What leader, what government, what country is getting right?

[PatekPhilippe]

Yes, you are correct. The government did receive temporary partial ownership as a part of the reorganization, however the form of ownership is preferred stock which has no voting rights and thus has no voice in how the business is run. It therefore has not been nationalized.

Ya....Obama isn't doing a thing to the company the government doesn't own or control....got any more bullshit to post? Please feel free.
U.S. Plans Key Role In Naming GM Board - washingtonpost.com

The bailout will not give the government any more influence over the company than any other creditor. The government has no voice in the running of the company.

Feel free to post facts instead of fiction at any time. Thanks for playing.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The only one fooling anyone her is you fooling yourself, tovarich.

I mean really...Do you think you're the first mouth-breathing goober to have come up with this stupid line of "thought" (for lack of a better term)?

Hardly...This is just another variation of the old "Amurrica, love it or leave it" bromide that gets trotted out every few weeks on forums just like this one.

But then again, closeted Bolshevist kooks like you never were big on originality to begin with.

If I am not mistaken you called me an "America Love It Or Leave it" Bolshevist.

I would be the only America love it or leave it Bolshevist in the world.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I am hearing many who feel Obama is creating a socialist state, taking our rights away, basically creating a tyrannical government.

To those individuals I ask what real world leader, leading a real world government in a real country is better than a Obama led government in the USA.

I am guessing you will have several countries based on the total dissatifaction with Obama.

Why would those be the only options?

The Constitution is the blueprint for our government, and it has worked extremely well for two centuries. That the rest of the world sucks far worse and is even farther removed from our founding principles of individual liberty and self-governance doesn't mean we have to accept generational theft and ever expanding government here.

I have a better question. What nation or political system has historically provided more liberty and opportunity to succeed than the United States?

The issue isn't what other nations are doing. The issue is what we are doing by drifting further and further from the limited government prescribed in the Constitution.

I agree that the discussion can and should be are we drifting away from the tenets of the Constitution.

The argument can be made the changes are within our constitution and required by the changing issues within our country.

Governing a homogenious country of 5 million is differnt than governing a very diverse country with a population over 300 million.
The constitution provides the frame work. The devil is in the details.

But what you say makes my point in that those daying we have drifted into a tyrannical socialist government is flat not true.

 

[Douger]

I don't have to do that. This country is the greatest on the planet....

Is that why you are " somewhere in southeast Asia " ?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Show me a country that gives you more freedoms

1 Hong Kong 89.7 -0.3 2 Singapore 86.1 -1.0 3 Australia 82.6 0.0 4 New Zealand 82.1 0.1 5 Ireland 81.3 -0.9 6 Switzerland 81.1 1.7 7 Canada 80.4 -0.1 8 United States 78.0 -2.7 9 Denmark 77.9 -1.7 10 Chile 77.2 -1.1

Index of Economic Freedom: Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity | The Heritage Foundation


World Press Freedom Index 2009 - The rankings
Rank Country Note
1 Denmark 0,00 ����
_ Finland 0,00 ��
_ Ireland 0,00 ��
_ Norway 0,00 =
_ Sweden 0,00 ��
6 Estonia 0,50 ��
7 Netherlands 1,00 ��
_ Switzerland 1,00 =
9 Iceland 2,00 ��
10 Lithuania 2,25 ��
11 Belgium 2,50 ��
_ Malta 2,50 NC
13 Austria 3,00 ��
_ Latvia 3,00 ��
_ New Zealand 3,00 ��
16 Australia 3,13 ����
17 Japan 3,25 ����
18 Germany 3,50 ��
19 Canada 3,70 ��
20 Luxembourg 4,00 ����
_ United Kingdom 4,00 ��
_ United States of America

http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/classement_en.pdf


somalia?


see the first point



Please define the characteristics that mark a desirable tax system in your opinion
SHOW ME.

mole sua

the highest standard of living to maintain.

1 ▬

Norway 0.971 ▲ 0.001 2 ▬

Australia 0.970 ▲ 0.002 3 ▬

Iceland 0.969 ▲ 0.002 4 ▬

Canada 0.966 ▲ 0.001 5 ▬

Ireland 0.965 ▲ 0.001 6 ▲ (1)

Netherlands 0.964 ▲ 0.003 7 ▼ (1)

Sweden 0.963 ▲ 0.002 8 ▲ (3)

France 0.961 ▲ 0.003 9 ▬

Switzerland 0.960 ▲ 0.001 10 ▬

Japan 0.960 ▲ 0.002 11 ▼ (3)

Luxembourg 0.960 ▲ 0.001 12 ▲ (1)

Finland 0.959 ▲ 0.004 13 ▼ (1)

United States

List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why'd you suddenly go silent?

I don;t think any right winger woould be happy in any of the countries you listed.

Their philosophy does not provide the desired result in real world governments.

 

[Douger]

We are America. We are unique. We don't need to follow the example of others. We were founded to be a beacon - a unique, free society for others to emulate.... not to emulate others. Have you never read our history.

Which version CG ? The one you obviously paid very close attention to in school, or the real one ?

 

[L.K.Eder]

What's the point of this stupid thread?

The point is show me a better leader, a better government, a better country than our Obama led government.

It is easy to say in a theoretical sense you can do a lot better.

Show us some real world examples.

I am taking from your response you cannot name any.

We are America. We are unique. We don't need to follow the example of others. We were founded to be a beacon - a unique, free society for others to emulate.... not to emulate others. Have you never read our history?

What a fucking dumbassed question.

beacon, alright.

haha, adorable.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I am hearing many who feel Obama is creating a socialist state, taking our rights away, basically creating a tyrannical government.

To those individuals I ask what real world leader, leading a real world government in a real country is better than a Obama led government in the USA.

I am guessing you will have several countries based on the total dissatifaction with Obama.

What an utterly insipid question.

This is an insipid question if you are an insopid individual without an answer.

 

[Richard-H]

WOW!

The wingnuts on this thread state that Europe was socialist 200 years ago, that monarchy is equivalent to socialism, that the freely elected President and Congress are dictators and tyrants, that in a represenative democracy (i.e. Republic) the governement must rule based on the immediate popularity of any particular bill.

Then when you point out how silly their arguments are, they, rather than presenting any logical argument, just call you nasty names and insult you.

I get the feeling that the wingnuts are getting desparate.

It seems that the wingnuts believe that thru force of will, intimidation and making a lot of noise, they can force a dictatorship of the minority. Anger is their reponse to anyone that challenges their statements no matter how lunatic they may be.

The facts are:

The President and Congress are the freely elected representative of the American people.

The reason that the Democrats have overwhelming the majority is becuse the American people elected them.

The government has not socialized anything, nor even tried.

Monarchy is about as opposite to socialism as any two forms of government could possibly be.

To all wingnuts:

Could you please stop being so plain silly? This is not the 1990s, America just cannot afford the stupidity anymore.

It's that you're all following some primitive herd instinct whereby you intentionally make rediculous statements, expecting that anyone who is loyal to the herd will agree regardless of the lack of validity, but anyone that disagrees is showing disloyalty to the herd and should be attacked.

Please try crawling out of the cave!

 

[tigerbob]

I am hearing many who feel Obama is creating a socialist state, taking our rights away, basically creating a tyrannical government.

To those individuals I ask what real world leader, leading a real world government in a real country is better than a Obama led government in the USA.

I am guessing you will have several countries based on the total dissatifaction with Obama.

What an utterly insipid question.

This is an insipid question if you are an insopid individual without an answer.

Wow, that actually makes even less sense.

An answer to what? What country has a "better" government than America? You're seriously defending that as a question worth answering, or even asking?

It's so absurdly subjective and ill-defined you might as well ask what fruit is "better" than mangoes, what game is "better" than Yahtzee, what dog is "better" than a poodle. It's a 5 year old's question. Unless you happen to be a partizan troll, it lacks any kind of challenging or stimulating qualities. Without them, it's insipid.

 

[Foxfyre]

The government does not own any part of GM or Chrysler. The government loaned GM 8.1 billion. GM announced this week the payback of the loan. The government loaned Fiat, the company that bought Chrylser 4.7 billion. Fiat said they will begin payback in 2011. The government does not own part of either company.

Fannie Mae was established as a government agency in 1938. In 1968, Fannie Mae became a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) chartered by Congress. The only change since Obama took office is that the fed has pumped money into it to shore up the mortgage market. It was certainly not nationalized by Obama. The story is much the same with Freddie Mac. Both corporations are investor owned and listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

When you refer to student loans, I suppose you are referring to Sallie Mae which is an investor owned corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Sallie Mae received government loans however the government does not own Sallie Mae.

From Wiki just because I'm headed to bed and don't want to take the time to hunt up another source:

. . . .GM is now temporarily majority owned by the United States Treasury and, to a smaller extent, the Canada Development Investment Corporation[7] — a Canadian Crown corporation[8] — and the Ontario government,[clarification needed][9][10][11] with the US government investing a total of US$57.6 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.[12] . . . .

. . . .Although the Obama administration had initially provided the automaker five years to repay the money in full, in March 2010 GM made more than $2 billion in payments to the U.S. and Canadian governments and promised to pay the full balance of the loan portion by June. The company beat that self-imposed deadline when on April 21, 2010, GM CEO Ed Whitacre Jr. announced that the company had paid back the entire amount of the U.S. and Canadian government loans, with interest, a total of $8.1 billion. The government still has $2.1 billion invested in preferred shares that pay dividends, plus a 61% share of common equity valued at about $45 billion to the U.S. and another $8.1 billion to Canada. Improved sales of new models are cited as improving the company's cash flow and allowing for the early payments. GM is also investing hundreds of millions in assembly plants in Kansas and Detroit, credited for preserving jobs. . . .

General Motors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then we can talk about the huge number of shares Obama allowed the union to take over which at least some analysts believes will give Obama any kind of leverage he wants in the company. The CEO still serves at Obama's pleasure . . . .

Edit to add this link as a secondary source providing additional information and explaining why the U.S. Government remains the primary stockholder in GM:
Did GM Pay Back Its Loan? Sort of. The Everyday Economist

Yes, you are correct. The government did receive temporary partial ownership as a part of the reorganization, however the form of ownership is preferred stock which has no voting rights and thus has no voice in how the business is run. It therefore has not been nationalized.

It does not have to be formally 'nationalized' to be under government ownership and/or control. The government continues to hold enough GM stock to overrule any decision proposed by the board to to force he board to do anything it wants. The management serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired by the President at a moment's notice.

That doesn't square at all with your statement that the government owns no part of General Motors.

It does square with you either not having a clue what you are talking about or swallowing hook, line, and sinker propaganda from some pro-Obama, pro-Marxist socialist site.

 

[JBeukema]

You can't really be a pro-obama Marxist

 

[CMike]

It's an irrelevant question.

What the wingnuts don't understand is that this country isn't like any other country. And frankly, I don't watch their leaders close enough to judge their domestic affairs.

The facts is that the winguts golden calf is an utter disaster. He is taking this country away from it's core value, and trying to make it a marxist state.

 

[CMike]

You can't really be a pro-obama Marxist

Since Obama is a marxist, it's basically the same thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can't really be a pro-obama Marxist

Sure you can. Obama himself is a student of and advocate of Marxist concepts. Marx was not an evil man nor were all his theories necessarily wrong or destructive. But he did believe in a fictitious utopia where people would govern themselves in peace, harmony, and complete equality.

He simply did not allow for the disparities in effort, ambition, competence, or results, however, and he did not include the necessity of securing natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in his solution. In fact he promoted a severely authoritarian government with unlimited powers to accomplish the goal.

I think Obama is moving toward that severely authoritarian government with unlimited powers part.

Marx also failed to acknowledge that once government has the power to strip the people of the unalienable rights, it too often refuses to give that up voluntarily. And, as witnessed in the executiion of the principle under Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, et al, the results is too often disastrous for the people and results in far more misery than happiness.

That is a part of history I don't believe our President has ever studied or, if he did, he didn't believe it.

 

[JBeukema]

You can't really be a pro-obama Marxist

Since Obama is a marxist, it's basically the same thing.

right....

do you even know what Marxism is?

 

[Oddball]

The only one fooling anyone her is you fooling yourself, tovarich.

I mean really...Do you think you're the first mouth-breathing goober to have come up with this stupid line of "thought" (for lack of a better term)?

Hardly...This is just another variation of the old "Amurrica, love it or leave it" bromide that gets trotted out every few weeks on forums just like this one.

But then again, closeted Bolshevist kooks like you never were big on originality to begin with.

If I am not mistaken you called me an "America Love It Or Leave it" Bolshevist.

I would be the only America love it or leave it Bolshevist in the world.

You are in fact mistaken...I said you're invoking a variation of that stale platitude.

Reading for comprehension will make you at least appear as less of of an idiot.

 

[Douger]

One
Latin American Herald Tribune - Costa Rica's Arias Calls on Uruguay's Pepe to Disband Army
Two
Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? - TIME
Three
BBC NEWS | Technology | Laptop for every pupil in Uruguay
Four
Norway 'carbon neutral by 2050'
Five
Chile’s Bachelet focuses on social issues | VivirLatino

 

[CMike]

You can't really be a pro-obama Marxist

Since Obama is a marxist, it's basically the same thing.

right....

do you even know what Marxism is?

Guess who said the following, Marx or Obama?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

 

[Flopper]

From Wiki just because I'm headed to bed and don't want to take the time to hunt up another source:


General Motors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then we can talk about the huge number of shares Obama allowed the union to take over which at least some analysts believes will give Obama any kind of leverage he wants in the company. The CEO still serves at Obama's pleasure . . . .

Edit to add this link as a secondary source providing additional information and explaining why the U.S. Government remains the primary stockholder in GM:
Did GM Pay Back Its Loan? Sort of. The Everyday Economist

Yes, you are correct. The government did receive temporary partial ownership as a part of the reorganization, however the form of ownership is preferred stock which has no voting rights and thus has no voice in how the business is run. It therefore has not been nationalized.

It does not have to be formally 'nationalized' to be under government ownership and/or control. The government continues to hold enough GM stock to overrule any decision proposed by the board to to force he board to do anything it wants. The management serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired by the President at a moment's notice.

That doesn't square at all with your statement that the government owns no part of General Motors.

It does square with you either not having a clue what you are talking about or swallowing hook, line, and sinker propaganda from some pro-Obama, pro-Marxist socialist site.

"It does not have to be formally 'nationalized' to be under government ownership and/or control. The government continues to hold enough GM stock to overrule any decision proposed by the board to to force he board to do anything it wants. The management serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired by the President at a moment's notice."

Please explain. The government holds not-voting preferred stock. How is the government going to overrule management if they have no vote in the operations of the company.