• 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!

More Democrats break with Obama on tax cuts

Words mean things and, for the record, I'm not listening to key words and being fooled. I'm hearing key words and tuning the rest out because I already know what follows. You do exactly the same thing in every thread I've read thus far and I did not insinuate that you were a fool...

Yes, words mean things. but not anything you want them to mean. People string words toegther, not only in sentences but in paragraphs, and longer explinations. Ignoreing the context is to lie. Let me give an example;

In the paly Much Ado about Nothing, Benedict is in a bit of courtship with Beatrice. In a conversation with her he says: "Enough, I am engaged." If we took the Beck model of dishonest discourse, Would could take that quote and say see, Benedict was playing with beatrice, what a jerk, he's already engaged. We'd be wrong. We would not have the context correct at all, missing the meaning of the conversation entirely. Benedict is actually agreeing to kill his freind for Beatrice. Quite different than our beckish reading of the quote.

Context matters as well. words carry different meanings when placed in the context of a discussion. Pretending they don't is dishonest.
 
Yeah ??? Tell that to the GM bond holders, many of which were retired people relying on the bonds for their retirement and thousands of others had supposedly safe bonds in their 401k. These people's investments were stolen from them by Obama and given to the UAW.

In one sense you are right, these people didn't have to do anything, but Obama and the union stole their retirement nest egg.

And that changes the facts how?
 
And that changes the facts how?

Do you believe the bond holders came to Obama "hat in hand" to demand he take their life savings away from them????

These bonds were by law supposed to be guaranteed and fool proof, yet Obama took these retirees' money and gave it to the unions.

You're actually ok with that ????
 
Do you believe the bond holders came to Obama "hat in hand" to demand he take their life savings away from them????

These bonds were by law supposed to be guaranteed and fool proof, yet Obama took these retirees' money and gave it to the unions.

You're actually ok with that ????

it doesn't matter. GM did. And what happen to Bond holders happened the second GM could not longer remain viable. And keep in mind, GM worked out the detials:

GM unveiled a proposal this week that would lay off 21,000 workers, streamline operations and give the government a majority stake in the company. The bondholders would not fare particularly well under the offering, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

All Eyes Turn to GM and Its Bondholders - washingtonpost.com

And bondholders could have forced bankrupey, to which they may have fared worse. But the point is, GM worked this out, hat in hand, trying to save what they could.
 
it doesn't matter. GM did. And what happen to Bond holders happened the second GM could not longer remain viable. And keep in mind, GM worked out the detials:

GM unveiled a proposal this week that would lay off 21,000 workers, streamline operations and give the government a majority stake in the company. The bondholders would not fare particularly well under the offering, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

All Eyes Turn to GM and Its Bondholders - washingtonpost.com

And bondholders could have forced bankrupey, to which they may have fared worse. But the point is, GM worked this out, hat in hand, trying to save what they could.

OK, fine. You agree with Obama and say to the retirees "Screw you !"

Good to know that you and Obama both believe in the old "let them eat cake" saying.
 
OK, fine. You agree with Obama and say to the retirees "Screw you !"

Good to know that you and Obama both believe in the old "let them eat cake" saying.

No, I say if you have a propblem retiree, it's with GM who opperated a company poorly and failed. This required them to need us to bail themout, and GM put them in the position they are in, not Obama.
 
No, I say if you have a propblem retiree, it's with GM who opperated a company poorly and failed. This required them to need us to bail themout, and GM put them in the position they are in, not Obama.

Really?? You don't know much about how bonds work do you?? I suggest you do a little of that fact finding and proof that you demand of everyone but yourself.
 
Really?? You don't know much about how bonds work do you?? I suggest you do a little of that fact finding and proof that you demand of everyone but yourself.

I know enough to know who brough this problem to their doorstep. it wasn't Obam. It was GM.
 
I know enough to know who brough this problem to their doorstep. it wasn't Obam. It was GM.

Did GM make the bonds worthless, then giving the money owed to the bondholders to the union ???

Nope, didn't think so.
Yet Secretary Timothy Geithner and his auto task force, led by Steven Rattner, have somehow decided that Treasury and UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger will get to own a combined 90% of GM. If there's a reason other than the political symbiosis among the Obama Administration, Michigan Democrats and the auto union, it's hard to discern. From now on let's call it Gettelfinger Motors, or perhaps simply the Obama Motor Company, though in the latter they'd have to change the nameplates.

The biggest losers here are GM's bondholders. According the Treasury-GM debt-for-equity swap announced Monday, GM has $27.2 billion in unsecured bonds owned by the public. These are owned by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds and retail investors who bought them directly through their brokers. Under Monday's offer, they would exchange their $27.2 billion in bonds for 10% of the stock of the restructured GM. This could amount to less than five cents on the dollar.

The Treasury, which is owed $16.2 billion, would receive 50% of the stock and $8.1 billion in debt -- as much as 87 cents on the dollar. The union's retiree health-care benefit trust would receive half of the $20 billion it is owed in stock, giving it 40% ownership of GM, plus another $10 billion in cash over time. That's worth about 76 cents on the dollar, according to some estimates.

In a genuine Chapter 11 bankruptcy, these three groups of creditors would all be similarly situated -- because all three are, for the most part, unsecured creditors of GM. And yet according to the formula presented Monday, those with the largest claim -- the bondholders -- get the smallest piece of the restructured company by a huge margin.
 
Can't comment on your quoted part because I don't have a link to follow, but yes, GM is to blame. They put the compnay in the position it was in and sought the government to save them. The fault lies with GM.
 
Can't comment on your quoted part because I don't have a link to follow, but yes, GM is to blame. They put the compnay in the position it was in and sought the government to save them. The fault lies with GM.

Well, since you readily admitted not reading links, I didn't bother posting one. :lol:
 
Well, since you readily admitted not reading links, I didn't bother posting one. :lol:

Not what I said. I said I didn't read random links not related to an argument I'm involved in. This is what hurts your side the most, conmprehension. ;)
 
Not what I said. I said I didn't read random links not related to an argument I'm involved in. This is what hurts your side the most, conmprehension. ;)

Ahh, so Prof's links showing that Angle did well in the debate with Reid had nothing to do with the topic of a thread titled "Reid on the Ropes in Nevada". Yep, that makes a lot of sense. :roll:
 
Ahh, so Prof's links showing that Angle did well in the debate with Reid had nothing to do with the topic of a thread titled "Reid on the Ropes in Nevada". Yep, that makes a lot of sense. :roll:

I wasn't arguing with the Prof. In fact, he rarely makes an argument or point. If I were debating him, and he offered a claim, I would read his support. Again, comprehension is important.
 
I wasn't arguing with the Prof. In fact, he rarely makes an argument or point. If I were debating him, and he offered a claim, I would read his support. Again, comprehension is important.

So you only read and debate with certain peoply on a thread, not every one that has a point or comment ???

Very strange, but I guess that let's you pick and choose who to "argue" with. Those that proove you wrong can be simply ignored, right ??
 
So you only read and debate with certain peoply on a thread, not every one that has a point or comment ???

Very strange, but I guess that let's you pick and choose who to "argue" with. Those that proove you wrong can be simply ignored, right ??

I don't read every post; that's correct. When I see something I doubt, I respond. When i see something I have an opinion on I respond. When I learn someone isn't making an argument, but just throwing up links, I see no reason to read them all.

Again, comprehension helps.
 
I don't read every post; that's correct. When I see something I doubt, I respond. When i see something I have an opinion on I respond. When I learn someone isn't making an argument, but just throwing up links, I see no reason to read them all.

Again, comprehension helps.

That goes a long way to explain your incoherent replies in many threads. Thanks for the explanation.
 
That goes a long way to explain your incoherent replies in many threads. Thanks for the explanation.

And yet, you haven't addressed a point for awhile now. Wonder why? No link either. Odd that. ;)
 
That goes a long way to explain your incoherent replies in many threads. Thanks for the explanation.

Here a better explanation... The programmer designed boo software with some kinda weird algorithim. Rather than "killing the mocking bird" and saving the child... it attempts to kill logic and replace it with liberalism.
 
Yes, words mean things. but not anything you want them to mean. People string words toegther, not only in sentences but in paragraphs, and longer explinations. Ignoreing the context is to lie. Let me give an example;

In the paly Much Ado about Nothing, Benedict is in a bit of courtship with Beatrice. In a conversation with her he says: "Enough, I am engaged." If we took the Beck model of dishonest discourse, Would could take that quote and say see, Benedict was playing with beatrice, what a jerk, he's already engaged. We'd be wrong. We would not have the context correct at all, missing the meaning of the conversation entirely. Benedict is actually agreeing to kill his freind for Beatrice. Quite different than our beckish reading of the quote.

Context matters as well. words carry different meanings when placed in the context of a discussion. Pretending they don't is dishonest.

You and I both know the context around "shared prosperity" and "social justice". Or are you trying to say that when we look at Obama's words such as "collective salvation", "redistributive change", "social justice" etc, that he really means that he's in love with Beatrice and intends to kill his friend for her love?

One of us is being dishonest, I'll grant you that.:2wave:
 
You and I both know the context around "shared prosperity" and "social justice". Or are you trying to say that when we look at Obama's words such as "collective salvation", "redistributive change", "social justice" etc, that he really means that he's in love with Beatrice and intends to kill his friend for her love?

One of us is being dishonest, I'll grant you that.:2wave:

No, the context you speak of is the made up context by those who refuse to actually listen to what is being said. In all seriousness, those who play with words to create the lie being told but the likes of Beck are dishonest and harm the country. If this were satire, it would be too good. As a serious debate, it is only sad.
 
No, the context you speak of is the made up context by those who refuse to actually listen to what is being said. In all seriousness, those who play with words to create the lie being told but the likes of Beck are dishonest and harm the country. If this were satire, it would be too good. As a serious debate, it is only sad.

I see that not much has changed in the past month, you still blaming Beck and everyone else for the failure of this President and the negative economic results he has generated. Calling Beck dishonest and harming the country is a liberal ploy when someone refutes liberal rhetoric with actual facts.

I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what economic prediction Obama has made that has been accurate and why having more people unemployed each month this year vs. last year, lower economic growth this year vs. last year, no fiscal year 2011 budget, and 3 trillion added to the debt the past two years isn't a legitimate topic of discussion and why anyone would claim that things are better today than they were last year?
 
Can't comment on your quoted part because I don't have a link to follow

So try commenting on the substance of the words instead of derailing by attacking the source as usual.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom