Still don't believe he's a muslim?

"Kamikaze" is a fascinating word, shamman. It would have no import or meaning without understanding what happened during WWII that gave that word the meaning you now wish to convey ... the "meaning" that you earlier and stupidly tried to disavow, shamman. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It means 'divine wind'. It was originally used to name the typhoons that wiped out invading Mongol fleets commanded by Kublai Khan in the 13th century. It might not have import or meaning for US if not for ww2, but for the japanese, it would have meaning.

It means 'divine wind'. It was originally used to name the typhoons that wiped out invading Mongol fleets commanded by Kublai Khan in the 13th century. It might not have import or meaning for US if not for ww2, but for the japanese, it would have meaning. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

My remark was already amended before you made your post, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion. FYI, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion, perhaps it escaped your notice, and this is a point you no doubt unwittingly underscored, this is NOT a Japanese forum, and the word "kamikaze" would not have any meaning in this forum, as you unwittingly pointed out, without the characteristics that came to be ascribed to the word during WWII.

It means 'divine wind'. It was originally used to name the typhoons that wiped out invading Mongol fleets commanded by Kublai Khan in the 13th century. It might not have import or meaning for US if not for ww2, but for the japanese, it would have meaning. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Ahhhh I almost miss that guy. I put him on the ignore list. Now I almost can't go on without my daily dose of 50-100 "grubered odumbo minions" levied at me

Ahhhh I almost miss that guy. I put him on the ignore list. Now I almost can't go on without my daily dose of 50-100 "grubered odumbo minions" levied at me Originally Posted by shanm

You're either a liar or a masochist who enjoys being intellectually humiliated on a daily basis, shamman.

if gm was allowed to follow the normal course into managed bankruptcy, I dare say that not one needed manufacturing job would have been lost

secured bond holders would have either been paid off or become equity holders

what would have been different is, among other things:

the autoworkers union wouldn't have been elevated to ownership and security

the u.s. taxpayer wouldn't have lost money keeping the union secure

the new company would be stronger and with a better cost base

if gm was allowed to follow the normal course into managed bankruptcy, I dare say that not one needed manufacturing job would have been lost

secured bond holders would have either been paid off or become equity holders

what would have been different is, among other things:

the autoworkers union wouldn't have been elevated to ownership and security

the u.s. taxpayer wouldn't have lost money keeping the union secure

the new company would be stronger and with a better cost base Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You're talking with a lot of what if's and hypotheticals. Theres a difference between what you think would have happened and what would have actually happened. Unfortunately, we can't turn back the clock and redo it like an experiment. The only relevant case study we have is that of the Lehman Brothers. Similar size, similar assets, similar(bigger) economic impact. Going through bankruptcy did not help them or their industry in the slightest. They are no where to be found. Lucky for them they had several firms in the same industry to pick up the slack, unlike with GM and Chrysler.

whether gm would have survived as gm is really not the point, although I think they would have, that's the only thing I can remotely attribute any iffiness to...although never fear, I'm still looking for all my "lot of ifs and hypotheticals"

autos that are needed to be manufactured in the u.s. would still be

same number of needed jobs

law upheld

taxpayers protected

uaw? who cares, well Obama had to protect them, that's his democrat duty, use the power of government for political purposes

the net affect of what Obama did was, break the secured bondholders and using their money and money from the u.s. treasury, give it to the uaw

a lot of what if's and hypotheticals. Theres a difference between what you think would have happened and what would have actually happened. Unfortunately, we can't turn back the clock and redo it like an experiment.
Originally Posted by shanm

You're fucking hysterical, shamman. It hasn't been two days ago -- in this very same thread -- that all you were friggin' expounding was "what ifs" and "hypotheticals", shamman.

whether gm would have survived as gm is really not the point, although I think they would have, that's the only thing I can remotely attribute any iffiness to...although never fear, I'm still looking for all my "lot of ifs and hypotheticals"

autos that are needed to be manufactured in the u.s. would still be

same number of needed jobs

law upheld

taxpayers protected

uaw? who cares, well Obama had to protect them, that's his democrat duty Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Q:still looking for all my "lot of ifs and hypotheticals"

ANS: autos that are needed to be manufactured in the u.s. would still be

same number of needed jobs

law upheld

taxpayers protected

I think you answered your own question.
Considering that the Lehman brothers collapse only (harshly) intensified the 2008 crisis, and also considering that with the auto industry failure, we were in the midst of a terrible recession, I think its safe to say that what transpired and the eventual amazing recovery of the auto industry makes the actions of the government warranted and completely justified. Heres a link to a decent article comparing both the Lehman brother collapse and the auto industry bailout.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/bu...anted=all&_r=0

Q:still looking for all my "lot of ifs and hypotheticals"

ANS: autos that are needed to be manufactured in the u.s. would still be

same number of needed jobs

law upheld

taxpayers protected

I think you answered your own question.
Considering that the Lehman brothers collapse only (harshly) intensified the 2008 crisis, and also considering that with the auto industry failure, we were in the midst of a terrible recession, I think its safe to say that what transpired and the eventual amazing recovery of the auto industry makes the actions of the government warranted and completely justified. Heres a link to a decent article comparing both the Lehman brother collapse and the auto industry bailout.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/bu...anted=all&_r=0 Originally Posted by shanm

those aren't iffy

those aren't iffy Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

eh....subjective and to each his own, I guess. I, for one, am happy to be on the side with the actual successful outcome

If you need a further detailed look at the pros and cons start here:
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/...s/default.aspx

A successful outcome that screwed a lot of legitimate investors to provide benefits to Obama's cronies in the unions. The companies would not have failed. They would be in a much better position than what they are now, and the taxpayers would not have had to foot the bill for more election payoffs to Obama's pals.

It is not a lot of "what ifs" or conjecture. We have decades of bankruptcy law to rely on. We know EXACTLY what would have happened. ShamWow and Over Compensation, please don't take this as an insult. I mean solely as friendly constructive criticism. You're fucking idiots.

A successful outcome that screwed a lot of legitimate investors to provide benefits to Obama's cronies in the unions. The companies would not have failed. They would be in a much better position than what they are now, and the taxpayers would not have had to foot the bill for more election payoffs to Obama's pals.

It is not a lot of "what ifs" or conjecture. We have decades of bankruptcy law to rely on. We know EXACTLY what would have happened. ShamWow and Over Compensation, please don't take this as an insult. I mean solely as friendly constructive criticism. You're fucking idiots. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Sure bud, whatever you say. I'm sure you know better than the economic analysts who worked on the situation, considered both positives and negatives, highs and lows and ultimately supported Obama in making the decision.

And considering that 90% of the investment was recovered, I wouldn't say the taxpayers had to fund a useless investment. You know, like another middle-east war yall are "Hankering" for.

"How much did taxpayers lose in Obama’s GM bailout?

Investors Business Daily does the math on the GM bailout.
Excerpt:

Sale of the U.S. government’s stake in General Motors Corp. ends a sorry saga. Not only were Americans lied to about the costs, but the bailout underscores why replacing market forces with federal bailouts doesn’t work.
The Obama administration says it will unload 200 million shares — or about 40% of its holdings — back to GM right away. The rest, 300 million shares, are to be sold by March 2014.
[…]Well, GM on Wednesday said it will buy back the 200 million share government stake for $5.5 billion, or $27.50 a share.
The break-even point on the government’s total holdings was $53 a share. But now, with $20.9 billion in taxpayer funds left to pay off from 300 million shares, the break-even point has risen to $69.72 a share.
In other words, at current prices, taxpayers are sitting with a loss of 61%, or nearly $15 billion, on their investment.

So where did the money go, then?

According to a study last summer by the Heritage Foundation, the $80 billion auto bailout gave the UAW and its members nearly $27 billion due to the fact that GM couldn’t shed its outrageously expensive labor contracts, something it could have done in a normal bankruptcy.
As such, Obama didn’t bail out the auto industry; he bailed out the unions. Without the unions’ added costs, taxpayers would have owed nothing.
It’s not hard to see how this happened. The UAW and its affiliates give tens of millions of dollars each election cycle, almost entirely to Democrats.
This union influence explains why Obama’s auto czars, Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom, arranged a government bankruptcy for GM that flew in the face of hundreds of years of bankruptcy law and violated investor rights.
Bondholders took huge losses, while unions got a big chunk of ownership in GM stock that they weren’t legally entitled to.
In a shocking display of favoritism and blatant unfairness, GM’s union workers kept their pensions, while nonunion workers at GM spin-off Delphi lost theirs.

Those unions paid Obama back by working hard to get him re-elected. That’s how socialism works"

heres info on the bondholders

"How did bondholders lose almost all of their $30 billion, too?"

"Here's what we do know about where the money went... Bondholders got 10% of the new GM – about $4 billion worth of stock at the time of the IPO. However, they weren't allowed to sell until much later, so that value dropped about one-third by the time they could have actually liquidated. Thus, bondholders ended up getting about 10 cents on the dollar. The unions, on the other hand, got paid 100% of the pension liability – about $10 billion, which was simply passed onto the new GM and has now grown to $13 billion."

You're either a liar or a masochist who enjoys being intellectually humiliated on a daily basis, shamman.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's not either/or. The guy has already proven himself to be BOTH.

....Or is "Hi, I haven't met you before, but we seem to have conflicting view points. Could you please explain what you meant by..." is that too civil for you? Originally Posted by shanm

Wow, wouldya lookie at that! Shammynoob (145 posts) is giving pointers in civility to a guy who has over 23,000 posts! Here is a shining example of Shammytard's good manners and "civil" posting etiquette:

^ Shut up cocksucker Originally Posted by shanm