Republican Implosion: Really? This is serious?

[Jarhead]

no...you seem to not understand the difference between a re-org and a bailout.

A Chapter 11 re-org is done with a manufacturer becuase the firm company has value beyond IP and beyond human capital. It has machinery; it has contracts; it has inventory. A court allows them to reorg, pay debt at 30 cents to the dollar (or even less)...cancel labor contracts for renegotiation....it must show the corut a business plan that makes sense...and it moves on.

A service company can recieve a "bailout"...yes.....but that is not a debt re-org...that is a debt supplement...in essence...."here is cash, pay off your debt at $1 to $1, and get back to work

You need to re-visit your position on this. Comparing a debt re-org/business plan revision to a government bailout is not possible. You erred. Learn from it. We all make mistakes.

Sallow...you know what my business was....(lol...retirement is fun).....I know my shit ojn this topic.

Whatever man.

I know the difference and I know what happened.

Everything was going to shit at the same time. That's why we had bailouts.

And the came from the very same people who hold that government should not get involved in private business.

thus what I meant when I said you take politics at face value.

I am quite aware that Bush and other republicans went for TARP becuase:

1) Bush was a lame duck president...if he didnt go for it, he would have single handedly destroyed the GOP the demcorats would have ran on a platform of "Bush ruined the economy and now he wants to see all of our bigeest companies go under"

2) Same for all GOPers up for re-election...

You see...you tend to give credit to Democrats for decisions against their ideology becuase you think they are doing what they truly believe is needed...

I dont give that to either party...when I see straying from ideology, I know it is for political expedeincy.

I dont take politics at face value.

Neither do you for the GOP....but you most certainly do for the democrats.

as for taking politics at face value, Sallow...

When Obama said 57 states, you and I laughed and knew it was a gaffe.

When Perry said 8 justices, I laughd and said a gaffe...my guess is, you said it is quite obviopus that he does not know how many justices there are.

You take the GOP at face value.
You give the DEMS the benefit of the doubt.

I give boith parties the benefit of the doubt.

Thus why I dare you to find one post of mine that refers to a democratic politician as an idiot...or as anything less than intelligent and having a passion for his/her ideology.

Except for that one termer from Florida...HE was an idiot...and it seems the dems AND the people knew it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know you need to blame Bush. I understand that. But throwing away reality in your desperate attempt to 'blame' an individual is not helping you.

And, no, Obama didn't bring us back from the brink. He has, however, managed to keep us on the brink instead of falling into it. I'll give him that much... but I suspect that was luck more than judgement.

You must have brown eyes, as full of shit as you are. I don't need to "blame Bush"; Bush was in the oval for seven years and nine months before the October 2008 melt down, the buck stopped at his desk.

As for Obama's performance, he has done as best as one might expect under very difficult circumstances. People like you as well as the conservative media lie and attempt to revise history; yes, you are able to fool some of the people all of the time (a shoutout to the echo chamber and the Tea Party ship of fools).

It must be so much easier in your world than in the real one... the one where decades of decisions by our government (all of it, not just one guy - or one side) had unintended consequences, the world where what happens in other countries impacts globally... that kind of shit.

The problem, and it seems to be a common issue among Americans, is that they think the world begins and ends at our borders. It doesn't. What happens around the world impacts on us... and what we do impacts on them. It is not a one way street. Nor is it as easy as 'the Republicans did it' or 'the Democrats did it'... that might scare you but it is, nonetheless, absolutely true.

I'm bored beyond rigid with you (and I mean a generic 'you' for all partisans - left and right) lying to yourselves and the rest of us about the complicity of all our politicians... and ourselves in this mess.

Grow a set of balls and face reality.

In a lower division history course one midterm blue book question was:

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

How would you answer this question (and, of course it was a lower division course, so it should be easy for someone as pretentious as you).

 

[Jarhead]

When will the right accept what they have done to black voters for decades?

“I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.” -- LBJ

Hes dead and running no party now huh?

We are talking about the decades after that asshole Texan

you mean the man that Obama referred to as one of our greatest 4 Presidents?

That Texas asshole?

 

[Truthmatters]

“I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.” -- LBJ

Hes dead and running no party now huh?

We are talking about the decades after that asshole Texan

you mean the man that Obama referred to as one of our greatest 4 Presidents?

That Texas asshole?

I never liked the man.

He did good things but I dont think he did them from the heart.

He was merely doing what the people of the Democratic party wwanted him to do.

Deeds and heart are not always aligned

 

[California Girl]

You must have brown eyes, as full of shit as you are. I don't need to "blame Bush"; Bush was in the oval for seven years and nine months before the October 2008 melt down, the buck stopped at his desk.

As for Obama's performance, he has done as best as one might expect under very difficult circumstances. People like you as well as the conservative media lie and attempt to revise history; yes, you are able to fool some of the people all of the time (a shoutout to the echo chamber and the Tea Party ship of fools).

It must be so much easier in your world than in the real one... the one where decades of decisions by our government (all of it, not just one guy - or one side) had unintended consequences, the world where what happens in other countries impacts globally... that kind of shit.

The problem, and it seems to be a common issue among Americans, is that they think the world begins and ends at our borders. It doesn't. What happens around the world impacts on us... and what we do impacts on them. It is not a one way street. Nor is it as easy as 'the Republicans did it' or 'the Democrats did it'... that might scare you but it is, nonetheless, absolutely true.

I'm bored beyond rigid with you (and I mean a generic 'you' for all partisans - left and right) lying to yourselves and the rest of us about the complicity of all our politicians... and ourselves in this mess.

Grow a set of balls and face reality.

In a lower division history course one midterm blue book question was:

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

How would you answer this question (and, of course it was a lower division course, so it should be easy for someone as pretentious as you).

I appreciate that it is tricky to deal with people who are not bound to either party. We tend to view things much more dispassionately than the partisans. I also tend to view things from a broad perspective - because I focus not just on the US, but what happens around the world too. Partisans 'blame' and 'congratulate' one side or the other, not on the facts but on their particular bias.

I pretty much dismiss partisan crap from both sides, which makes me both 'popular' and 'unpopular' - depending on what 'side' I happen to agree with - sometimes I piss off both sides.... because I point out that the facts do not support either position.

If that's how you define 'pretentious', that's fine. I prefer to call it 'realist'... because that's how I roll... I go for logic, and you go for emotional partisanship... you are, in truth, not much better than TruffMocker in the blind partisanship... but you do manage to spell correctly, speak in coherent sentences, and use bigger words than she... but that's not all that impressive.

 

[Jarhead]

Hes dead and running no party now huh?

We are talking about the decades after that asshole Texan

you mean the man that Obama referred to as one of our greatest 4 Presidents?

That Texas asshole?

I never liked the man.

He did good things but I dont think he did them from the heart.

He was merely doing what the people of the Democratic party wwanted him to do.

Deeds and heart are not always aligned

I can not name a single president in recent history that doesnt do exactly that.

 

[Truthmatters]

only in your warped mind

 

[Truthmatters]

It must be so much easier in your world than in the real one... the one where decades of decisions by our government (all of it, not just one guy - or one side) had unintended consequences, the world where what happens in other countries impacts globally... that kind of shit.

The problem, and it seems to be a common issue among Americans, is that they think the world begins and ends at our borders. It doesn't. What happens around the world impacts on us... and what we do impacts on them. It is not a one way street. Nor is it as easy as 'the Republicans did it' or 'the Democrats did it'... that might scare you but it is, nonetheless, absolutely true.

I'm bored beyond rigid with you (and I mean a generic 'you' for all partisans - left and right) lying to yourselves and the rest of us about the complicity of all our politicians... and ourselves in this mess.

Grow a set of balls and face reality.

In a lower division history course one midterm blue book question was:

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

How would you answer this question (and, of course it was a lower division course, so it should be easy for someone as pretentious as you).

I appreciate that it is tricky to deal with people who are not bound to either party. We tend to view things much more dispassionately than the partisans. I also tend to view things from a broad perspective - because I focus not just on the US, but what happens around the world too. Partisans 'blame' and 'congratulate' one side or the other, not on the facts but on their particular bias.

I pretty much dismiss partisan crap from both sides, which makes me both 'popular' and 'unpopular' - depending on what 'side' I happen to agree with - sometimes I piss off both sides.... because I point out that the facts do not support either position.

If that's how you define 'pretentious', that's fine. I prefer to call it 'realist'... because that's how I roll... I go for logic, and you go for emotional partisanship... you are, in truth, not much better than TruffMocker in the blind partisanship... but you do manage to spell correctly, speak in coherent sentences, and use bigger words than she... but that's not all that impressive.

You are a died in the wool republican no matter what you claim here.

look pretending to be independent doesnt make it so.

 

[Jarhead]

only in your warped mind

excellent response!

 

[Sallow]

Whatever man.

I know the difference and I know what happened.

Everything was going to shit at the same time. That's why we had bailouts.

And the came from the very same people who hold that government should not get involved in private business.

thus what I meant when I said you take politics at face value.

I am quite aware that Bush and other republicans went for TARP becuase:

1) Bush was a lame duck president...if he didnt go for it, he would have single handedly destroyed the GOP the demcorats would have ran on a platform of "Bush ruined the economy and now he wants to see all of our bigeest companies go under"

2) Same for all GOPers up for re-election...

