Robert Haar wrote:
On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" wrote:

Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist *******s
over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM


Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?

Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.

"Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and
services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and
planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the
distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals'
production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and
services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals'
needs." [In socialism, a doctor earns more than a common laborer; under
Communism, they earn the pretty much the same.]

A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.

On 6/25/10 10:33 AM, "HeyBub" wrote:

Robert Haar wrote:
On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" wrote:

Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist *******s
over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM


Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?

Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.

That depends on whether you are talking theory or practice. There is
significant difference between the theory of communism and how has been
practiced in the USSR and China.


A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.

Marxist communism is more about exerting control over people.

On Jun 25, 9:33*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Haar wrote:
On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" wrote:

Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist *******s
over the past 100 years. *They haven't bounced back much.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?

Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.

"Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and
services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and
planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the
distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals'
production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and
services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals'
needs." [In socialism, a doctor earns more than a common laborer; under
Communism, they earn the pretty much the same.]

A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.

Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.

wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:33 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Haar wrote:
On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" wrote:
Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist *******s
over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?
Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.

"Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and
services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and
planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the
distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals'
production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and
services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals'
needs." [In socialism, a doctor earns more than a common laborer; under
Communism, they earn the pretty much the same.]

A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.

Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.

Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
except they also *own* the means of production. Other than that, they
are identical, and always fall on there collective faces compared to an
economic system where the individual rules, and owns and controls the
means of production.

Whilst falling on their collective faces, they have murdered 100's of
millions of people that seem to get in the way of their quest for
absolute power.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

--
Jack
Got Change: God Bless America ====== God Damn Amerika!
http://jbstein.com

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:21:56 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:33 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Haar wrote:
On 6/24/10 12:44 PM, "Jack Stein" wrote:
Tell that to the over 100,000,000 murdered by the socialist *******s
over the past 100 years. They haven't bounced back much.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
Are you saying that socialism and communism are the same thing?
Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.

"Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and
services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and
planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the
distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals'
production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and
services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals'
needs." [In socialism, a doctor earns more than a common laborer; under
Communism, they earn the pretty much the same.]

A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.

Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.

Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
except they also *own* the means of production.

Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.

Other than that, they
are identical, and always fall on there collective faces compared to an
economic system where the individual rules, and owns and controls the
means of production.

Whilst falling on their collective faces, they have murdered 100's of
millions of people that seem to get in the way of their quest for
absolute power.

Socialism is as socialism does.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.

Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.

Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
except they also *own* the means of production.

Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.

Sounds good but not true. For example, you can own a pool room and the
government can regulate and tax you to the point you have little or no
control. They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.
You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
how it is managed, or, you can have a communist ******* like Obama steal
it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. Hitler
for example totally controlled the means of production in socialist NAZI
Germany, yet businesses were privately owned.

I do understand your point, and socialism and communism are so close to
the same thing it is not worth the argument, like peanut butter and
chunky peanut butter.

Anyway, every single last one of the 100 million killed by the red
*******s were killed by socialists, of that, there is no debate. I
guess there is a reason the color of socialism is red.

Other than that, they
are identical, and always fall on there collective faces compared to an
economic system where the individual rules, and owns and controls the
means of production.

Whilst falling on their collective faces, they have murdered 100's of
millions of people that seem to get in the way of their quest for
absolute power.

Socialism is as socialism does.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM


--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors ===== Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com

On Jun 26, 10:17*am, Jack Stein wrote:

. *They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.

Yet cocaine and heroin are illegal. What's up with that?

* You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
time. *The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
how it is managed, or, you can have a communist ******* like Obama steal
it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. *

GM did soooo much better on their own. They ran the whole thing into
the ground so it had no real value, Ford didn't get stolen by that
******* Obama now did it? By your position (such as it is) Obama
should have 'stolen' Ford, it at least had some value.
But welcome to the Revisionist Club, in here there are already a few
members.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:17:48 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

wrote:

A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.

Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.

Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
except they also *own* the means of production.

Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.

Sounds good but not true.

It certainly is true.

