DeletedUser
Gizmo, English is not John's first language. He makes far fewer mistakes than you do and English is your native tongue.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DeletedUser
Also note that spelling has little to do with reading comprehension.
DeletedUser
ya it's much brighter out now lolObama has changed the climate?
DeletedUser
Frankly, i'm tired of discussing issues pertaining to Obama. The guy has been in office for less than two months and he's been far more productive than most Presidents in an entire 4-year term. Reaganomics, as pushed forward by so many vote-happy Republicans, birthed much of our economic woes. So while it took almost 30 years to create this situation, we have a smear campaign against Obama because he hasn't turned the economy around in less than two months! What a joke.
We do not know the specifics of why the CEO of GM was asked to step down. It may very well have been a disagreement in direction. Let's face it, GM and other companies made some poor decisions and didn't change fast enough to the tide of commerce. So you may think it a bad decision to ask that CEO to step down, but he may very well have indicated a resistance to policy changes as proposed by both the Obama administration and GM board of directors.
And, do remember, they could very well have said, "no thanks" when it came to the loan. So when you run through the streets, with your torches and pitchforks, try to keep in your mind that GM is asking for more money (they already received a few loans previously). When you want to buy a home, but you don't like the terms of the agreement, you don't sign on the dotted line.
We do not know the specifics of why the CEO of GM was asked to step down. It may very well have been a disagreement in direction. Let's face it, GM and other companies made some poor decisions and didn't change fast enough to the tide of commerce. So you may think it a bad decision to ask that CEO to step down, but he may very well have indicated a resistance to policy changes as proposed by both the Obama administration and GM board of directors.
And, do remember, they could very well have said, "no thanks" when it came to the loan. So when you run through the streets, with your torches and pitchforks, try to keep in your mind that GM is asking for more money (they already received a few loans previously). When you want to buy a home, but you don't like the terms of the agreement, you don't sign on the dotted line.
DeletedUser
Let's stop getting personal in this thread. Any more personal insults will get an infraction. Now, let's make off topic an actual pleasant space.
I am sick of all the back and forth insults.
I am sick of all the back and forth insults.
DeletedUser
Frankly, i'm tired of discussing issues pertaining to Obama. The guy has been in office for less than two months and he's been far more productive than most Presidents in an entire 4-year term.
WRONG. This is pro-Obama banter without any substance or basis. This is why I want Obamania to end. This is equally as bad as bashing him for not fixing the economy since he's been in office.
Reaganomics, as pushed forward by so many vote-happy Republicans, birthed much of our economic woes. So while it took almost 30 years to create this situation, we have a smear campaign against Obama because he hasn't turned the economy around in less than two months! What a joke.
Any proof of this statement too? Reagan outspent the Soviet Union to make them drop from the Cold Way. That was all. Stop spilling regurgitated trash you've heard from your parents.
And, do remember, they could very well have said, "no thanks" when it came to the loan. So when you run through the streets, with your torches and pitchforks, try to keep in your mind that GM is asking for more money (they already received a few loans previously). When you want to buy a home, but you don't like the terms of the agreement, you don't sign on the dotted line.
Don't explain to me the way these bail outs have worked. No matter how much you flail your pro-Obama rhetoric, you still sound like a hypocite.
The banking CEO's drug this economy into the GROUND, yet there's still quite a few of them with their positions full intact - it doesn't look like they're going anywhere anytime soon. Despite the numberous bonuses they've attempted to award themselves, they've still got their positions.
Understand the problem that I'm addressing before you argue with my post, kid.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I wouldn't have voted for him if I had been compensated for it. That being said, we are stuck with what we have and can only hope and pray for the best.
DeletedUser
What do you mean "compensated for it"? Your post confuses me.
DeletedUser
Umm, my parents died 20 years ago. Maybe you should consider a little more tact with your diatribe.Stop spilling regurgitated trash you've heard from your parents.
Just to clarify, i'm no cheerleader. However, I am aware of how little most U.S. Presidents accomplished during a term. That is partly because most U.S. Presidents were tasked with the simple chore of 'maintaining' the status quo. And while 'most' accomplished more than Obama during their time in office, most also served more than a single term.WRONG. This is pro-Obama banter without any substance or basis. This is why I want Obamania to end. This is equally as bad as bashing him for not fixing the economy since he's been in office.
Divest, I know you think yourself knowledgeable about these issues but, honestly, I haven't seen you provide anything to the table except banter. If you feel you can educate me on a topic, then present information. Even if you cannot, kindly discontinue your posturing.
Plenty. First, you need to understand that Reaganomics is not "Reagan," nor is it his time in office. It is a set of policies initiated by Reagan and then taken to extremes by his predecessors, as a selling point to their individual campaigns.Any proof of this statement too? Reagan outspent the Soviet Union to make them drop from the Cold Way. That was all.
Honestly, I need to know if you actually want me to explain this, or if you're just in the mood to scream, "WRONG" without having a clue as to what I can present on the topic or an interest in obtaining information.
Kid, aye? Interesting. Is this how you intend on addressing me from hereon? Mind if I refer to you as Embryo?Understand the problem that I'm addressing before you argue with my post, kid.
DeletedUser
actually hellstorm most campagins by presidents at least over the past 10 or so have promised change/reform of some sort or another . wether or not they achived thier goals is another matter and many did not
DeletedUser
I agree Lorgos
DeletedUser
Just to clarify, i'm no cheerleader. However, I am aware of how little most U.S. Presidents accomplished during a term. That is partly because most U.S. Presidents were tasked with the simple chore of 'maintaining' the status quo. And while 'most' accomplished more than Obama during their time in office, most also served more than a single term.
Because they were subjected to completely differnet times. Your useless rant has no place here because you have no basis of which to compare it to (except maybe Roosevelt). You're spitting pro-Obama bullcrap and hoping it sticks to the wall. That's not going to fly.
I'm talking about Obama being no different than any other Presidents; his allegiance is to the banks, unions, and lobbyists more than anything. Let's not squabble here, you know just as well as I do that he booted Wagoner as a token of gratitude for the unions.
Truth be told, Obama really isn't much different from any other President before him. Sure he's done things which I'm sure you're going to regurgitate over and over and over, but these are times when things needed to be done. Any President alive now would have made changes just the same.
Not to mention, OF COURSE changes are going to be made. We just went from eight years of republican conservatism and now we're moving on to a democrat who's a bit more on the liberal side.
No one is expecting Obama to turn the economy around in a few months - put your torch and pitchfork away, lady. It's very clear that Obama still shows favoritism towards the banks and unions. The evidence is very, well, self-evident.
On your end though, I do have to say you've done a good job stating that I've presented no facts, when, well, I have. He is booting Wagoner and not the banking CEO's. If you're looking for hard proof then I suggest you pick up a newspaper. My point now and the point of the thread was to make people wake up. Obama is no better than any other self-serving President. He's got his own agenda and loyalties, this cannot be denied.
If you claim he doesn't serve his own crooked loyalties then the burden of proof lies on you. It's very clear why he booted Wagoner and why he hasn't booted the banking CEO's.
DeletedUser
It seems to me Divest that you are the one ranting, while Hellstromm has been offering reasonable and cogent arguments. Disagreeing with you does not make his argument automatically flawed, but you seem to believe it does.
Perhaps Obama insisted on Wagoner's retirement before giving GM more money because he learned his lesson, ie that he should have done the same with the banks but it is too late now?
Also it seems that, aside from that issue, your problems with Obama are mostly to do with his treatment in the media, rather than his actual governance. Personally I wouldn't care what kind of media circus I had to put up with as long as the more capable regime ran my country.
Perhaps Obama insisted on Wagoner's retirement before giving GM more money because he learned his lesson, ie that he should have done the same with the banks but it is too late now?
Also it seems that, aside from that issue, your problems with Obama are mostly to do with his treatment in the media, rather than his actual governance. Personally I wouldn't care what kind of media circus I had to put up with as long as the more capable regime ran my country.
DeletedUser
The bail out was handed out around the same time to both the banks and auto industry. Far more strict regulations were placed on the auto industry.
Note that some banks received bail out money after the car companies.
Note that some banks received bail out money after the car companies.
DeletedUser
If GM and/or Chrysler went out of business, it wouldn't be good for the economy, and a lot of people would be out of work, but it wouldn't destroy the economy. When banks fail, it affects more than just the employees and shareholders.
DeletedUser
So, Divest, you're not really interested in discussing this issue, are you? Seems all you want to do is preach your opinions as if they were fact, without providing any supporting evidence; conclusionary allegations without an iota of supporting fact.
Orphaned arguments serve no purpose, except maybe self-gratification. Once again, if you wish to: discuss, be informed, allow me to be informed, let me know.
Orphaned arguments serve no purpose, except maybe self-gratification. Once again, if you wish to: discuss, be informed, allow me to be informed, let me know.
DeletedUser
Let me ask this: In this game if the banks or the horses/donkeys failed( in other words , we couldnt use them), which one would affect the game more????
And speaking of games, if we were all playing a game called AMERICA and you made all the in-game decisions and the computer asked you ;
Would you like to build a nuclear power plant and/or upgrade an existing oil refinery???
Who would say , NO!!!
Yet, we (America) have not built a nuclear plant or did a major upgrade to an oil refinery in the last 30 yrs and rely on foreign oil!!
And speaking of games, if we were all playing a game called AMERICA and you made all the in-game decisions and the computer asked you ;
Would you like to build a nuclear power plant and/or upgrade an existing oil refinery???
Who would say , NO!!!
Yet, we (America) have not built a nuclear plant or did a major upgrade to an oil refinery in the last 30 yrs and rely on foreign oil!!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Interesting points Sundance. Welcome to the forums. I don't think I've seen you here before.
DeletedUser
Thank You
DeletedUser
Point well made about banks and donkeys, but you do realise building an oil refinery will not put oil in the ground don't you? The US already has plenty of refineries - the oil you import is crude (unrefined). As for nuclear power, I think that become politically very unpopular after Chernobyl.
Share: