Good eye, the gist of it was supposed to be that nobody was responding. I just get fed up with people attacking eachother rather than refuting eachothers points (don't get me wrong I fall into that trap often as well).
To Treg:
The second bit was Romney misspeaking on the stump, which was acknowelged by the campaign.
The first is literally accurate. I don't think it's a good way to attack Obama but it's politics. It's no different that Obama's counter ad insinuating that Romney wanted to just let GM go flat bankrupt and do nothing:
As a side note, this is actually one of the issues I disagree with Romney on, GM should have went under with NO government help of any kind imo.
Funny. The guy who pissed his base off by passing TARP and bailing out wall street (09 recovery went almost exclusively to the wealthy) is now the leader of class warfare.
Maybe they are upset about our liberal foreign policy under Obama?
"The nature of the Benghazi disaster is now clear. Ambassador Stevens was engaged in smuggling sizable quantities of Libyan arms from the destroyed Gaddafi regime to the Syrian rebels, to help overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. Smuggling arms to the so-called "Free Syrian Army" is itself a huge gamble, but Obama has been a gambler with human lives over the last four years, as shown by the tens of thousands of Arabs who have died in the so-called Arab Spring -- which has brought nothing but disaster to the Arab world.
For the last four years, the Obama policy has been to offer aid and comfort violent Islamic radicals in the delusional belief that their loyalty can be bought. We therefore betrayed Hosni Mubarak, our 30-year ally in Egypt, so that the Muslim Brotherhood led by Muhammed Morsi could take over. Obama indeed demanded publicly that Mubarak resign, for reasons that never made any sense at all. Egypt went into a political and economic tailspin, and the Muslim Brotherhood were elected. The Muslim radicals have now purged the only other viable political force, the army and police, to protect their monopoly on power. We have colluded in that betrayal.
So let me get this straight... America's responce to Egyptian Democratic movement, otherwise known as part of the "Arab Spring" should have been to OPPOSE DEMOCRACY and SUPPORT A DICTATOR because we don't like the Muslim Brotherhood? WTF are you smoking!!! That is exacly opposite of what American's foreign policy has always been. We go to war for Christ sake to promote democracy.
Quote:
In Libya, we betrayed Moammar Gaddafi, who had surrendered his nuclear program to the Bush administration.
So when given the chance to oust a dictator, terrorsit supporter, and a guy who personnaly made the terrorsit responcable for teh Lockerbee Scottland terrorist attack a National Heroe in favor of a Democratic revolution we should support Gaddafi because we forced him to give up his nuclear program??? Are you serious??? We help take out Gaddafi without lossing 4,000 plus american lives and $800 BILLION dollars and we shouldn't have done it BUT in Iraq removing Saddam was the right call?
Quote:
Our consistent policy of betrayal of moderate Muslims in favor of radical Islamofascists goes hand-in-hand with our appeasement of the Iranian Khomeinist regime, which is the most America-hating Shiite regime, now facing competition from America-hating Sunni regimes in Egypt and elsewhere. It also fits our cooperation with Turkey's "neo-Ottoman" regime, which has also purged the Turkish army and police to remove modern-minded Turks from power. Egypt and Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.
And the Iranian solution is what??? More scantions that have proven to be ineffective? Lets face it teh only to remove the Iraina problem wil be through force. The question becomes is removing the Iranian governmnet worth the lives and treasure it will cost the US? My opinion is HELL NO! So until you want to say that we should go in an kick their ***, you should shut up...
Quote:
We have therefore followed a single "community disorganizing" policy toward the Muslim world, consisting of betraying moderates to bring theocratic fascists to power. Obama "explained" that policy in a publicized argument with Hillary Clinton at the White House when Mubarak was overthrown. His explanation? Fascist revolutions are "organic," and therefore more stable than moderate revolutions. Obama's fantasy policy runs contrary to U.S. foreign policy since World War I.
The biggest loser in this mad administration has been hundreds of millions women of the Muslim world, who were on a path to modernity and freedom until Obama and Hillary Clinton betrayed them. Today they are shut inside the prisons of sharia law.
Really? So according to this author, these people should have been happy to be subjects of a Dictator than participants in a democratic revolution?
Lets get one thing clear here, we as Americans have to make a chioce to make. Do we stand by our principles and continue to embrace democracy world wide even if that means that people who don't like may come to power or do support whomever will follow the will of Washington even if that means supporting Dictators who oppress the freedoms of their own people?
Quote:
The second-biggest loser has been relative stability in a great geographical swath of the Muslim world, from Afghanistan and Pakistan across the Middle East, all the way to Tunisia and Morocco.