You see...you tend to give credit to Democrats for decisions against their ideology becuase you think they are doing what they truly believe is needed...

I dont give that to either party...when I see straying from ideology, I know it is for political expedeincy.

I dont take politics at face value.

Neither do you for the GOP....but you most certainly do for the democrats.

as for taking politics at face value, Sallow...

When Obama said 57 states, you and I laughed and knew it was a gaffe.

When Perry said 8 justices, I laughd and said a gaffe...my guess is, you said it is quite obviopus that he does not know how many justices there are.

You take the GOP at face value.
You give the DEMS the benefit of the doubt.

I give boith parties the benefit of the doubt.

Thus why I dare you to find one post of mine that refers to a democratic politician as an idiot...or as anything less than intelligent and having a passion for his/her ideology.

Except for that one termer from Florida...HE was an idiot...and it seems the dems AND the people knew it.

There's no "face value". Conservative policies for the last 3 decades have cut taxes and regulations. And almost every conservative administration has wound up the same way..in need of some sort of bailout for the private high fliers and exploding deficits.

Their answer? We didn't go far enough.

Well..how far is far enough?

The dissolution of the United States?

No thanks.

 

[California Girl]

In a lower division history course one midterm blue book question was:

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

How would you answer this question (and, of course it was a lower division course, so it should be easy for someone as pretentious as you).

I appreciate that it is tricky to deal with people who are not bound to either party. We tend to view things much more dispassionately than the partisans. I also tend to view things from a broad perspective - because I focus not just on the US, but what happens around the world too. Partisans 'blame' and 'congratulate' one side or the other, not on the facts but on their particular bias.

I pretty much dismiss partisan crap from both sides, which makes me both 'popular' and 'unpopular' - depending on what 'side' I happen to agree with - sometimes I piss off both sides.... because I point out that the facts do not support either position.

If that's how you define 'pretentious', that's fine. I prefer to call it 'realist'... because that's how I roll... I go for logic, and you go for emotional partisanship... you are, in truth, not much better than TruffMocker in the blind partisanship... but you do manage to spell correctly, speak in coherent sentences, and use bigger words than she... but that's not all that impressive.

You are a died in the wool republican no matter what you claim here.

look pretending to be independent doesnt make it so.

Prove it. Prove that I am a member of the GOP. Go ahead. I need a laugh.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You've got the bar set extremely low if you think 45 million on food stamps and another 20 million unemployed is a fine job.

I agree, Bush sucked.

All of this didnt occur under Bush' watch.

 

[JimH52]

Mitt is the only chance the GOP has and the more he is vetted, the worse he looks. Plus, good old Newt has brought out some real dirt on him. The Dems have got to love this!

GO NEWT!

 

[Truthmatters]

the dirt would have come out before the election anyway.

they are all dirty.

Hell they are republicans what do you expect

 

[Jarhead]

the dirt would have come out before the election anyway.

They are all dirty.

Hell they are republicans what do you expect

excellent response!

 

[Truthmatters]

Your party has a automatic setting where you REFUSE to admitt the history of the top down cheating in elections.

None of you will deal with the facts and you pretend its not there.

That makes you all dirty liars

 

[California Girl]

Mitt is the only chance the GOP has and the more he is vetted, the worse he looks. Plus, good old Newt has brought out some real dirt on him. The Dems have got to love this!

GO NEWT!

You ought to factor in that, should Mitt get the nod, Obama will be vetted - if not by the media, he will by Americans - on his record as President. I would not be overly confident that his record will hold up against Mitt.

Seriously.

 

[Jarhead]

your party has a automatic setting where you refuse to admitt the history of the top down cheating in elections.

None of you will deal with the facts and you pretend its not there.

That makes you all dirty liars

excellent post!

 

[Sallow]

Mitt is the only chance the GOP has and the more he is vetted, the worse he looks. Plus, good old Newt has brought out some real dirt on him. The Dems have got to love this!

GO NEWT!

Generally these "trial by fire" things strengthen the candidate for the general.

This, actually is having the opposite effect.

 

[Sallow]

Mitt is the only chance the GOP has and the more he is vetted, the worse he looks. Plus, good old Newt has brought out some real dirt on him. The Dems have got to love this!

GO NEWT!

You ought to factor in that, should Mitt get the nod, Obama will be vetted - if not by the media, he will by Americans - on his record as President. I would not be overly confident that his record will hold up against Mitt.

Seriously.

He's already been vetted. His record has been pretty good.

Mitt was a one term governor of Massachusetts. He didn't run a second time because his numbers were so bad. And he lost his bid for congress.

His record in politics is pretty dismal. The one shining achievement he has is RomneyCare. And he's running away from that.

Business wise?

Corporate raiders are never popular.