Bin Laden is dead.........General Motors is alive

[Inthemiddle]

No, it's not. We had three oppritunities to get him before September 11, 2001 when Clinton was in office.

Entirely false

US had Bin Laden in sights at least three times

How about a credible source? In any event, even from your own link:

"In one instance, there was an identification that somehow we had bin Laden in our sights. Turned out it was a sheikh from UAE," he said.

The US didn't have him "in our sights." We had uncertain information that he might or might not have been around. Of the three alleged instances stated by your link:

1. An airstrike was carried out on a target facility, but failed to kill bin Laden.
2. A strike was not called based on the advise of George Tenet and other top advisors, based on uncertainty on the veracity of the source of intelligence.
3. A strike was not ordered based on concerns of collateral damage in the form of killing high ranking officials and/or royalty of US allies.

So to say that Clinton, "walked away" is completely false. Clinton ordered military action to take out bin Laden. Clinton had his administration continue to track bin Laden. He had to make the difficult decision to not act in other times, because of additional risks and concerns. He never had a good opportunity again to try to make a move.

 

[Oldstyle]

After the second world war we realized there were strategic industries that are essential to our national defense. The auto industry is one of those industries. Our economy was on the verge of a dramatic collapse. Failure of the auto and financial sector would have led to other key sectors collapsing

Obama stepped in and prevented a depression. Conservatives say we should have just let it collapse and then picked up the pieces

TARP was started by W. in case you've forgotten...Obama simply continued what Bush started. TARP may have prevented a depression. God knows the Obama stimulus didn't do much of anything except keep some government workers employed and pay off some Obama supporters in the green energy sector. We could have very easily just let GM file bankruptcy, reorganize and continue on instead of bailing them out. Obama stepped in to save the UAW...it had zero to do with saving the US auto industry.

Obama saved many labor jobs, and prevented the domino effect in the auto industry.

A simple restructuring under Chapter 11 bankruptcy would have done the same thing. The reason Obama stepped in was that if GM did file Chapter 11 they wouldn't have to honor the labor contracts they had with the UAW which were what was making them insolvent in the first place. This Administration totally ignored the rule of law and moved the unions up in the que of who got money during the reorganization. Then they wonder why private investors are "leery" about investing in our economy under this President? Duh?

 

[rightwinger]

Drastic times call for drastic things to happen... but not that government is to go beyond its power to make them happen... you fucking pig

Great politicians like FDR, JFK and Obama realize that economic numbers are not Dow Jones averages, GDP updates or employment figures. Those numbers are peoples lives, their families, their very existence

The let it fail, let it bottom out, let it ride mentality of the rightwing means......Let them suffer

A pending economic collapse is not a time to enact a survival of the fittest strategy. It is a time for strong government action to mitigate the economic impact on those least capable of surviving it

Translation: RW'er demands equal outcome. The individual doesn't exist. Groupthink is paramount.

It says nothing at all about equal outcome. That is just more rightwingspeak for...this is how I want the left to believe

The individual does indeed exist. That is why we don't want him to suffer for bad decisions by those who will not suffer at all in an economic crisis

 

[rightwinger]

TARP was started by W. in case you've forgotten...Obama simply continued what Bush started. TARP may have prevented a depression. God knows the Obama stimulus didn't do much of anything except keep some government workers employed and pay off some Obama supporters in the green energy sector. We could have very easily just let GM file bankruptcy, reorganize and continue on instead of bailing them out. Obama stepped in to save the UAW...it had zero to do with saving the US auto industry.

Obama saved many labor jobs, and prevented the domino effect in the auto industry.

A simple restructuring under Chapter 11 bankruptcy would have done the same thing. The reason Obama stepped in was that if GM did file Chapter 11 they wouldn't have to honor the labor contracts they had with the UAW which were what was making them insolvent in the first place. This Administration totally ignored the rule of law and moved the unions up in the que of who got money during the reorganization. Then they wonder why private investors are "leery" about investing in our economy under this President? Duh?

It would have been far from simple or painless. Hundreds of thousands would have been thrown out of work while the auto industry got it's finances in order. Who was going to loan the auto industry money in early 2009... The banks?

 

[JimH52]

As long as you finally admit that W did NOT KILL Bin Laden. That is fine...

 

[IndependntLogic]

So his Greatest achievements were a No Brainer decision to kill Osama, and an Auto Bail out that even the previous Administration supported?

If saying "Yeah kill him" and Signing Checks for Billions of Dollars are his Greatest Achievements then he clearly should not be allowed to win another Term.

Taking down OBL was a 2+ year huge accomplishment that began with reversing Bush's BS that "OBL isn't important", actually starting the process of looking for dots, connecting them, authorzing dozens of ops throughout the ME, taking a big chance by publicly negotiating the release of a spy who had what we needed but had been captured by the Pakis, then attacking a nuclear country that only pretends to be an ally, while his political opponents were praying the whole time for just anything to go wrong.

On that one thing, I can say with sincerity "Excellent work, Mr. President."

Just climb into Obamas lap already. Youve had to much kool-aid to be anywhere close to independent.

Nah, you're the kool-aid drinker. A mindless drone with every opinion spoon-fed to you by a machine. Whereas I can prove I'm a strong Independent and you're too ignorant to remember the dozens of posts in which I've said Obama sucks, you're just a little robot person ala 1984. So of course if I disagree with anything the Mind Controllers tell you to think, well that's going to freak you out. Poor thing. Disconnect from the Matrix baby.

And as far as OBL, I can support what I say. You? Shall I tell you what you'll say in advance?
"Bush actually got him!" Stupid.
"The SEALs did it! It was a no-brainer!" More stupid.

and all the usual regurgitations from The RW Matrix.

Hey, want me to tell you your opinions on current events? I'd be happy to.... Not like it's hard with kool-aid drinkers.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Entirely false

US had Bin Laden in sights at least three times

How about a credible source? In any event, even from your own link:

"In one instance, there was an identification that somehow we had bin Laden in our sights. Turned out it was a sheikh from UAE," he said.

The US didn't have him "in our sights." We had uncertain information that he might or might not have been around. Of the three alleged instances stated by your link:

1. An airstrike was carried out on a target facility, but failed to kill bin Laden.
2. A strike was not called based on the advise of George Tenet and other top advisors, based on uncertainty on the veracity of the source of intelligence.
3. A strike was not ordered based on concerns of collateral damage in the form of killing high ranking officials and/or royalty of US allies.

So to say that Clinton, "walked away" is completely false. Clinton ordered military action to take out bin Laden. Clinton had his administration continue to track bin Laden. He had to make the difficult decision to not act in other times, because of additional risks and concerns. He never had a good opportunity again to try to make a move.

Okay now this is entirely unfair! WTF do you think you're doing, bringing facts up???

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What else do you need to know?

GM should have been allowed to fail... the unfunded pension liabilities will sink them yet... unless of course the American taxpayer is once again forced to bail the unions out..

I never have and never will buy GM.

 

[IndependntLogic]

What else do you need to know?

GM should have been allowed to fail... the unfunded pension liabilities will sink them yet... unless of course the American taxpayer is once again forced to bail the unions out..

I never have and never will buy GM.

Historically speaking, the banks should have been allowed to fail or dismantled as bailing them out will probably be bad for the taxpayer.
Historically speaking, bailing out GM was a good move for the taxpayer but I think it should have been broken up into it's respective divisions to eliminate the "too big to fail" thing.

 

[bripat9643]

What else do you need to know?

GM should have been allowed to fail... the unfunded pension liabilities will sink them yet... unless of course the American taxpayer is once again forced to bail the unions out..

I never have and never will buy GM.

I also will never buy GM, and I even like some of the cars they've been building lately.

 

[bripat9643]

Historically speaking, the banks should have been allowed to fail or dismantled as bailing them out will probably be bad for the taxpayer.
Historically speaking, bailing out GM was a good move for the taxpayer but I think it should have been broken up into it's respective divisions to eliminate the "too big to fail" thing.

How is the GM bailout a good move for the taxpayers "historically speaking?"

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What else do you need to know?

GM should have been allowed to fail... the unfunded pension liabilities will sink them yet... unless of course the American taxpayer is once again forced to bail the unions out..

I never have and never will buy GM.

Historically speaking, the banks should have been allowed to fail or dismantled as bailing them out will probably be bad for the taxpayer.
Historically speaking, bailing out GM was a good move for the taxpayer but I think it should have been broken up into it's respective divisions to eliminate the "too big to fail" thing.

Nope.... all we have done is reward bad behavior. GM, and the banks should have failed.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Historically speaking, the banks should have been allowed to fail or dismantled as bailing them out will probably be bad for the taxpayer.
Historically speaking, bailing out GM was a good move for the taxpayer but I think it should have been broken up into it's respective divisions to eliminate the "too big to fail" thing.

How is the GM bailout a good move for the taxpayers "historically speaking?"

The GM bailout was payback to the UAW.

 

[bripat9643]

How is the GM bailout a good move for the taxpayers "historically speaking?"

The GM bailout was payback to the UAW.

I know, but I want IndependntLogic to explain how the taxpayer benefited. I'm sure the answer will be hilarious.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama saved many labor jobs, and prevented the domino effect in the auto industry.

A simple restructuring under Chapter 11 bankruptcy would have done the same thing. The reason Obama stepped in was that if GM did file Chapter 11 they wouldn't have to honor the labor contracts they had with the UAW which were what was making them insolvent in the first place. This Administration totally ignored the rule of law and moved the unions up in the que of who got money during the reorganization. Then they wonder why private investors are "leery" about investing in our economy under this President? Duh?

It would have been far from simple or painless. Hundreds of thousands would have been thrown out of work while the auto industry got it's finances in order. Who was going to loan the auto industry money in early 2009... The banks?

Why would hundreds of thousands have been "thrown out of work"? Chapter 11 bankruptcy doesn't mean that a business shuts down...it means that they are given time to reorganize and during that time they are protected from creditors. Ford managed to make it through the crisis rather well even though they had many of the same problems as GM and Chrysler. Obama took the actions he took to protect union contracts, not to protect the car companies.

 

[Trajan]

A simple restructuring under Chapter 11 bankruptcy would have done the same thing. The reason Obama stepped in was that if GM did file Chapter 11 they wouldn't have to honor the labor contracts they had with the UAW which were what was making them insolvent in the first place. This Administration totally ignored the rule of law and moved the unions up in the que of who got money during the reorganization. Then they wonder why private investors are "leery" about investing in our economy under this President? Duh?

It would have been far from simple or painless. Hundreds of thousands would have been thrown out of work while the auto industry got it's finances in order. Who was going to loan the auto industry money in early 2009... The banks?

Why would hundreds of thousands have been "thrown out of work"? Chapter 11 bankruptcy doesn't mean that a business shuts down...it means that they are given time to reorganize and during that time they are protected from creditors. Ford managed to make it through the crisis rather well even though they had many of the same problems as GM and Chrysler. Obama took the actions he took to protect union contracts, not to protect the car companies.

I have tried explaining this to him, its a loser. good luck though.

 

[Oldstyle]

What else do you need to know?

GM should have been allowed to fail... the unfunded pension liabilities will sink them yet... unless of course the American taxpayer is once again forced to bail the unions out..

I never have and never will buy GM.

Historically speaking, the banks should have been allowed to fail or dismantled as bailing them out will probably be bad for the taxpayer.
Historically speaking, bailing out GM was a good move for the taxpayer but I think it should have been broken up into it's respective divisions to eliminate the "too big to fail" thing.

Hard to make the point that the bank bailouts were as bad for the taxpayer as the GM bail out. The banks already paid back what they borrowed with interest...we're still in the hole in a big way with the GM bail out and I doubt very much if we'll ever recoup our losses on that.

 

[Trajan]

Do wingnuts seriously believe that their tedious, convoluted woulda coulda shoulda attempts to tear down the indisputable success of the auto industry bailout are going to resonate with normal people out there?

Seriously?

You people are a riot.

well as long as one accepts the fact that the billions they have still not paid back may never be paid back, sure, everything is rosy , of course others who think that that is not cool, well yea, we are idiots I guess........

 

[bripat9643]

I have tried explaining this to him, its a loser. good luck though.

They don't get it because they don't want to get it. The drones are in full election mode, and that requires spinning the GM debacle as a stunning success. It doesn't matter what they actually believe. Since when did truth ever get in the way of the liberal agenda?

 

[Oldstyle]

I have tried explaining this to him, its a loser. good luck though.

They don't get it because they don't want to get it. The drones are in full election mode, and that requires spinning the GM debacle as a stunning success. It doesn't matter what they actually believe. Since when did truth ever get in the way of the liberal agenda?

I believe the CBO's latest estimate is that we the taxpayers will be losing in excess of 30 billion dollars on the GM bailout. Hard to paint that as a "success".