The third-biggest loser has been our anti-proliferation policy against the spread of weapons of mass destruction among developing nations. From fighting proliferation, we have turned to aiding it.
The Genie i sout of the bottle and we will NEVER put it pack in. Nor can we stop developing nations from advancing. If anything our foreign policy has encourgaed nations to get the bomb by saying "if you don't have WMDs we'll invade like we did in Iraq. If you have WMD we'll talk a lot **** but we won't do anything like Korea and Iran".
Quote:
In Benghazi, al-Qaeda showed that they could not be bought even by our back-stabbing policy. Our Benghazi arms-smuggling base was attacked by elements of AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Maghreb) in an act of betrayal against our fantasy-driven way of doing things. The American betrayer was itself betrayed, and Obama-Hillary could do nothing to defend the Americans under attack at the Benghazi arms-smuggling base, because any public revelation of the truth would rip the cover off our mad actions and focus the hatred of Muslim nations on the United States.
The evidence now shows that Obama was aware of the attack within 55 minutes of the start. It lasted for six or seven hours, and Obama consistently countermanded standing orders to protect Americans under attack in the Africom command area. General Ham has now been fired for following standard U.S. policy to defend American personnel. He took an honorable stand and was fired.
Already proven that any responce we could have fielded wouldn't have saved our guys... We could have bombed our own complex and killed everyone there (which I think would have been a good thing, sort of kill us we kill you but anyway) but that still wouldn't have saved our guys.
Quote:
In Syria, the Assad regime now has a legitimate basis to convict us of deadly dabbling in the Syrian civil war. Russia and China are likely to take up Assad's cause at the United Nations. They would be right on the facts.
Again the Author's responce is "Don't Support Democracy! We should back a Dictator (who just happens to be one of Hezbollah's major supporters along with Iran)". The hypocracy is crazy, just a few paragraphs above teh aurthor is pounding his fists about Iran who we should do something about and now on Syria, who may not publicly say they hate us but they do actively support terrorists who do, whe should keep him in power? What??
Quote:
The purpose of the AQ attacks was to embarrass the United States, and to show us to be a paper tiger, precisely the way Ayatollah Khomeini did to Jimmy Carter. AQ also wanted to tear off the cover of the Benghazi arms-smuggling operation, to make us look like a treasonous ally, which, as it turns out, we are. All of our allies around the world, from South Korea and Japan to Israel, Australia, and Norway, must now be reassessing our reliability. One major betrayal of our allies is enough to shatter sixty years of faith in American leadership.
I just quit responding because I just got tired of it...
Here's my opinion on all of this.... It is America's obligation to promote and encourage Democracy world wide. It's an obligation that has been the corner stone of America's foreign policy almost as long as America has been a nation. The down side of any democracy is people can elect governments that may not like or share our national interests.
I would rather live in a country that supports its ideals of democracy for all than live in a country that would rather betray our values than risk letting people who do not share our national interests be freely elected to power.
This selective outrage and selctive support of democracy ONLY when it supports your political party's agenda makes me sick.
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
So let me get this straight... America's responce to Egyptian Democratic movement, otherwise known as part of the "Arab Spring" should have been to OPPOSE DEMOCRACY and SUPPORT A DICTATOR because we don't like the Muslim Brotherhood? WTF are you smoking!!! That is exacly opposite of what American's foreign policy has always been. We go to war for Christ sake to promote democracy.
We go to war to promote democracy? I thought the purpose of our foreign policy was to protect OUR interests.
Quote:
So when given the chance to oust a dictator, terrorsit supporter, and a guy who personnaly made the terrorsit responcable for teh Lockerbee Scottland terrorist attack a National Heroe in favor of a Democratic revolution we should support Gaddafi because we forced him to give up his nuclear program??? Are you serious??? We help take out Gaddafi without lossing 4,000 plus american lives and $800 BILLION dollars and we shouldn't have done it BUT in Iraq removing Saddam was the right call?
We owed him a bullet for his murder of Americans regardless of him stopping his nuclear program. That being said there were plenty of ways to give it to him and it's a shame Obama's not being impeached for blatant violation of the War Powers Act.
Quote:
And the Iranian solution is what??? More scantions that have proven to be ineffective? Lets face it teh only to remove the Iraina problem wil be through force. The question becomes is removing the Iranian governmnet worth the lives and treasure it will cost the US? My opinion is HELL NO! So until you want to say that we should go in an kick their ***, you should shut up...
You seem to support the uprisings in Egypt and Libya. Why did Obama do nothing to help Mousavi? We could have potentially solved the whole Iran problem right then and there.
Quote:
Here's my opinion on all of this.... It is America's obligation to promote and encourage Democracy world wide. It's an obligation that has been the corner stone of America's foreign policy almost as long as America has been a nation. The down side of any democracy is people can elect governments that may not like or share our national interests.
So you were outraged when Obama backed the Honduran dicator Mel Zelaya along with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? You are also equally dissappointed that Obama did nothing to help Mousavi in Iran?
If we can support Democracy we should. If people in Egypt, Syria, Tunesia, Lybia, or Iran rise up and have a democratic revolution against their dictators we should support them. If we can do so with out costing a fortune or lossing Ameican lives like in Lybia even better.
The only thing we shouldn't do is try and force democracy on people like we did in Iraq and Vietnam.
If you want to be free America will help you but don't expect the US to march in with our Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force to hand it to you on a silver platter.
In responce to Swerve,
Yes I was disappointed we didn't do anything to support teh Irainians last year. You think we would have learn our leasson from teh Hungarian uprising.
Chruch,
Really? Because teh US was founded as a democratic republic instead of a true democracy tham means that we haven't and don't support democracy world wide?
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
Last edited by Lazarusrat : 11-01-2012 at 03:26 PM.
The second bit was Romney misspeaking on the stump, which was acknowelged by the campaign.
The first is literally accurate. I don't think it's a good way to attack Obama but it's politics. It's no different that Obama's counter ad insinuating that Romney wanted to just let GM go flat bankrupt and do nothing:
As a side note, this is actually one of the issues I disagree with Romney on, GM should have went under with NO government help of any kind imo.
And why do you think that? The collapse of the auto industry is the collapse of many other industries as well. The suppliers whom have their main source of income from dealing with auto factories would fall and the ripple effect could travel a bit, disrupting the local manufacturing and business ecology. A commonly unforeseen advantage of these companies is their locality and ability to trade ideas, talent, and resources almost interchangeably. Bring down one industry, you can effect many more.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe
I don't see how we supported democracy in Egypt or Libya. The people in power are changing, that's about it.
We supported democracy by not listening to guys like the author of FE's article who wanted the US back the Old Egyptian with military and ecomonic aid to suppress the revolution.
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
And why do you think that? The collapse of the auto industry is the collapse of many other industries as well. The suppliers whom have their main source of income from dealing with auto factories would fall and the ripple effect could travel a bit, disrupting the local manufacturing and business ecology. A commonly unforeseen advantage of these companies is their locality and ability to trade ideas, talent, and resources almost interchangeably. Bring down one industry, you can effect many more.
Here's the thing: If the companies were failing, there is some reason or number of reasons that they are doing so. This is particularly so when other companies in the same industry are not failing (Ford, Toyota, etc.) The only way to flush out all of the root problems is to let the company collapse naturally under it's own failure and then replaced with a more successful model. The demand for cars, parts, repairs, etc. doesn't change at all simply by GM failing. Others will step in to fill this demand and their business will increase (or new businesses will arise) as a result. Jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created from the ashes under more effective or less flawed firms. What we have instead, is a failing model (GM) being propped up and bolstered by the taxpayer undergoing reforms that are dictated by Auto-czars and bureaucrats rather than market forces.
This wasn't the first time we've bailed out GM, and yet the remain in dire finacial straits still and will probably need another bailout in the future. If we had let them fail the first time, they'd either be much better off by now or replaced by some firm that is.
Quote:
Further more Swerve,
Yeah, but that doesn't answer my questions from earlier.
Here's the thing: If the companies were failing, there is some reason or number of reasons that they are doing so. This is particularly so when other companies in the same industry are not failing (Ford, Toyota, etc.) The only way to flush out all of the root problems is to let the company collapse naturally under it's own failure and then replaced with a more successful model. The demand for cars, parts, repairs, etc. doesn't change at all simply by GM failing. Others will step in to fill this demand and their business will increase (or new businesses will arise) as a result. Jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created from the ashes under more effective or less flawed firms. What we have instead, is a failing model (GM) being propped up and bolstered by the taxpayer undergoing reforms that are dictated by Auto-czars and bureaucrats rather than market forces.
This wasn't the first time we've bailed out GM, and yet the remain in dire finacial straits still and will probably need another bailout in the future. If we had let them fail the first time, they'd either be much better off by now or replaced by some firm that is.
Look at the bigger picture though. Unemployment would be even higher and demand would lower, slowing recovery. Stocks would plummet even further. It's possible that letting go of Chrysler and GM could have made matters much worse than keeping them. From what I've read, most notable economists agree that the bailout was actually a successful move.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe
Pretty much every poster in the forum has done those things you described at various times. Also I never "declared victory", I pointed out that in a debate forum, nobody is debating his points.
What's the fun of a politics debate forum if everybody only talks to people that either agree with them or only mildly disagree?
FE takes things so off topic that it's just painful to watch and not worth following his train of thought for most people.
Look at the bigger picture though. Unemployment would be even higher and demand would lower, slowing recovery. Stocks would plummet even further. It's possible that letting go of Chrysler and GM could have made matters much worse than keeping them. From what I've read, most notable economists agree that the bailout was actually a successful move.
It's not just probable, it's certain. Taking the 2nd and third largest auto firms out of the market completely destroys their supply chain as well, from distributioners, manufacturers sub components firms both large and small, to individual piece-parts makers of o-rings, hardware, and wireties. All would be seeing massive layoffs and closing if GM and Chrystler were to be removed from the marketplace, because those are massive companies that represent billions of dollars in revenue stream.
In the end, it's certain that unemployment would have risen past its peak of 10% during this depression, which means more debt, more uncertainty, more workers unemployed, and a prolonged depression....
The same can be said of the big banks that took TARP funding from Paulson in 2009; without their lending capabilities, small banks cannot operate, small business, and yes, even large firms that use their services for things like managing retirement accounts, 401k's, and leasing options on cars would all see massive change in the way they can operate their businesses, which would likely lead to further layoffs and a slowdown in production as firms try to adjust.
To top it all off, the DOW was in a free fall and hit a 14 year low at 6500, and people saw their wealth literally be cut in half in the span of a few weeks. If you remove America's 5 largest credit firms and 2/3 largest auto manufacturers, then 6500 would look like a rose colored fantasy compared to where the Dow would have bottomed out without such action.
I'll say this: are GM and Chystler te best car companies? No. Swerve is right when he says that they were propped up on tax payer dollar hen better firms didn't need it. He's right to say that in the end, markets should be allowed to purge themselves of bad businesses so that stronger ones can replace them.
The problem is that if you look at the big picture, doing nothing, which is what he advocates, would have destroyed our economy and standing in the world. This wasn't some small event that the market would have corrected in a few years; it was systematic and structural failure from the top down that took years to develop. 3 of America's largest markets (housing, credit, auto) were in the brink of collapse and if they were allowed to simply go bankrupt, who knows how far the rabbit hole would go until America recovered.
Given all that, I think we're in a pretty strong place economically speaking for 2012, and in a few years, we should start to see demand pick up to 2007 levels.
What you are missing is what actually HAPPENED to those other minor companies that supplied products to the auto makers...
You should look into that. I have a friend who owns a large company who supplies parts to GM and Chrysler, as well as other companies, and it darn near put him out of business when Obama decided to not give him a DIME for all the product that he had shipped. See when you change bankruptcy laws there are consequences.
And those small businesses took the brunt of the damage from Obama's decisions. Course the media didn't cover that, so you didn't notice... but, TONS of small companies were damaged and many went out of business when the "auto bailout" happened.
And that isn't even bringing up what happened to the bond holders...
Not an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure they didn't change any bankruptcy laws.
Bondholders were lucky the government came in with financing so they could declare chapter 11 and not be forced into chapter 7 liquidation, which is what would have happened.
Last edited by licence2kill : 11-01-2012 at 07:28 PM.
Not an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure they didn't change any bankruptcy laws.
Bondholders were lucky the government came in with financing so they could declare chapter 11 and not be forced into chapter 7 liquidation, which is what would have happened.
Wasn't there something in bankruptcy law about who gets paid when?
What you are missing is what actually HAPPENED to those other minor companies that supplied products to the auto makers...
You should look into that. I have a friend who owns a large company who supplies parts to GM and Chrysler, as well as other companies, and it darn near put him out of business when Obama decided to not give him a DIME for all the product that he had shipped. See when you change bankruptcy laws there are consequences.
And those small businesses took the brunt of the damage from Obama's decisions. Course the media didn't cover that, so you didn't notice... but, TONS of small companies were damaged and many went out of business when the "auto bailout" happened.
And that isn't even bringing up what happened to the bond holders...
True, I'm not aware of the middlemen and the rest of the supply chain in the immediate aftermath of the recovery. However, do you think your friend would have been better off if both Chrystler and GM had gone completely out of business, or filed for chapter 7/11 bankruptcy?
Also, out of curiosity, how is your friend doing today, since Chrystler just reported their highest earnings in 5 years...I'm sure if he's still doing business with them then he is seeing a nice windfall from their profitability.
