like being able to fire people?

How much mileage did you assholes try to get off of that?


I think it's just Karma.

Did President Obama use Romney's "I like to fire people" in a political ad?

he should, he could say, I'm going to fire Eric Holder

In other words, he hasn't, is that what you're saying? The President hasn't used Willard's "I like to fire people" out of context whereas Reversible Mittens has used President Obama's words out of context in a political ad. False equivalences...again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Si Modo.......such refreshing honesty. Why the switch?

What the ever living fuck are you talking about?

You were very honest in your assessment of the discussion between Art and Mud. But then you blew it with the "simple grammar" comment.

My mistake.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We can debate grammar all day long guys, yet the message is very clear.... if you're successful, it isn't because you worked hard or did something special, it's because you are part of the collective. Which of course is horse shit and frankly, beneath the dignity of the President of the United States.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Did President Obama use Romney's "I like to fire people" in a political ad?

he should, he could say, I'm going to fire Eric Holder

In other words, he hasn't, is that what you're saying? The President hasn't used Willard's "I like to fire people" out of context whereas Reversible Mittens has used President Obama's words out of context in a political ad. False equivalences...again.

Memories:

Mitt Romney Ad Misquotes President Obama

 

[LoneLaugher]

We can debate grammar all day long guys, yet the message is very clear.... if you're successful, it isn't because you worked hard or did something special, it's because you are part of the collective. Which of course is horse shit and frankly, beneath the dignity of the President of the United States.

Not clear. Not what he said. You are straining.

 

[Si modo]

Bullshit. In full context, it's clear that the "you didn't build that" is referring to everything surrounding that one sentence i.e. the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc.

Now, you're too smart to believe otherwise so I'm just chalking this up to you being obtuse for partisan purposes which is fine but don't think you are fooling anybody who doesn't share your agenda and/or has two brain cells left to rub together.

It's simple grammatical rules. Sorry about that.

There's no need to be sorry. Dishonesty and warping context is part of the game. I'm just saying don't think you are fooling anyone other than the brain dead or hyper-partisan.

What is dishonest about grammatical rules and simple English, Art?

If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


The antecedent of that is business. That's just a simple concept most learned when they learned grammar. IF all he said was the first sentence, then I would agree he just gaffed. But, he nailed shut exactly what he meant with the second sentence.


In the context of the rest of what he said, he SHOULD have said is, "If you've got a business - you didn't build that on your own. Somebody else helped you along the way." Easy enough.

But, he didn't say that. He even confirmed what he meant with his second sentence.

He meant exactly that - individualism is bad, collective is good. It's more than revealing, but not a surprise.

 

[Seawytch]

Then link the bill and the specific text that is germane to Mud's claim.

Go read the bill, jerk off.

Another poster who when challenged to back up what he is saying gets all huffy and puffy but brings nothing else to the table.

Well, I'm not going to get huffy...

Why Aren't Banks Lending More? What Both Sides Say

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo.......such refreshing honesty. Why the switch?

What the ever living fuck are you talking about?

You were very honest in your assessment of the discussion between Art and Mud. But then you blew it with the "simple grammar" comment.

My mistake.

Grammatical rules are "dishonest" now.

Damn, the left cracks me up.

 

[Seawytch]

We can debate grammar all day long guys, yet the message is very clear.... if you're successful, it isn't because you worked hard or did something special, it's because you are part of the collective. Which of course is horse shit and frankly, beneath the dignity of the President of the United States.

You should tell that to Willard...

You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities.​

I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the bank, the investors. There is no question your mom and dad, your school teachers. The people who provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help. ​

 

[LoneLaugher]

What the ever living fuck are you talking about?

You were very honest in your assessment of the discussion between Art and Mud. But then you blew it with the "simple grammar" comment.

My mistake.

Grammatical rules are "dishonest" now.

Damn, the left cracks me up.

You're not even honest about that. You are not laughing now. More than likely, you are frowning as you contemplate your need to be disingenuous on an anonymous Internet forum.

 

[Article 15]

It's simple grammatical rules. Sorry about that.

There's no need to be sorry. Dishonesty and warping context is part of the game. I'm just saying don't think you are fooling anyone other than the brain dead or hyper-partisan.

What is dishonest about grammatical rules and simple English, Art?

If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


The antecedent of that is business. That's just a simple concept most learned when they learned grammar. IF all he said was the first sentence, then I would agree he just gaffed. But, he nailed shut exactly what he meant with the second sentence.


In the context of the rest of what he said, he SHOULD have said is, "If you've got a business - you didn't build that on your own. Somebody else helped you along the way." Easy enough.

But, he didn't say that. He even confirmed what he meant with his second sentence.

He meant exactly that - individualism is bad, collective is good. It's more than revealing, but not a surprise.

What's dishonest is ignoring what was said immediately before and immediately after the statement in order to make one believe that when Obama said "that" he was referring to the actual business and not the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc. which is obviously what he is referring to when what he said is put in full context.

 

[Si modo]

There's no need to be sorry. Dishonesty and warping context is part of the game. I'm just saying don't think you are fooling anyone other than the brain dead or hyper-partisan.

What is dishonest about grammatical rules and simple English, Art?

If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


The antecedent of that is business. That's just a simple concept most learned when they learned grammar. IF all he said was the first sentence, then I would agree he just gaffed. But, he nailed shut exactly what he meant with the second sentence.


In the context of the rest of what he said, he SHOULD have said is, "If you've got a business - you didn't build that on your own. Somebody else helped you along the way." Easy enough.

But, he didn't say that. He even confirmed what he meant with his second sentence.

He meant exactly that - individualism is bad, collective is good. It's more than revealing, but not a surprise.

What's dishonest is ignoring what was said immediately before and immediately after the statement in order to make one believe that when Obama said "that" he was referring to the actual business and not the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc. which is obviously what he is referring to when what he said is put in full context.

Hmmm. As my post DOESN'T ignore any of that, you're talking out your ass.

Simple grammar. TWO sentences, not one. One's a gaffe; two is crystal clear.

Just how it works for me.

 

[Stephanie]

There's no need to be sorry. Dishonesty and warping context is part of the game. I'm just saying don't think you are fooling anyone other than the brain dead or hyper-partisan.

What is dishonest about grammatical rules and simple English, Art?

If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


The antecedent of that is business. That's just a simple concept most learned when they learned grammar. IF all he said was the first sentence, then I would agree he just gaffed. But, he nailed shut exactly what he meant with the second sentence.


In the context of the rest of what he said, he SHOULD have said is, "If you've got a business - you didn't build that on your own. Somebody else helped you along the way." Easy enough.

But, he didn't say that. He even confirmed what he meant with his second sentence.

He meant exactly that - individualism is bad, collective is good. It's more than revealing, but not a surprise.

What's dishonest is ignoring what was said immediately before and immediately after the statement in order to make one believe that when Obama said "that" he was referring to the actual business and not the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc. which is obviously what he is referring to when what he said is put in full context.

spin however you want, won't help...the people took it the way they KNOW he meant it...tsk tsk for him...
maybe he should just shut up until the elections..

 

[Article 15]

What is dishonest about grammatical rules and simple English, Art?

If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


The antecedent of that is business. That's just a simple concept most learned when they learned grammar. IF all he said was the first sentence, then I would agree he just gaffed. But, he nailed shut exactly what he meant with the second sentence.


In the context of the rest of what he said, he SHOULD have said is, "If you've got a business - you didn't build that on your own. Somebody else helped you along the way." Easy enough.

But, he didn't say that. He even confirmed what he meant with his second sentence.

He meant exactly that - individualism is bad, collective is good. It's more than revealing, but not a surprise.

What's dishonest is ignoring what was said immediately before and immediately after the statement in order to make one believe that when Obama said "that" he was referring to the actual business and not the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc. which is obviously what he is referring to when what he said is put in full context.

Hmmm. As my post DOESN'T ignore any of that, you're talking out your ass.

Simple grammar. TWO sentences, not one. One's a gaffe; two is crystal clear.

Just how it works for me.

I'm not talking out of my ass. You are just unwilling to own up to the game you are playing.

What Obama said is basically like telling a baseball team owner that there are coaches, after school programs, little leagues, colleges, parents, etc that created an environment for which your team can thrive. You own a baseball team - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. Yada yada...

Am I saying that the owner didn't build their baseball team?

 

[Article 15]

What is dishonest about grammatical rules and simple English, Art?

If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


The antecedent of that is business. That's just a simple concept most learned when they learned grammar. IF all he said was the first sentence, then I would agree he just gaffed. But, he nailed shut exactly what he meant with the second sentence.


In the context of the rest of what he said, he SHOULD have said is, "If you've got a business - you didn't build that on your own. Somebody else helped you along the way." Easy enough.

But, he didn't say that. He even confirmed what he meant with his second sentence.

He meant exactly that - individualism is bad, collective is good. It's more than revealing, but not a surprise.

What's dishonest is ignoring what was said immediately before and immediately after the statement in order to make one believe that when Obama said "that" he was referring to the actual business and not the American system, education, roads, bridges, lines of communication etc. which is obviously what he is referring to when what he said is put in full context.

spin however you want, won't help...the people took it the way they KNOW he meant it...tsk tsk for him...
maybe he should just shut up until the elections..

When I tell Si that the only people who will believe the right wing spin after seeing the full quote are hyper-partisans and people who don't have two brain cells to rub together, I am referring to people like you....on both accounts.