For example, you can own a pool room and the
government can regulate and tax you to the point you have little or no
control. They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.

Banning smoking is not an example of *no* control. Smoking crack is also
illegal, BTW. This is a continuum. Yes, we are losing control of our lives,
but as we do we're also losing ownership of ourselves as government takes
over.

You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
how it is managed, or, you can have a communist ******* like Obama steal
it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. Hitler
for example totally controlled the means of production in socialist NAZI
Germany, yet businesses were privately owned.

You no longer own Government Motors, so my point stands.

I do understand your point, and socialism and communism are so close to
the same thing it is not worth the argument, like peanut butter and
chunky peanut butter.

No, there is a difference, but mostly in magnitude.

Anyway, every single last one of the 100 million killed by the red
*******s were killed by socialists, of that, there is no debate. I
guess there is a reason the color of socialism is red.

Socialism is as socialism does. There can be no exceptions.

...

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:01:41 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 26, 10:17*am, Jack Stein wrote:

. *They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.

Yet cocaine and heroin are illegal. What's up with that?

* You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
time. *The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
how it is managed, or, you can have a communist ******* like Obama steal
it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. *

GM did soooo much better on their own.

How do you justify the taking of the company from its lawful owners and giving
it to another?

They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,

A lie. Even so, how do you justify the taking, without due process?

Ford didn't get stolen by that
******* Obama now did it? By your position (such as it is) Obama
should have 'stolen' Ford, it at least had some value.
But welcome to the Revisionist Club, in here there are already a few
members.

Clueless.

Robatoy wrote:
On Jun 26, 10:17 am, Jack Stein wrote:

. They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.

Yet cocaine and heroin are illegal. What's up with that?

I dunno, what's up with it?

You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
how it is managed, or, you can have a communist ******* like Obama steal
it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it.

GM did soooo much better on their own.

The owners of GM, being the stockholders, could not do worse than losing
everything. Once big brother, the communist ******* obama and his red
regime stole the company, the company could do no worse.

They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,

Wrong camel breath, the company did have real value before it was stolen
by the Obama regime.

Ford didn't get stolen by that ******* Obama now did it?

Not yet, no.

By your position (such as it is) Obama
should have 'stolen' Ford, it at least had some value.

GM had value before it was stolen by Obama.

But welcome to the Revisionist Club, in here there are already a few
members.

The only one making **** up here is you, and you are too fukking simple
for it to matter much, so carry on.

--
Jack
Got Change: Inconvenient Truth ===== Convenient Lies!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHxb_vZe7Ao

On Jun 27, 10:50*am, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Jun 26, 10:17 am, Jack Stein wrote:
. *They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.
Yet cocaine and heroin are illegal. What's up with that?

I dunno, what's up with it?


Your paper-thin ethics are situational, Douche-nozzle.

Give that some thought before you run off the mouth again.

GM, as a car company, had no future. They squandered their position by
making product they tried to dictate to the buying public as opposed
to building product the public wanted. "We are the Big Company, you
will buy what we offer!!"
Obama had the vision to see their demise. He did all GM stockholders a
favour, same with the pensioners.
Besides, Obama wanted to keep some manufacturing ability on tap in
case the defense department needed some stuff.

So... who owns GM now?

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:17:48 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.
Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
except they also *own* the means of production.
Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.
Sounds good but not true.

It certainly is true.

For example, you can own a pool room and the
government can regulate and tax you to the point you have little or no
control. They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.

Banning smoking is not an example of *no* control.


Having no authority to allow smoking is not an example of having control.

Smoking crack is also
illegal, BTW. This is a continuum. Yes, we are losing control of our lives,
but as we do we're also losing ownership of ourselves as government takes
over.

Yes, but controlling the means of production does not mean you own the
means of production.

You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
how it is managed, or, you can have a communist ******* like Obama steal
it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. Hitler
for example totally controlled the means of production in socialist NAZI
Germany, yet businesses were privately owned.

You no longer own Government Motors, so my point stands.

The obama regime owning GM is an example of communism, not simply
socialism, so my point also stands.

I do understand your point, and socialism and communism are so close to
the same thing it is not worth the argument, like peanut butter and
chunky peanut butter.

No, there is a difference, but mostly in magnitude.

Yes, like peanut butter and chunky peanut butter, there is a difference,
but they are both peanut butter. Communism and socialism are both
socialism, but communism is socialism with the chunks...

Anyway, every single last one of the 100 million killed by the red
*******s were killed by socialists, of that, there is no debate. I
guess there is a reason the color of socialism is red.

Socialism is as socialism does. There can be no exceptions.

Yes, socialism is an economic system by which a strong, centralized
government controls the means of production, communism is socialism that
also owns the means of production... History has clearly shown you don't
want the red *******s to get their jack boots on your neck, over 100
million in the past 100 years could attest to that simple fact except
the red fukkers already killed them....

--
Jack
Mr. Geithner, May I Borrow Your TurboTax?
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:09:43 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:17:48 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist
society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.
Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism
is an economic system where the state owns the means of production.
Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.
Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized
government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same
except they also *own* the means of production.
Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.
Sounds good but not true.

It certainly is true.

For example, you can own a pool room and the
government can regulate and tax you to the point you have little or no
control. They can ban smoking for example, a perfectly legal activity.

Banning smoking is not an example of *no* control.


Having no authority to allow smoking is not an example of having control.

A proposition being true does not make it's converse true.

Smoking crack is also
illegal, BTW. This is a continuum. Yes, we are losing control of our lives,
but as we do we're also losing ownership of ourselves as government takes
over.

Yes, but controlling the means of production does not mean you own the
means of production.

Certainly it does. "Ownership" without any control is a lie.

You can own a car company, like I, and my pension fund owned GM at one
time. The government through regulation and taxing policy can control
how it is managed, or, you can have a communist ******* like Obama steal
it from you, and now the government both owns and controls it. Hitler
for example totally controlled the means of production in socialist NAZI
Germany, yet businesses were privately owned.

You no longer own Government Motors, so my point stands.

The obama regime owning GM is an example of communism, not simply
socialism, so my point also stands.

Obama doesn't "own" 100% of GM (the unions supposedly have a share), but
controls it 100%, so yes, *my* point is made.

I do understand your point, and socialism and communism are so close to
the same thing it is not worth the argument, like peanut butter and
chunky peanut butter.

No, there is a difference, but mostly in magnitude.

Yes, like peanut butter and chunky peanut butter, there is a difference,
but they are both peanut butter. Communism and socialism are both
socialism, but communism is socialism with the chunks...

Anyway, every single last one of the 100 million killed by the red
*******s were killed by socialists, of that, there is no debate. I
guess there is a reason the color of socialism is red.

Socialism is as socialism does. There can be no exceptions.

Yes, socialism is an economic system by which a strong, centralized
government controls the means of production, communism is socialism that
also owns the means of production...

Owning the means of production = owning the people. They are slaves to the
state.

History has clearly shown you don't
want the red *******s to get their jack boots on your neck, over 100
million in the past 100 years could attest to that simple fact except
the red fukkers already killed them....

On Jun 27, 11:26*am, "
wrote:


Owning the means of production = owning the people. *They are slaves to the
state.

Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.
You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:26*am, "
wrote:


Owning the means of production = owning the people. *They are slaves to the
state.

Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.

At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your gain.

You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.

Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.

On Jun 27, 12:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:26 am, "
wrote:

Owning the means of production = owning the people. They are slaves to the
state.

Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.

At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your gain..

You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.

Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.

Ouch! Coming from that means...well....nothing.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 27, 12:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:26 am, "
wrote:

Owning the means of production = owning the people. They are slaves to the
state.

Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.

At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your gain.

You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.

Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.

Ouch! Coming from that means...well....nothing.

No brain, no pain.

On Jun 27, 12:14*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:





On Jun 27, 12:03 pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:26 am, "
wrote:

Owning the means of production = owning the people. They are slaves to the
state.

Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.

At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your gain.

You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.

Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.

Ouch! Coming from that means...well....nothing.

No brain, no pain.

The Tylenol people won't be making any money off you then.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 27, 12:14*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:





On Jun 27, 12:03 pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:26 am, "
wrote:

Owning the means of production = owning the people. They are slaves to the
state.

Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes
(Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave.

At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your gain.

You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who
is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the
right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.

Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.

Ouch! Coming from that means...well....nothing.

No brain, no pain.

The Tylenol people won't be making any money off you then.

You're the hurtin' pup.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FORGOT THE ****ING LIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

OH WHAT A LOUD HOLIDAY I HAD
NOW I JUST NEED A PILL TO GET MY VOICE BACK.
THE BOX IS WEDGED SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO MY ASS
EACH TIME I **** I SPEAK.
I **** A LOOOOOOOOOOOOT!

THE LIST:
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as
ME as

GET THE PICTURE YOU SAPS!!!!!

READ MY BIO AND GET TO LIKE ME!
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...6757f15c?hl=en

" wrote:

How do you justify the taking of the company from its lawful owners and giving
it to another?

They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,

A lie. Even so, how do you justify the taking, without due process?

There was due process. It's called bankruptcy. The lawful owners lose their
ownership of the company and the company is broken up and sold off or the
creditors get ownership of the company in place of their loans to the company.
It happens every day.

The case of GM is politically hot because the major creditors were the US
government and the UAW. The UAW was a major creditor through the health care
restructuring that was done in 2006 or so. The government was a major creditor
because GM came, hat in hand, via private jet, to get a bail out loan late in
2008.

GM was unable to meet the terms of those loans and so was forced into
bankruptcy. They had a net worth of minus $82.29 billion dollars according to
their March 31, 2009 SEC filing. See
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/...htm#toc85756_4

You can also see a discussion of the government loan terms and GM's bankruptcy
plans in anticipation of their failure to meet those terms. I'd be a little
slower with the term "lie" . The company was less than worthless.

-- Doug

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:34:23 -0500, Douglas Johnson
wrote:

" wrote:

How do you justify the taking of the company from its lawful owners and giving
it to another?

They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,

A lie. Even so, how do you justify the taking, without due process?

There was due process. It's called bankruptcy.

Wrong. It was an executive action. There was no bankruptcy proceeding.

The lawful owners lose their
ownership of the company and the company is broken up and sold off or the
creditors get ownership of the company in place of their loans to the company.
It happens every day.

Except that it was *NOT* a bankruptcy. There was no due process.

The case of GM is politically hot because the major creditors were the US
government and the UAW. The UAW was a major creditor through the health care
restructuring that was done in 2006 or so. The government was a major creditor
because GM came, hat in hand, via private jet, to get a bail out loan late in
2008.

So, the fact that they used a "private jet" was reason enough, for you, to
throw away the Constitution. Got it.

GM was unable to meet the terms of those loans and so was forced into
bankruptcy. They had a net worth of minus $82.29 billion dollars according to
their March 31, 2009 SEC filing. See
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/...htm#toc85756_4

Wrong. There was no bankruptcy proceeding.

You can also see a discussion of the government loan terms and GM's bankruptcy
plans in anticipation of their failure to meet those terms. I'd be a little
slower with the term "lie" . The company was less than worthless.

Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.

On Jun 27, 1:46*pm, "
wrote:
..

Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.

Banging your head against the wall isn't going to make your bad
information right. (Good thing you feel no pain, eh?)

GM went with their tail between their legs looking for a hand-out. The
lender had some conditions. The rest is history.
GM was a badly managed company which didn't think it had to adjust to
the times. Arrogant cocksuckers, really. They got what they deserved
and so did those who bought into that arrogance by buying shares. Free
enterprise my friend... a double-edged sword.

Oh... and officially there may not have been any need for a proper
bankruptcy proceeding. GM rolled over on its back willingly, nobody
forced them to leave the ship like rats.

No wonder you and Stein agree. You're both revisionists.

" wrote:


Except that it was *NOT* a bankruptcy. There was no due process.

Oh, my God. What is this?
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...on60012009.pdf

It is a copy of GM's bankruptcy filing in the South District of Manhattan.


So, the fact that they used a "private jet" was reason enough, for you, to
throw away the Constitution. Got it.

No. The private jet comment was just a dig at GM's PR skills.

Wrong. There was no bankruptcy proceeding.

What do you base that on? I'm providing references. Primary sources, in fact.
What are your sources?

You can also see a discussion of the government loan terms and GM's bankruptcy
plans in anticipation of their failure to meet those terms. I'd be a little
slower with the term "lie" . The company was less than worthless.

Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.

What parts of what I said are wrong? All of those things are in the reference
I provided in my previous post.. It's the March 31, 2009 10-Q, a legal document
filed by GM with the SEC. Look in the balance sheet for the net worth and the
management's discussion for the other items.

-- Doug

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jun 27, 1:46*pm, "
wrote:
.

Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.

Banging your head against the wall isn't going to make your bad
information right. (Good thing you feel no pain, eh?)

Obviously your brain isn't functioning. Good thing? I doubt it, but since
you're a Canuckistani, I really don't much care.

GM went with their tail between their legs looking for a hand-out. The
lender had some conditions. The rest is history.
GM was a badly managed company which didn't think it had to adjust to
the times. Arrogant cocksuckers, really. They got what they deserved
and so did those who bought into that arrogance by buying shares. Free
enterprise my friend... a double-edged sword.

No, violation of the Constitution was *not* one of the "conditions", nor could
it have been.

Oh... and officially there may not have been any need for a proper
bankruptcy proceeding. GM rolled over on its back willingly, nobody
forced them to leave the ship like rats.

You're wrong. Their bond holders were supposed to have a say in their
"execution".

No wonder you and Stein agree. You're both revisionists.

What a fricking pot you are.

On Jun 27, 4:10*pm, "
wrote:


You're wrong. *Their bond holders were supposed to have a say in their
"execution".


Forget it. As long as you're pulling your info from your ass, there's
no point in this discussion.

....and those 'bond-holders' were asleep at the wheel when they
elected the management which was supposed to 'manage' their prized
company.
GM was arrogant to believe that they didn't need to listen to the
consumers.

Now, having said that, which administration was in power when the
first batch of loans were extended? (TARP, there, that acronym will
help you Google some facts.)

Also, by my being a Canuckistani gives me an unbiased view of the US
and I have access to the same news sources as you do. The Big Diff, is
that I actually read and retain that information. YOU, however, can't
see a thing as your head is up your ass.
Obama boohoo is all you can come up with..boohoo, he STOLE a huge
automotive company...boohoo. *I* think it was stroke of genius and
your ilk is just jealous.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:36:57 -0500, Douglas Johnson wrote:

" wrote:


Except that it was *NOT* a bankruptcy. There was no due process.

Oh, my God. What is this?
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...on60012009.pdf

It is a copy of GM's bankruptcy filing in the South District of
Manhattan.


There you go! Injecting facts into a totally nonsensical rant :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Robatoy wrote:

...and those 'bond-holders' were asleep at the wheel when they
elected the management which was supposed to 'manage' their prized
company.

Really? How do the bond-holders go about electing management?

GM was arrogant to believe that they didn't need to listen to the
consumers.

You really are dumber than you look. Hard to imagine, really.

Obama boohoo is all you can come up with..boohoo, he STOLE a huge
automotive company...boohoo.

Yes, that is exactly what the communist ******* did.

*I* think it was stroke of genius...

Why would a red socialist ******* such as you think anything different?
No one should be surprised.

--
Jack
The Problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of Other Peoples Money!
http://jbstein.com

On Jun 28, 1:30*pm, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
...and those 'bond-holders' *were asleep at the wheel when they
elected the management which was supposed to 'manage' their prized
company.

Really? *How do the bond-holders go about electing management?

They just give away their money without ANY control? Dumb.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

How do you justify the taking of the company from its lawful owners
and giving it to another?



It's tought. Eminent domain is prevalent in scalawag-dominated political
divisions. And here's an example of just/unjust use:

Suppose one owns a fried-chicken fast-food shop. The city condemns his land
(along with many other parcels) to build or expand an airport.

So far, so good.

But in the airport exists fast-food outlets, including one that sells fried
chicken.

So, in sum, the city condemned Jack's Fried Chicken Shack ("Where a breast
in the mouth is as good as a thigh in the hand") and established a
competitor.


They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,

A lie. Even so, how do you justify the taking, without due process?


Our beloved Constitution provides for it (5th Amendment).


Ford didn't get stolen by that
******* Obama now did it? By your position (such as it is) Obama
should have 'stolen' Ford, it at least had some value.
But welcome to the Revisionist Club, in here there are already a few
members.

Clueless.

Yep. By bailing out GM and Chrysler, the government effectively warped the
marketplace, and not in Ford's favor. Sorta like the Mafia: We want part of
your business or we'll use competition to drive you out.

Jack Stein wrote:

Obama boohoo is all you can come up with..boohoo, he STOLE a huge
automotive company...boohoo.

Yes, that is exactly what the communist ******* did.

Company borrows money, company can't pay it back, company goes bankrupt,
creditors own the company. Happens everyday, nobody stole anything.

Even if they did, they didn't get much. According to GM's bankruptcy filing,
they had assets of $82 billion and liabilities of $172 billion for a negative
net worth of $90 billion.

-- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Obama boohoo is all you can come up with..boohoo, he STOLE a huge
automotive company...boohoo.
Yes, that is exactly what the communist ******* did.

Company borrows money, company can't pay it back, company goes bankrupt,
creditors own the company. Happens everyday, nobody stole anything.

It doesn't happen everyday in the US. The US government does not loan
money to private business and immediately turn around and take ownership
of the company. Never happens, never supposed to happen in a free
market, capitalist nation.

Even if they did, they didn't get much.

The owners (millions of pensioners) of the company got nothing, the US
taxpayer got ****ed, make that fukked, not just in cash but mainly and
most importantly in that their once great economic system was
"fundamentally changed" from capitalist where the private individual
owned and controlled things to a socialist/communist government where a
few government mother fukkers own and control things...

According to GM's bankruptcy filing,
they had assets of $82 billion and liabilities of $172 billion for a negative
net worth of $90 billion.

Bankruptcy in a free market capitalist economy makes things stronger.
Bankruptcy in a communist economy just sits around stinking up the
place. The longer the stink, the more the smell of death begins to waft
through the valleys.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

--
Jack
I'm not as dumb as you look.
http://jbstein.com

On Jun 29, 11:27*am, Jack Stein wrote:
*

Bankruptcy in a free market capitalist economy makes things stronger.

Sure it does. It is really helpful to those suppliers who are left
holding the bag when their customer decides not to pay them.

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in
:

"Zz Yzx" wrote in message
...

What are your thoughts on the Catastrophe possibility put forth: that
the sea bottom will collapse (due to the BOP falling over) in the
immediate vicinity of the well and cause a tsunami - among other
cataclysmic issues?


The well is about 18,000 feet deep below the seabed. It's highly unlikely
that 18,000 feet of rock will suddenly collapse into a previously oil-
filled void. Remember, the oil is being forced out by pressure. This
pressure has to come from somewhere, and is most likely the surrounding
rock slowly compressing the reservoir. As the reservoir empties, the rock
will slowly settle into the available space.

What is maybe more likely, in addition to general poisoning of the Gulf
ecosystem, is that the water temperature in the Gulf will rise to a point
where the methane hydrates thaw out, releasing untold quantities of
methane, a potent greenhouse gas, not to mention toxic to most life,
resulting in mass extinction on a global level. Sounds like fun?

"Scritch" wrote in message
4.39...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in
:

"Zz Yzx" wrote in message
...

What are your thoughts on the Catastrophe possibility put forth: that
the sea bottom will collapse (due to the BOP falling over) in the
immediate vicinity of the well and cause a tsunami - among other
cataclysmic issues?


The well is about 18,000 feet deep below the seabed. It's highly unlikely
that 18,000 feet of rock will suddenly collapse into a previously oil-
filled void. Remember, the oil is being forced out by pressure. This
pressure has to come from somewhere, and is most likely the surrounding
rock slowly compressing the reservoir. As the reservoir empties, the rock
will slowly settle into the available space.

What is maybe more likely, in addition to general poisoning of the Gulf
ecosystem, is that the water temperature in the Gulf will rise to a point
where the methane hydrates thaw out, releasing untold quantities of
methane, a potent greenhouse gas, not to mention toxic to most life,
resulting in mass extinction on a global level. Sounds like fun?


Hadn't thought about the hydrates! Ever read "Swarm"?

On Jul 13, 4:17*am, "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
"Scritch" wrote in message

4.39...





"Lobby Dosser" wrote in
:

"Zz Yzx" wrote in message
. ..

What are your thoughts on the Catastrophe possibility put forth: that
the sea bottom will collapse (due to the BOP falling over) *in the
immediate vicinity of the well and cause a tsunami - among other
cataclysmic issues?

The well is about 18,000 feet deep below the seabed. *It's highly unlikely
that 18,000 feet of rock will suddenly collapse into a previously oil-
filled void. *Remember, the oil is being forced out by pressure. *This
pressure has to come from somewhere, and is most likely the surrounding
rock slowly compressing the reservoir. *As the reservoir empties, the rock
will slowly settle into the available space.

What is maybe more likely, in addition to general poisoning of the Gulf
ecosystem, is that the water temperature in the Gulf will rise to a point
where the methane hydrates thaw out, releasing untold quantities of
methane, a potent greenhouse gas, not to mention toxic to most life,
resulting in mass extinction on a global level. *Sounds like fun?

Hadn't thought about the hydrates! Ever read "Swarm"?

"BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."

Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
spigot, eh?

"BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."

Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
spigot, eh?

They have to stop the flow gradually .. if they slam it shut, it will
cause the world's largest case of "water hammer" and it could be enough
to blow a hole someplace in the earth's crust that could NEVER be repaired.

Robatoy wrote:

"BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."

Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
spigot, eh?

Why should they turn off the spigot?

So you fascist Canadians can control more of the oil market?

--
Jack
Got Change: And the Change SUCKS!
http://www2.nationalreview.com/video..._051410_B.html
http://jbstein.com

On Jul 14, 12:41*am, "__ Bøb __" wrote:
"BP engineers planned to shut off pipes that are already funneling
some oil to two ships, to see how the cap handles the pressure of the
crude coming up from the ground. Then they planned to close, one by
one, three valves that let oil pass through the cap."

Got to catch a few more dollars worth of oil, before turning off the
spigot, eh?

They have to stop the flow gradually .. if they slam it shut, it will
cause the world's largest case of "water hammer" and it could be enough
to blow a hole someplace in the earth's crust that could NEVER be repaired.

These are people who only care about 'yield'. Now their gold is
flowing into the Gulf instead of their coffers. They truly don't give
a rat's ass about the environment other than the fact that it affects
their 'brand'. Yes, BP would like to stop the negative publicity but
their true and main concern is to have their cake AND eat it too. They
want to look good, but keep the oil as well.
They would like to make that naughty well pay for the clean-up.

And as far as that pinprick in the earth's crust is concerned? That's
like worrying about a hippo's bowels trying to ooze out through a
mosquito bite. BP uses a well-proven tactic by using fear so that the
population can applaud them when they finally triumph over this
leak...but they want to keep the oil too.

BP has only one motive. ONE only. It is called money. They will say,
do, promise anything with a straight face to get things their way, and
considering the political connections those oil people have, they have
a great pool of PR resources to draw from; the Republicans who have a
bit of experience in that (Iraq) sort of thing.

I wonder which BP department is busier these days. Public Relations or
Engineering.