Radicals Abort Free Speech Rights of Leftists.

[saveliberty]

Takes over? Why would the government take over a private business in America?

Looks to me more like a bailout with a demand that for once the American public get some say in how their help is going to be spent.

I would imagine people who scream about guv bailouts and big biz give always would applaud having a say in companies the US Tax Payer has bailed out.

and why a bailout? no sane person has suggested another way at the time, of getting the economy off life support.

It is a take over Dante. The board of directors as many government appointed seats in GM now. Those people are dicating the days supply of vehicles available, which really effects sales of the product. Yes, it is a takeover. The sooner we get those loans paid and new stock issued the better for the company and nation.

Without the investment there was no GM. It should be supported by conservatives that teh amount of money used to bailout a company demands a say in the boardroom.

It's not a takeover in the classic sense that right wing lunatics are portraying it. The government did NOT nationalize the auto industry. The government saved asses and is NOT running GM.

They took over the operations of GM. That is a takeover period. They determine production levels.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is a take over Dante. The board of directors as many government appointed seats in GM now. Those people are dicating the days supply of vehicles available, which really effects sales of the product. Yes, it is a takeover. The sooner we get those loans paid and new stock issued the better for the company and nation.

Without the investment there was no GM. It should be supported by conservatives that teh amount of money used to bailout a company demands a say in the boardroom.

It's not a takeover in the classic sense that right wing lunatics are portraying it. The government did NOT nationalize the auto industry. The government saved asses and is NOT running GM.

They took over the operations of GM. That is a takeover period. They determine production levels.

They do? Who is they? Name them. And how do you know so much about the inner workings at GM? are you James Bond?

 

[Meister]

Here we go with the pseudo-intellectualism bs excuses that use the "what a true _________(fill in the blank)" can or cannot look like. When we argue ideological differences we have to deal with realities and not what could or should be.

And nobody has taken over "a private sector auto manufacturer, a bank, healthcare" or Wall Street.

gawd, I've never heard a Gunnery Sgt whine so much. Are you sure you ain't a bitch? I know they allow bitches to be Gunnies.

What do you call it, when an entity takes over 61% of General Motors, or 80% of AIG, Dante?

Takes over? Why would the government take over a private business in America?

Looks to me more like a bailout with a demand that for once the American public get some say in how their help is going to be spent.

I would imagine people who scream about guv bailouts and big biz give always would applaud having a say in companies the US Tax Payer has bailed out.

and why a bailout? no sane person has suggested another way at the time, of getting the economy off life support.

You can spin it until the cows come home, Dante. Fact is that the government is the majority shareholder in those companies. Anything you say to the contrary is a fail.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which have said they can't last the year without federal aid, both hope the White House will now relent and allow the Treasury to provide emergency loans from the $700 billion Wall Street fund, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Reid also urged that option.

Rescue Bid for Detroit Collapses in Senate - WSJ.com

looks more like a rescue than a takeover.




more from the US Capitalists...

Let's stop kidding ourselves. If General Motors is going to survive in the U.S., it will need government-guaranteed loans. Just between us capitalists, is there anything wrong with that? In 1980 the U.S. guaranteed $1.5 billion of private loans to Chrysler, which was much smaller than GM is today. The government made $400 million on the deal.

Bail Out GM - Forbes.com

and here...look...

Democrats Propose $15 Billion Big 3 Loan
Compromise With Bush Could Pass This Week


Auto Bailout
Q. The big three automakers in the U.S. have asked for up to $34 billion in loans from the government. On balance, do you support or oppose this plan?

SOURCE: Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec. 3-7 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The results have an error margin of 3 points.



By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Congressional Democrats and the White House yesterday settled on a plan to rush $15 billion in emergency loans to the cash-strapped Detroit automakers and were working into the night to resolve final disputes over the conditions the government should attach to the money.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is a take over Dante. The board of directors as many government appointed seats in GM now. Those people are dicating the days supply of vehicles available, which really effects sales of the product. Yes, it is a takeover. The sooner we get those loans paid and new stock issued the better for the company and nation.

Without the investment there was no GM. It should be supported by conservatives that teh amount of money used to bailout a company demands a say in the boardroom.

It's not a takeover in the classic sense that right wing lunatics are portraying it. The government did NOT nationalize the auto industry. The government saved asses and is NOT running GM.

They took over the operations of GM. That is a takeover period. They determine production levels.

you're argument is with yourself, not me.

According to the media...mostly conservative capitalists... it looks more like a rescue than a takeover

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which have said they can't last the year without federal aid, both hope the White House will now relent and allow the Treasury to provide emergency loans from the $700 billion Wall Street fund, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Reid also urged that option.

Rescue Bid for Detroit Collapses in Senate - WSJ.com

looks more like a rescue than a takeover.




more from the US Capitalists...

Let's stop kidding ourselves. If General Motors is going to survive in the U.S., it will need government-guaranteed loans. Just between us capitalists, is there anything wrong with that? In 1980 the U.S. guaranteed $1.5 billion of private loans to Chrysler, which was much smaller than GM is today. The government made $400 million on the deal.

Bail Out GM - Forbes.com

and here...look...

Democrats Propose $15 Billion Big 3 Loan
Compromise With Bush Could Pass This Week


Auto Bailout
Q. The big three automakers in the U.S. have asked for up to $34 billion in loans from the government. On balance, do you support or oppose this plan?

SOURCE: Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec. 3-7 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The results have an error margin of 3 points.



By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Congressional Democrats and the White House yesterday settled on a plan to rush $15 billion in emergency loans to the cash-strapped Detroit automakers and were working into the night to resolve final disputes over the conditions the government should attach to the money.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What do you call it, when an entity takes over 61% of General Motors, or 80% of AIG, Dante?

Takes over? Why would the government take over a private business in America?

Looks to me more like a bailout with a demand that for once the American public get some say in how their help is going to be spent.

I would imagine people who scream about guv bailouts and big biz give always would applaud having a say in companies the US Tax Payer has bailed out.

and why a bailout? no sane person has suggested another way at the time, of getting the economy off life support.

You can spin it until the cows come home, Dante. Fact is that the government is the majority shareholder in those companies. Anything you say to the contrary is a fail.

SpinMeister...

you're argument is with yourself, not me.

According to the media...mostly conservative capitalists... it looks more like a rescue than a takeover

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which have said they can't last the year without federal aid, both hope the White House will now relent and allow the Treasury to provide emergency loans from the $700 billion Wall Street fund, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Reid also urged that option.

Rescue Bid for Detroit Collapses in Senate - WSJ.com

looks more like a rescue than a takeover.




more from the US Capitalists...

Let's stop kidding ourselves. If General Motors is going to survive in the U.S., it will need government-guaranteed loans. Just between us capitalists, is there anything wrong with that? In 1980 the U.S. guaranteed $1.5 billion of private loans to Chrysler, which was much smaller than GM is today. The government made $400 million on the deal.

Bail Out GM - Forbes.com

and here...look...

Democrats Propose $15 Billion Big 3 Loan
Compromise With Bush Could Pass This Week


Auto Bailout
Q. The big three automakers in the U.S. have asked for up to $34 billion in loans from the government. On balance, do you support or oppose this plan?

SOURCE: Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec. 3-7 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The results have an error margin of 3 points.



By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Congressional Democrats and the White House yesterday settled on a plan to rush $15 billion in emergency loans to the cash-strapped Detroit automakers and were working into the night to resolve final disputes over the conditions the government should attach to the money.

 

[saveliberty]

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which have said they can't last the year without federal aid, both hope the White House will now relent and allow the Treasury to provide emergency loans from the $700 billion Wall Street fund, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Reid also urged that option.

Rescue Bid for Detroit Collapses in Senate - WSJ.com

looks more like a rescue than a takeover.




more from the US Capitalists...

Let's stop kidding ourselves. If General Motors is going to survive in the U.S., it will need government-guaranteed loans. Just between us capitalists, is there anything wrong with that? In 1980 the U.S. guaranteed $1.5 billion of private loans to Chrysler, which was much smaller than GM is today. The government made $400 million on the deal.

Bail Out GM - Forbes.com

and here...look...

Democrats Propose $15 Billion Big 3 Loan
Compromise With Bush Could Pass This Week


Auto Bailout
Q. The big three automakers in the U.S. have asked for up to $34 billion in loans from the government. On balance, do you support or oppose this plan?

SOURCE: Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec. 3-7 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The results have an error margin of 3 points.



By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Congressional Democrats and the White House yesterday settled on a plan to rush $15 billion in emergency loans to the cash-strapped Detroit automakers and were working into the night to resolve final disputes over the conditions the government should attach to the money.

I'm going to burst your bubble here Dante. The bailout funds came in March of 2009. In June GM went bankrupt. After receivership, GM became the property of the UAW and US government. The CEO was fired by the government, production decisions and all other aspects of the operation were and are controlled by a board with majority control by the government.

 

[Meister]

Takes over? Why would the government take over a private business in America?

Looks to me more like a bailout with a demand that for once the American public get some say in how their help is going to be spent.

I would imagine people who scream about guv bailouts and big biz give always would applaud having a say in companies the US Tax Payer has bailed out.

and why a bailout? no sane person has suggested another way at the time, of getting the economy off life support.

You can spin it until the cows come home, Dante. Fact is that the government is the majority shareholder in those companies. Anything you say to the contrary is a fail.

SpinMeister...

you're argument is with yourself, not me.

According to the media...mostly conservative capitalists... it looks more like a rescue than a takeover

looks more like a rescue than a takeover.




more from the US Capitalists...



and here...look...

Democrats Propose $15 Billion Big 3 Loan
Compromise With Bush Could Pass This Week


Auto Bailout
Q. The big three automakers in the U.S. have asked for up to $34 billion in loans from the government. On balance, do you support or oppose this plan?

SOURCE: Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec. 3-7 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The results have an error margin of 3 points.



By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Congressional Democrats and the White House yesterday settled on a plan to rush $15 billion in emergency loans to the cash-strapped Detroit automakers and were working into the night to resolve final disputes over the conditions the government should attach to the money.

Like I said, spin it all you want,Dante. Your point is moot, because the facts ARE undeniable, the government is the majority shareholders in two companies.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Gunny and others here, have said all socialists are leftists and all socialists are leftists

What are you...a fricken idiot? Try coherent sentence writing...why would Gunny say the same thing twice.

 

[Gunny]

Without the investment there was no GM. It should be supported by conservatives that teh amount of money used to bailout a company demands a say in the boardroom.

It's not a takeover in the classic sense that right wing lunatics are portraying it. The government did NOT nationalize the auto industry. The government saved asses and is NOT running GM.

They took over the operations of GM. That is a takeover period. They determine production levels.

They do? Who is they? Name them. And how do you know so much about the inner workings at GM? are you James Bond?

Blah blah blah. Grow a brain, huh? Even Billy Jack knew when to give up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They took over the operations of GM. That is a takeover period. They determine production levels.

They do? Who is they? Name them. And how do you know so much about the inner workings at GM? are you James Bond?

Blah blah blah. Grow a brain, huh? Even Billy Jack knew when to give up.

thread killer!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Gunny and others here, have said all socialists are leftists and all socialists are leftists

What are you...a fricken idiot? Try coherent sentence writing...why would Gunny say the same thing twice.

D'oh!


this is a keeper

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm going to burst your bubble here Dante. The bailout funds came in March of 2009. In June GM went bankrupt. After receivership, GM became the property of the UAW and US government. The CEO was fired by the government, production decisions and all other aspects of the operation were and are controlled by a board with majority control by the government.

Receivership? Is that the same as a takeover? Who sits on the board? UAW? Many companies world wide have Union seats on their boards.

Did the government put people on the board or are government workers on the board? Is the board responsible to all shareholders? Have shareholders filed suit against this takeover?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Like I said, spin it all you want,Dante. Your point is moot, because the facts ARE undeniable, the government is the majority shareholders in two companies.

So the government has invested money in two companies? Cool. About time the government got a say in how the tax payer's dollars are spent. Receivership and rescue is NOT a takeover. The government does not want to run the auto business or others. They stepped in to save you and me.

your hate and anger has blinded you to reality

sad

 

[saveliberty]

I'm going to burst your bubble here Dante. The bailout funds came in March of 2009. In June GM went bankrupt. After receivership, GM became the property of the UAW and US government. The CEO was fired by the government, production decisions and all other aspects of the operation were and are controlled by a board with majority control by the government.

Receivership? Is that the same as a takeover? Who sits on the board? UAW? Many companies world wide have Union seats on their boards.

Did the government put people on the board or are government workers on the board? Is the board responsible to all shareholders? Have shareholders filed suit against this takeover?

GM takeover part of broad federal role - Washington Times

Capping a series of bold government actions to rescue failing corporate giants, the White House has won approval of its restructuring plan for General Motors Corp., putting the government on track to take ownership of the storied automaker by the end of the week.

The takeover, which is the most extensive federal intervention into the operations of a major industrial company, follows in quick succession a government-assisted bankruptcy reorganization of Chrysler LLC.

take·o·ver also take-o·ver (tkvr)n.
The act or an instance of assuming control or management of or responsibility for something, especially the seizure of power, as in a nation, political organization, or corporation.


Fresh off its emergence from bankruptcy, General Motors named five new members to its board of directors Thursday, bringing the total to 13.

The new members include Carol Stephenson, a dean at the University of Western Ontario and former member of the GM Canada Advisory Board; Daniel Akerson, a managing director at The Carlyle Group; David Bonderman, co-founding partner at TPG; Robert Krebs, former chairman and CEO of Burlington Northern Santa Fe; and Patricia Russo, former CEO at Alcatel-Lucent.

The full board includes 10 representatives nominated by the Treasury Department, one nominated by the Canadian government and one nominated by the Auto Workers Retiree Medical Benefits Trust. Fritz Henderson, GM’s president and CEO, also sits on the board.

GM Names Five Members to Board of Directors - FOXBusiness.com

Shareholders lost their standing in the bankruptcy Dante.

0 for 3.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is a take over Dante. The board of directors as many government appointed seats in GM now. Those people are dicating the days supply of vehicles available, which really effects sales of the product. Yes, it is a takeover. The sooner we get those loans paid and new stock issued the better for the company and nation.

So it's not a "takeover," but an interim solution to get GM to that point.

You comfy with short term takeover? I'm willing to compromise to that point.

I think it was a better solution than having all the other businesses, big and small, that support the auto industry in some way also going out of business with even higher unemployment as a result.

 

[Meister]

Like I said, spin it all you want,Dante. Your point is moot, because the facts ARE undeniable, the government is the majority shareholders in two companies.

So the government has invested money in two companies? Cool. About time the government got a say in how the tax payer's dollars are spent. Receivership and rescue is NOT a takeover. The government does not want to run the auto business or others. They stepped in to save you and me.

your hate and anger has blinded you to reality

sad

Your trust is so naive, dante. Fat, dumb, and happy just like the cheshire cat.

 

[AllieBaba]

I agree...you turn your backs on them.

Aren't the Nazi's socialists?

Why are leftists shouting down socialists?

What about free speech?

What about protesting somebody who is exercising their free speech rights?

Nazis called themselves National Socialists, and the USSR called itself socialist, and China calls itself socialist, and Cuba calls itself socialist, and so do many other organizations, governments, etc. But, if you study socialism as a philosophy then you would know that these organizations aren't socialists - they just used the title to dupe the working and lower classes into revolting and putting them into power.

If you want to better understand or see what American socialists believe or think - you can get a pretty good idea looking at the economic and governmental systems of Western democracies in Europe.

Nazis are the right of the European socialist model.
Communists are the left.

If you identify with either, you're anti-American.

Our current admin and the lunatic fringe that support it are the same people who called themselves socialists, anarchists, and communists in the 1960s-70s. They want to overthrow the current government and replace it with the European model.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Like I said, spin it all you want,Dante. Your point is moot, because the facts ARE undeniable, the government is the majority shareholders in two companies.

So the government has invested money in two companies? Cool. About time the government got a say in how the tax payer's dollars are spent. Receivership and rescue is NOT a takeover. The government does not want to run the auto business or others. They stepped in to save you and me.

your hate and anger has blinded you to reality

sad

Your trust is so naive, dante. Fat, dumb, and happy just like the cheshire cat.

I neither trust the people nor admire much about them. I'm too much of an elitist and a realist, and an honest man for that. It would be dishonest of me to parrot the common bullshit about 'the people'

You speak to motives? You are a nut if you do. The government will get out of GM as fast as it can. Though I would support them paying in and getting a seat on teh board. Why not?

Why do you hate free enterprise when the tax payer benefits?