• 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!

The Glenn Beck Boycott Gaining Traction - FOX News Losing Money

Boo Radley said:
fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
Idiom:
in (point of) fact
In reality or in truth; actually.

Start with the socialism silliness, move through the death panel false hoods, visit the universal health care lie, and make sure to pause at the tax increase that hasn't happened yet, along with the but don't touch my SS and medicare contradiction.

Do that and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. ;)
Click to expand...

Every party, including the Democrat Party have kooks in it so what you are saying here is you cannot be specific as to what the TEA PARTY has gotten wrong? When you generalize you you have then it doesn't help your credibility.

Are you telling me that what Obama is doing is promoting free enterprise and capitalism? Do you know what socialism is? How can the massive expansion of govt. be a good thing for this country? Stop buying the Obama lies.
 
Conservative said:
Every party, including the Democrat Party have kooks in it so what you are saying here is you cannot be specific as to what the TEA PARTY has gotten wrong? When you generalize you you have then it doesn't help your credibility.

Are you telling me that what Obama is doing is promoting free enterprise and capitalism? Do you know what socialism is? How can the massive expansion of govt. be a good thing for this country? Stop buying the Obama lies.
Click to expand...

Always good to start with a definition (though we have done this before):


so·cial·ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

So, anyone claiming socialism factually have it wrong.

Same with the other things I listed.
 
Boo Radley said:
Always good to start with a definition (though we have done this before):


so·cial·ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

So, anyone claiming socialism factually have it wrong.

Same with the other things I listed.
Click to expand...


You really come across as very naive. First of all thanks for the definition. Now pay attention to what Obama is doing, not what Obama is saying. No President is ever going to announce the transformation to a socialist model but the incremental march has begun.

Have you ever heard obama talk about promoting the private sector? What do you think the takeover of GM, Chrysler, involvement in the banks and attempts at financial reform is a product of? yep, socialism.

Boo, you have to realize that the govt. cannot prevent people from failing, that is part of life and there are consequences for poor choices. Liberals use those poor choices to expand power and to create bigger govt. Sure wish you would wise up.
 
Conservative said:
You really come across as very naive. First of all thanks for the definition. Now pay attention to what Obama is doing, not what Obama is saying. No President is ever going to announce the transformation to a socialist model but the incremental march has begun.
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard obama talk about promoting the private sector?
Click to expand...

Wait, so you say we should focus on what Obama does only, yet you ask for what he has said on a certain issue?

But of course as you say we shouldn't pay attention to what he says, in which case why should we believe anything anyone says?

You are contradicting yourself twice over.
 
Cilogy said:
Wait, so you say we should focus on what Obama does only, yet you ask for what he has said on a certain issue?

But of course as you say we shouldn't pay attention to what he says, in which case why should we believe anything anyone says?

You are contradicting yourself twice over.
Click to expand...

Don't think there is any contradiction here at all, Obama says one thing then does another. he has taken over GM/Chrysler, expanded the role of the govt. to record levels. Has he done anything to promote the private sector? Do you know what promoting the private sector means? Please don't tell me his tax credits to cover hiring actually benefits private business.
 
Conservative said:
Don't think there is any contradiction here at all, Obama says one thing then does another. he has taken over GM/Chrysler, expanded the role of the govt. to record levels. Has he done anything to promote the private sector? Do you know what promoting the private sector means? Please don't tell me his tax credits to cover hiring actually benefits private business.
Click to expand...

Important distinction. He didn't take them over. They came to the government. They asked for the help. The difference means something.
 
Boo Radley said:
Important distinction. He didn't take them over. They came to the government. They asked for the help. The difference means something.
Click to expand...

Better get your facts straight, GM/Chrysler did not come to the govt. the govt. took them over to save the union employees. All should have gone through bankruptcy and the taxpayer would be better off.
 
Conservative said:
Better get your facts straight, GM/Chrysler did not come to the govt. the govt. took them over to save the union employees. All should have gone through bankruptcy and the taxpayer would be better off.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right?

As it asks for bailout, GM cuts extravagance, office supplies

As it asks for bailout, GM cuts extravagance, office supplies - USATODAY.com

General Motors stalls, asks for $15b bailout

General Motors stalls, asks for $15b bailout - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

GM, Chrysler Ask for Additional $21.6B, Detail Brands to Be Axed

Government Bailout for GM, Chrysler: Many Brands Face Ax - Advertising Age - News

Pursuing U.S. Aid, G.M. Accepts Need for Drastic Cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/03auto.html
 
Boo Radley said:
You're kidding right?

As it asks for bailout, GM cuts extravagance, office supplies

As it asks for bailout, GM cuts extravagance, office supplies - USATODAY.com

General Motors stalls, asks for $15b bailout

General Motors stalls, asks for $15b bailout - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

GM, Chrysler Ask for Additional $21.6B, Detail Brands to Be Axed

Government Bailout for GM, Chrysler: Many Brands Face Ax - Advertising Age - News

Pursuing U.S. Aid, G.M. Accepts Need for Drastic Cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/03auto.html
Click to expand...


No, you are the one kidding, right? You really are naive, gullible, and very misinformed. Why do you take as gospel what you read and never dig for details. Think the former President of GM asked to be fired by Obama? It was the govt. that initiated the bailout and the bailout was intended to save the unions, not the company.
 
Conservative said:
No, you are the one kidding, right? You really are naive, gullible, and very misinformed. Why do you take as gospel what you read and never dig for details. Think the former President of GM asked to be fired by Obama? It was the govt. that initiated the bailout and the bailout was intended to save the unions, not the company.
Click to expand...

The former president isn't GM. He worked for GM. GM let him resign so they could get the money. Again, I've linked them asking. What's your evidence they didn't ask?
 
Boo Radley said:
The former president isn't GM. He worked for GM. GM let him resign so they could get the money. Again, I've linked them asking. What's your evidence they didn't ask?
Click to expand...

Let him resign? You really are naive, Wagner was fired.
 
Conservative said:
Let him resign? You really are naive, Wagner was fired.
Click to expand...

Fired, resigned, doesn't matter, it was by GM so they could get the money. Now, answer the question and quit dodging. Where's your support?
 
Boo Radley said:
The former president isn't GM. He worked for GM. GM let him resign so they could get the money. Again, I've linked them asking. What's your evidence they didn't ask?
Click to expand...

This kind of support? Does the govt. have controlling interest in GM? Did the Govt. select the replacement for Wagoner? Stop being a tool. If you believe is socialism just say so.

Government Forces Out Wagoner at GM - WSJ.com
 
Boo Radley said:
No. Support this statement:
Click to expand...

LOL, again, bankruptcy was an option but not for the govt. In order for GM to declare bankruptcy they had to have discussions with the govt. Obama saw an opportunity to take over the company and did so.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, again, bankruptcy was an option but not for the govt. In order for GM to declare bankruptcy they had to have discussions with the govt. Obama saw an opportunity to take over the company and did so.
Click to expand...

No one said it wasn't an option. The claim is GM asked for the money. And I have supported that claim. You have not supported your claim that GM did not ask for the money. I'm waiting for you to do so.
 
Boo Radley said:
No one said it wasn't an option. The claim is GM asked for the money. And I have supported that claim. You have not supported your claim that GM did not ask for the money. I'm waiting for you to do so.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue as to how business works especially big business. Do you really think Wagoner would have agreed to a bailout knowing he was going to get fired? It was reported that GM asked for the money but you don't know what went on behind the scenes there and aren't willing to think. This was all about the unions and saving a Democrat Constituent. Why you buy what this Administration is telling you is beyond me. Just goes to show how naive you really are.
 
Conservative said:
You don't have a clue as to how business works especially big business. Do you really think Wagoner would have agreed to a bailout knowing he was going to get fired? It was reported that GM asked for the money but you don't know what went on behind the scenes there and aren't willing to think. This was all about the unions and saving a Democrat Constituent. Why you buy what this Administration is telling you is beyond me. Just goes to show how naive you really are.
Click to expand...

He's not GM. Get that straight. Wagoner was never GM. He worked for GM.

So, prove your statement. Provide some evidence GM didn't ask for the money.
 
Boo Radley said:
He's not GM. Get that straight. Wagoner was never GM. He worked for GM.

So, prove your statement. Provide some evidence GM didn't ask for the money.
Click to expand...

Yes, and he was fired by the President of the United States who took over a private business. You don't see a problem with that?

Regarding asking for the money, Obama claimed GM was too big to fail and offered to bail them out, then Obama fired the CEO. You don't have a problem with that? GM should have declared bankruptcy but the opportunity to get taxpayer money won out. The country would be better off today with a GM bankruptcy.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, and he was fired by the President of the United States who took over a private business. You don't see a problem with that?

Regarding asking for the money, Obama claimed GM was too big to fail and offered to bail them out, then Obama fired the CEO. You don't have a problem with that? GM should have declared bankruptcy but the opportunity to get taxpayer money won out. The country would be better off today with a GM bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

No, he resigned. He resigned to GM. GM took the resignation in order to get more money. If GM doesn't want the money, they don't allow Wagoner to resign.

Again, GM came to the government. They asked for money. I linked that. You have not linked anything showing the government went to GM. Even saying they are too big to fail is nothing more than an explanation as to why we gave the money and not evidence of the government going to GM.

So, support your claim if you can.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, he resigned. He resigned to GM. GM took the resignation in order to get more money. If GM doesn't want the money, they don't allow Wagoner to resign.

Again, GM came to the government. They asked for money. I linked that. You have not linked anything showing the government went to GM. Even saying they are too big to fail is nothing more than an explanation as to why we gave the money and not evidence of the government going to GM.

So, support your claim if you can.
Click to expand...

You really are one naive individual who seems to not understand business or dealing with the govt. The govt. is kind of like the Godfather who made offers that one cannot refuse. Stop buying the rhetoric.

Whether or not GM asked for the money or not is irrelevant. IT is owned now by the taxpayers and Obama forced the CEO out. Your links are irrelevant just as much as your opinion. Why did the Govt. "give" GM the money?
 
Conservative said:
You really are one naive individual who seems to not understand business or dealing with the govt. The govt. is kind of like the Godfather who made offers that one cannot refuse. Stop buying the rhetoric.

Whether or not GM asked for the money or not is irrelevant. IT is owned now by the taxpayers and Obama forced the CEO out. Your links are irrelevant just as much as your opinion. Why did the Govt. "give" GM the money?
Click to expand...

NO, it's a very important point to note. GM came hat and hand and asked for the money. No one gives money without some strings. That's how it works.

So, you concede that GM did ask for the money?
 
Boo Radley said:
NO, it's a very important point to note. GM came hat and hand and asked for the money. No one gives money without some strings. That's how it works.

So, you concede that GM did ask for the money?
Click to expand...

I don't care who asked, GM or the Govt. The point is if you had the choice between bankruptcy or going to the govt. for a bailout which would you do?

The govt. shouldn't have bailed out GM, period, but did so to save those lucrative Union pensions and this the union contituent group. Why else would the Obama Administration bail out a company that in the overall scope of things was a small part of the labor force?

The taxpayers now own GM and this bs about paying back the bailout money is just that, bs.
 
Conservative said:
I don't care who asked, GM or the Govt. The point is if you had the choice between bankruptcy or going to the govt. for a bailout which would you do?

The govt. shouldn't have bailed out GM, period, but did so to save those lucrative Union pensions and this the union contituent group. Why else would the Obama Administration bail out a company that in the overall scope of things was a small part of the labor force?

The taxpayers now own GM and this bs about paying back the bailout money is just that, bs.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what I would do. The point is the government didn't just jump up and take the company from them, heck the government doesn't own or run the company now. GM asked for money, and the government siad yes on conditions, which not unusual.

Again, while I agree the government should not have bailed out GM or anyone else, the fact is that too has consequences that a large number of people would not like. It would be very painful to people outside GM. And politicians would feel the heat from that as well. As I keep saying, there really is a disconnect with the people here.
 
FOX News has just taken out an ad in the Washington Post:

missingbeck_042910.jpg


Guess who is not in the picture. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom