• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Borders to Shut Down

Kal'Stang said:
Where's Obama with a bailout on this? If he's so commited to "saving jobs" and "helping the working people" surely he will at least try to bail out these people?
Click to expand...

*sounds of crickets in the background* Not surprised.
 
Not to be a vulture or anything...

But does this mean they're going to be selling off their inventory on the cheap?
 
Kal'Stang said:
[Where's Obama with a bailout on this? If he's so commited to "saving jobs" and "helping the working people" surely he will at least try to bail out these people?
Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:
*sounds of crickets in the background* Not surprised.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be. It's a question that should be easily answered by yourself. But just in case, see also Enron (2001), WorldCom (2002), Refco (2005), Lehman Bros (2008), and WaMu (2008). No bailouts for those companies, either.
 
Singularity said:
You shouldn't be. It's a question that should be easily answered by yourself. But just in case, see also Enron (2001), WorldCom (2002), Refco (2005), Lehman Bros (2008), and WaMu (2008). No bailouts for those companies, either.
Click to expand...

So whats the difference between those and GM?
 
SE102 said:
It's not exactly such a big economic threat compared to GM croaking...

just telling you. :roll:
Click to expand...

So its ok to let everyone but "special" companies fail? GM croaking would have just been a temporary setback for those that work there and invested in it. Some other company would have come around to replace GM.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So its ok to let everyone but "special" companies fail? GM croaking would have just been a COLOSSAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE NEVER PARALLELED BY ANY COMPANY FAILURE ON EARTH DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Click to expand...

hey I fixed that for you. But I'm not responsable for my actions Im suffering from asshole syndrome.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So whats the difference between those and GM?
Click to expand...

They didn't get bailed out.**

**And didn't recover from bankruptcy. You should have been able to answer that one yourself, as I pointed out.
 
Last edited:
SE102 said:
hey I fixed that for you. But I'm not responsable for my actions Im suffering from asshole syndrome.
Click to expand...

GM failing would not have caused a "colossal economic collapse". Yes it would have caused some damage. But not near the extent that you proclaim.

And just to be nice...the last time that I quoted someone and made an alteration inside that quote I got an infraction point....just to let ya know.
 
Singularity said:
They didn't get bailed out.**

**And didn't recover from bankruptcy. You should have been able to answer that one yourself, as I pointed out.
Click to expand...

Why can't they get a bailout? If the government is going to bailout one company then by rights they should bail out others. Picking and choosing is nothing short of showing favortism. Which the government is not suppose to do. Remember....they're suppose to be neutral.

And the only reason that GM recovered from bankruptcy is because the government bailed them out. So whats your point on that one?
 
LesGovt said:
I knew they were close to shutting the doors and about a half hour ago, my wife told me they had. I too am an avid book reader and I own every book and only a few are on the Nook. I prefer hardcover, but I'll take books the best way I can get them. I love Barnes and Noble and Amazon as I also purchase books that have not been in print for decades. In fact, my current reading is a book that was published in 1914 and is "The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen On Reconstruction, 39th Congress, 1865-1867." I had just finished another one on the Fourteenth Amendment by Horace Flack that was written in about 1907. Just to show that I am not a total history nut, I did sandwich those two books with one of Vince Flynn's thrillers.

Unfortunately, we did not have a Borders near us. Sort of reminds me of "You've Got Mail" movie. Well, in a big sort of way. LOL!
Click to expand...

I prefer ebooks, and have a library of about 20,000 of them, along with a tablet computer dedicated as an e-book reader. In comparison to the smaller kindles and what have you, I like to think of my tablet as a hardcover ebook reader. LOL.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why can't they get a bailout? If the government is going to bailout one company then by rights they should bail out others. Picking and choosing is nothing short of showing favortism. Which the government is not suppose to do. Remember....they're suppose to be neutral.

And the only reason that GM recovered from bankruptcy is because the government bailed them out. So whats your point on that one?
Click to expand...

Enron, Refco, Worldcom, Lehman Bros, and WaMu didn't get a bailout, either. That's my point. You made the point of calling out Obama when Borders didn't get bailed out, asking the question "does Obama not care about jobs?". None of those companies got bailed out, either. The same question could be asked of his predecessor - what, did Gee Dubya not care about jobs, either? I noticed, of course, that you didn't ask such a question, which goes back to my ultrapartisanship observation regarding your post.
 
Singularity said:
Enron, Refco, Worldcom, Lehman Bros, and WaMu didn't get a bailout, either. That's my point. You made the point of calling out Obama when Borders didn't get bailed out, asking the question "does Obama not care about jobs?". None of those companies got bailed out, either. The same question could be asked of his predecessor - what, did Gee Dubya not care about jobs, either? I noticed, of course, that you didn't ask such a question, which goes back to my ultrapartisanship observation regarding your post.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask about it of Bush because he is not the one that bailed out companies. In case you hadn't really caught it yet I was against the bailouts. However since we did do them then it is only appropriate that we do not play favorites.

Nice try on the bold part though.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I didn't ask about it of Bush because he is not the one that bailed out companies. In case you hadn't really caught it yet I was against the bailouts. However since we did do them then it is only appropriate that we do not play favorites.

Nice try on the bold part though.
Click to expand...

And i'm quite sure that if Obama announced a bailout of Borders, you'd be on this thread blasting Obama for doing so (you're against the bailouts, as you just said in post #38). As it stands now, you are blasting Obama for not bailing out Borders. So on the one hand, you hate bailouts. On the other, you want Borders to be bailed out because it's only fair.

That's quite a conundrum you've got there. Perhaps it's better to admit your ultrapartisanship earlier and call it a night.
 
Singularity said:
And i'm quite sure that if Obama announced a bailout of Borders, you'd be on this thread blasting Obama for doing so (you're against the bailouts, as you just said in post #38). As it stands now, you are blasting Obama for not bailing out Borders. So on the one hand, you hate bailouts. On the other, you want Borders to be bailed out because it's only fair.

That's quite a conundrum you've got there. Perhaps it's better to admit your ultrapartisanship earlier and call it a night.
Click to expand...

Of course I would lambbast Obama for bailing out companies. That is not the governments job. However I wouldn't lambast him any more than I already have in the past. IE imo one more bailout isn't going to mean squat as Obama has already "thrown the baby out with the bathwater" so to speak. In fact I would agree that he at least is consistant. I don't know about you but I consider it to be a good thing if the most powerful person in the country is consistant.

And seriously, enough with the partisanship name calling already. I've shown time and again on this forum that I don't care for republicans or democrats. How can a person be partisan if they do not like either of the parties?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Of course I would lambbast Obama for bailing out companies. That is not the governments job. However I wouldn't lambast him any more than I already have in the past. IE imo one more bailout isn't going to mean squat as Obama has already "thrown the baby out with the bathwater" so to speak. In fact I would agree that he at least is consistant. I don't know about you but I consider it to be a good thing if the most powerful person in the country is consistant.
Click to expand...

So like I said, you just admitted that you would blast Obama for bailing out Borders, but here you are in this thread blasting Obama for not bailing out Borders. Your earlier opinion was that he should have bailed them out to save jobs, yet you admit that you'd be demonizing him if he did just that. You're attempting to rationalize this by adding "well, he should at least be consistent" and going on to say that consistency is a good quality, yet if he was consistent here, then he'd still meet with your disapproval on this issue.

That makes no sense, and you've offered nothing to refute my claim about your ultrapartisan post.

Kal'Stang said:
And seriously, enough with the partisanship name calling already. I've shown time and again on this forum that I don't care for republicans or democrats. How can a person be partisan if they do not like either of the parties?
Click to expand...

No offense, but I don't know you or your posting history. While you've obviously been here a while and contributed many forum posts, I have no idea of your political lean outside of this thread. I addressed your post as ultrapartisan, because that's exactly what it is. I did not address you personally as ultrapartisan.
 
Last edited:
Singularity said:
No offense, but I don't know you or your posting history. While you've obviously been here a while and contributed many forum posts, I have no idea of your political lean outside of this thread. I addressed your post as ultrapartisan, because that's exactly what it is. I did not address you personally as ultrapartisan.
Click to expand...

Expecting consistancy is not ultrapartisan. I may disagree with his assessment also, but saying the president should be consistant is a view everyone should hold.
 
Almost forgot why I clicked on the link. Went to Borders today. No real sale. They had a sign up that said they would be open a few more weeks. Bought the daughter 4 books.
 
1Perry said:
Expecting consistancy is not ultrapartisan. I may disagree with his assessment also, but saying the president should be consistant is a view everyone should hold.
Click to expand...

Expecting consistency is not why his post is ultrapartisan.
 
Sad. They were my favorite bookstore. I guess now I'm stuck with Barnes & Nobles...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom