(05-27-2011 07:59 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 07:32 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I have NEVER and will NEVER wish ill on our country just because I disagree with the policies of anyone who happens to be in office at the time.

Well, I didn't say you, personally. Just in general.

And it's not necessarily "wishing ill" on the US. It's more complicated than that. Very few on the left would want some right-wing Tea Partier to commit some heinous shooting or act of domestic terrorism. But you can't deny the amount of political gain that would be completely and shamelessly exploited from such a scenario. i.e, Daily Kos tweet - "Sarah Palin, Mission Accomplished!" after mental case Loughner, with no evidence of conservative influence or any stable politics for that matter, shot Giffords.

Remember the female news reporter who expressed disappointment that the arrested would-be Times Square bomber wasn't some home-grown rightwinger, but an Islamist? Or Michael Bloomberg predicting that the bomber arrested was "probably someone upset with the heath care bill or something"?

It's all an ugly side to partisan politics that both 'sides' are guilty of. Equally.

(05-27-2011 07:32 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I feel sure there are petty people on both sides but just as with racists and sexual deviants the vast majority seem to be on the right

Well....

Hmmm...

Another poor attempt at humor by Mr. Peanut. Human nature is the same left or right & gay or straight. Our representitives do just that they represent and reflect us. I stand corrected and apologize.

(05-27-2011 08:14 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Human nature is the same left or right & gay or straight.

No.

(05-27-2011 06:24 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Where did the income to pay back 7.6 billion dollars in loans come from? Does critical thinking come into play at all with your posts? I can at least understand RWT's glee in reporting this shell game as he's just passing on news, but after it's been exposed as a scam, here comes Mr. P to proclaim it as "positive news for America". Ok, Mr. P ... if it's good news, where did they get the money to pay this back?

Chrysler Group forecasts profit will return in 2011 - Jan. 31, 2011

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/31/news/com..._companies Wrote:NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Chrysler Group forecast it would return to profitability in 2011 after posting another net loss in the fourth quarter.

The automaker said it expects to earn between $200 million to $500 million in net income this year, which would be the first annual profit for the company since 2005.

crickets? You, who have the Hubris to create this thread have neither an answer for the sleight of hand that others have posted nor a simple question that I've posted? All that's left is the sight of you with your tail between your legs? Do any (either) of you have the integrity to directly admit that you were wrong?

This board is riddled with posts from these two who continually are proved wrong and instead of acknowledging their errors, just move on, acting as though the thread and their remarks don't exist, only to repeat same claims later in a new thread.

(05-27-2011 09:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 08:14 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Human nature is the same left or right & gay or straight.

No.

The percentage of adulterers in the GOP and Democratic Parties is different? Human behavior is largely predictable whether you live in a cave in Afganistan or a penthouse in Manhattan.

(05-29-2011 07:25 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 09:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 08:14 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Human nature is the same left or right & gay or straight.

No.

The percentage of adulterers in the GOP and Democratic Parties is different? Human behavior is largely predictable whether you live in a cave in Afganistan or a penthouse in Manhattan.

I agree.

The difference, however, seems to be that when a Republican is found to be engaged in shenanigans, the party throws them under the bus. When a Democrat is found to be engaged in shenanigans, the party circles the Priuses.

John Edwards or Bill Clinton might end up on Oprah (or whoever passes for Oprah in the future). Bob Packwood, not so much.

I have another "is this true" question. I'm reading an article comparing the Obama and Ryan budgets, and guess what, it shows Medicare expenditures running $100-150 billion a year MORE under Ryan's budget than Obama's. Is this true? I haven't run the numbers myself, but plan to.

If this is true, why is it Ryan and not Obama who is shown throwing granny off the cliff in the advert?

(05-29-2011 09:48 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 07:25 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 09:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 08:14 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Human nature is the same left or right & gay or straight.

No.

The percentage of adulterers in the GOP and Democratic Parties is different? Human behavior is largely predictable whether you live in a cave in Afganistan or a penthouse in Manhattan.

I agree.

The difference, however, seems to be that when a Republican is found to be engaged in shenanigans, the party throws them under the bus. When a Democrat is found to be engaged in shenanigans, the party circles the Priuses.

John Edwards or Bill Clinton might end up on Oprah (or whoever passes for Oprah in the future). Bob Packwood, not so much.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid and be sure to make enough for current GOP Senator David Vitter and disgraced former Democtatic Governor Eliot Spitzer.

(05-29-2011 11:50 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 09:48 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 07:25 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 09:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 08:14 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Human nature is the same left or right & gay or straight.

No.

The percentage of adulterers in the GOP and Democratic Parties is different? Human behavior is largely predictable whether you live in a cave in Afganistan or a penthouse in Manhattan.

I agree.

The difference, however, seems to be that when a Republican is found to be engaged in shenanigans, the party throws them under the bus. When a Democrat is found to be engaged in shenanigans, the party circles the Priuses.

John Edwards or Bill Clinton might end up on Oprah (or whoever passes for Oprah in the future). Bob Packwood, not so much.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid and be sure to make enough for current GOP Senator David Vitter and disgraced former Democtatic Governor Eliot Spitzer.

Would that be this Elliot Spitzer?

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/tag/eliot-spitzer/

(05-29-2011 09:48 AM)Smaug Wrote:  When a Democrat is found to be engaged in shenanigans, the party circles the Priuses.

United airlines never got any of the rescue money from shrub. That's why they filed for chapter 11. Delta's bankruptcy was nearly the same.[/align]

(05-27-2011 06:55 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  The truth is Ron Paul, ... would make the same call in about two seconds, the congress would follow and I would applaud.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

(05-26-2011 05:29 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-26-2011 05:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You mean they were able to pay back a near 0% interest loan? Well golly gee willickers, I'm shocked.

More to the point .... where did the money come to make that loan? Printed out of thin air. So the capital was created by robbing a little bit of the purchasing power of everybody who saved. Gee that's not amoral at all.

And the other message here is ... if you're a foreign auto maker and you've come to the United States to create jobs, factories, and cars ... that's fine, just understand that the deck will ALWAYS be stacked against you politically, your competitors will ALWAYS get sweetheart deals, and your competitors will ALWAYS get bailed out if you've delivered such a vastly superior product that they're nearly bankrupt. And yet the same people who support this bailout say out of the other side of their mouth that they are allllllllll for the creation of jobs.

This.

I want to be sure I understand this correctly. THe US auto makers are put at a disadvantage because most(if not all) the other countries that have an auto industry subsidize them but because you personally believe that it is wrong(yet, you have no problems subsidizing the oil industry) for the government to help out a struggling industry which could cause hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of job losses, we should just let them sink. Gotcha. I do have to ask though. Why do you hate this country?

One more time Robert, bankruptcy is not the end of an industry.

(05-27-2011 04:28 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Consrvatives have allowed their hate for the president to overtake their love of country and they will deny any positive news for America. The decision Obama made was a sound one that not only saved jobs but saved an industry. Bad for the United States = good for the GOP.

You are so right! I am saddened that there are people like Rebs and the others out there that hate Obama so much that they would run the country off the cliff to regain power rather than actually work to make it better.

(05-27-2011 06:55 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 06:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 04:28 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Consrvatives have allowed their hate for the president to overtake their love of country and they will deny any positive news for America. The decision Obama made was a sound one that not only saved jobs but saved an industry. Bad for the United States = good for the GOP.

Total utter bullsh*t.

The decision did not save an industry. Bankruptcy does not mean the end, despite the disingenuous efforts to incite a panic that would not be allowed to go to waste. If they had gone through a real bankruptcy, they'd still be here today, still making about as many cars, still employing about the same number of workers. Just like United Airlines. Or Delta. Or Donald Trump. Or hundreds of others who have done the same thing. Remember, they actually did go through a bankruptcy to pull this deal off.

And all of this good economic performance we are celebrating still has a pretty good chance to prove more illusory than real. It's way too early to go counting any chickens.

All the decision did was screw the bondholders and reward the union. We've sent a very strong message to foreign investors that the deck may be stacked against you here--just like in Venezuela. Given the way that we are running up debt and trade deficits, we'll probably need some of those very investors to step up and lend us more money in the future. If they tell us to f**k off, we brought it on ourselves. Sooner or later, you run out of other people's money; we took a giant step in that direction with this deal, just as we are taking other giant steps elsewhere. That is all we accomplished here, other than a huge reward for political cronies. If you think that's good for the country, then I think you're letting your crush on Obama blind you to reality.

In 2001 George W. Bush and the Republican Congress Bailed out the airline industry to the tune of 15 Billion Dollars (5 billion in cash and 10 billion in loan guarantees) The truth is Ron Paul, Herman Cain or Mitt Romney would make the same call in about two seconds, the congress would follow and I would applaud.

This is what I don't understand. We keep hearing from the people that the bailout was a "slippery slope" and should be avoided. Yet, it has happened several times under Republican regimes in the past and not a damn peep out them about "slippery slope". Maybe these nutjobs would like to explain?

(05-29-2011 02:14 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  United airlines never got any of the rescue money from shrub. That's why they filed for chapter 11. Delta's bankruptcy was nearly the same.[/align]

If this is true, I will have to take back my comments on the slippery slope issue" in an earlier post.

(05-29-2011 04:03 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 02:14 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  United airlines never got any of the rescue money from shrub. That's why they filed for chapter 11. Delta's bankruptcy was nearly the same.[/align]

If this is true, I will have to take back my comments on the slippery slope issue" in an earlier post.

United recieved the most from the '01 bailout raking in $390,671,788.00 and Delta and American each recieved more than 300 million dollars.

(05-29-2011 03:54 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 06:55 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  In 2001 George W. Bush and the Republican Congress Bailed out the airline industry to the tune of 15 Billion Dollars (5 billion in cash and 10 billion in loan guarantees) The truth is Ron Paul, Herman Cain or Mitt Romney would make the same call in about two seconds, the congress would follow and I would applaud.

This is what I don't understand. We keep hearing from the people that the bailout was a "slippery slope" and should be avoided. Yet, it has happened several times under Republican regimes in the past and not a damn peep out them about "slippery slope". Maybe these nutjobs would like to explain?

I would suggest doing a search around that time (2001) to gauge board reaction, but I don't think this corner of the Internetz existed yet.

Be that as it may, you'll find something more recent if you did a Search of "bailout" (or some other similar keyword) for 2008. You'll find multiple threads such as this and this blasting bailout talk, with post dates clearly indicating it was still under the Bush era.

Putting aside just the subjects of bailouts, I'm not going to disagree that you'll find plenty of conservatives/Republicans out there who will throw 'soft balls' when the GOP is in power and spit hellfire when it's the "other guy." On any message board. And of course you'd be beyond naïve to believe liberals/Democrats are perpetual straight-shooters who'd never do the same (to wit, if McCain were in office, these stories would meet a far more bitter reaction from the so-called anti-war left).

Still, the links demonstrate there exists - at minimum - a level of skepticism among a variety of posters here when it comes to large government bailouts, regardless of president.