Rangerland Forum Information

[leetchie69]

The GOP nomination is over now, right?

Lock it up!

The nomination and this thread!!

[Sed]

The GOP nomination is over now, right?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

[Alitaki]

Leedsy's post made me look it up and unbeknownst to me, NY State decriminalized marijuana back in 1977 for amounts less than 25 grams. What's that? One joint? I wonder how many of those arrests could have simply been a fine.

According to some of the sources I read which were pro-legalization so I opted not to use it, a lot of arrested were made for "possession in public" after they were stopped and asked to turn out their pockets - apparently the decriminalization doesn't apply for having it/smoking it in public view.

Yeah I saw that smoking it in public takes it up a notch to some months in jail (stupid if you ask me, but I get it) but having it in your pocket too? That's the whole point of decriminalizing it no? That if you're stopped and found to have a small amount for personal use it's a fine and not an arrest. Otherwise the scope is limited to what? Finding it in your home? If the cops are searching your home I would imagine you have bigger problems to worry about than a small amount of weed.

[leedsy99]

That is correct. 25 grams is a lot to just be carrying around on you. At that point its usually possession with intent to sell.

No, it's not. In New York, possession of 25 grams amounts to a B misdemeanor. If you actually sold that amount to a police officer (which isn't the same as intent to sell), it would only be an A misdemeanor. I'd agree that it's a lot to be carrying around with you, but it's still under an ounce. Not that I would know such things, but I imagine that an ounce of pot is the party equivalent of having a case of beer.

Edit: I have to correct this. 25 grams is not a misdemeanor, it's a violation. You have to be over 25 to be a crime.

To answer Kusand's post about how nearly 50% of all marihuana arrests are for possession, and I can only speak for the law in New York State, as I say above 25 grams is a lot of marihuana to have on one's person. If caught, your charge will be a criminal violation not punishable with any incarceration. Most violators are not taken into custody, but rather given appearance tickets. In addition, regarding stats, there are proof issues differentiating possession from sale. If you are caught with a pound of marihuana, the possession aspect is easy proof but (unless you sell directly to a credible witness) proof of intent to sell requires a great deal of other evidence to make a case. I would also be curious to know the criminal history of those incarcerated under the stats, as there is a difference between a frequent offender catching a charge and your average citizen.

This post has been edited by leedsy99: Apr 25 2012, 03:03 PM

[Rocha]

That is correct. 25 grams is a lot to just be carrying around on you. At that point its usually possession with intent to sell.

No, it's not. In New York, possession of 25 grams amounts to a B misdemeanor. If you actually sold that amount to a police officer (which isn't the same as intent to sell), it would only be an A misdemeanor. I'd agree that it's a lot to be carrying around with you, but it's still under an ounce. Not that I would know such things, but I imagine that an ounce of pot is the party equivalent of having a case of beer.

More like a keg. So to allow up to an ounce to be carried around is suitably lenient.

[Mike B.]

To answer Kusand's post about how nearly 50% of all marihuana arrests are for possession, and I can only speak for the law in New York State, as I say above 25 grams is a lot of marihuana to have on one's person. If caught, your charge will be a criminal violation not punishable with any incarceration. Most violators are not taken into custody, but rather given appearance tickets. In addition, regarding stats, there are proof issues differentiating possession from sale. If you are caught with a pound of marihuana, the possession aspect is easy proof but (unless you sell directly to a credible witness) proof of intent to sell requires a great deal of other evidence to make a case. I would also be curious to know the criminal history of those incarcerated under the stats, as there is a difference between a frequent offender catching a charge and your average citizen.

Señor Leeds, checking in from his covert op in Juarez.

[xcdudesquadloves...]

That is correct. 25 grams is a lot to just be carrying around on you. At that point its usually possession with intent to sell.

No, it's not. In New York, possession of 25 grams amounts to a B misdemeanor. If you actually sold that amount to a police officer (which isn't the same as intent to sell), it would only be an A misdemeanor. I'd agree that it's a lot to be carrying around with you, but it's still under an ounce. Not that I would know such things, but I imagine that an ounce of pot is the party equivalent of having a case of beer.

Edit: I have to correct this. 25 grams is not a misdemeanor, it's a violation. You have to be over 25 to be a crime.

I'm thinking of NJ laws which are much stricter. Simple possession is up to 50 grams, which can result in a max fine of 1 grand or 6 months in jail, but is only considered a "disorderly person" crime (I'm assuming a misdemeanor). Possession over 50 grams is automatically a felony.

If you are convicted with under an ounce with intent to sell its automatically a felony as well. I've never had friends just carry around an ounce with them without the intent to sell, which is where my comment came from. Its a lot of weed 25 grams to just have on you, but you're right it takes a lot to make it intent to sell (baggies a scale or some other paraphernalia).

EDIT Source: http://norml.org/laws/penalties/item/new-jersey-penalties-2

This post has been edited by xcdudesquadloves91!!!: Apr 25 2012, 03:34 PM

[teddyc]

To answer Kusand's post about how nearly 50% of all marihuana arrests are for possession, and I can only speak for the law in New York State, as I say above 25 grams is a lot of marihuana to have on one's person. If caught, your charge will be a criminal violation not punishable with any incarceration. Most violators are not taken into custody, but rather given appearance tickets. In addition, regarding stats, there are proof issues differentiating possession from sale. If you are caught with a pound of marihuana, the possession aspect is easy proof but (unless you sell directly to a credible witness) proof of intent to sell requires a great deal of other evidence to make a case. I would also be curious to know the criminal history of those incarcerated under the stats, as there is a difference between a frequent offender catching a charge and your average citizen.

Señor Leeds, checking in from his covert op in Juarez.

He calls it....Mary Hane

[leetchie69]

Mara-joo-wanna.

[Hockey101]

Wouldn't it be Mari-joo-wanna?

[leetchie69]

Wouldn't it be Mari-joo-wanna?

Tomato<------>To-ma-toe

[Hockey101]

Jon Lovitz for PRESIDENT!!!!

[Ebase]

That is correct. 25 grams is a lot to just be carrying around on you. At that point its usually possession with intent to sell.

No, it's not. In New York, possession of 25 grams amounts to a B misdemeanor. If you actually sold that amount to a police officer (which isn't the same as intent to sell), it would only be an A misdemeanor. I'd agree that it's a lot to be carrying around with you, but it's still under an ounce. Not that I would know such things, but I imagine that an ounce of pot is the party equivalent of having a case of beer.

Edit: I have to correct this. 25 grams is not a misdemeanor, it's a violation. You have to be over 25 to be a crime.

I'm thinking of NJ laws which are much stricter. Simple possession is up to 50 grams, which can result in a max fine of 1 grand or 6 months in jail, but is only considered a "disorderly person" crime (I'm assuming a misdemeanor). Possession over 50 grams is automatically a felony.

If you are convicted with under an ounce with intent to sell its automatically a felony as well. I've never had friends just carry around an ounce with them without the intent to sell, which is where my comment came from. Its a lot of weed 25 grams to just have on you, but you're right it takes a lot to make it intent to sell (baggies a scale or some other paraphernalia).

EDIT Source: http://norml.org/laws/penalties/item/new-jersey-penalties-2

In N. California marijuana has been decriminalized for personal consumption and as a result, society didn't collapse in a pit of lawlessness and depravity.

I don't partake any longer but those laws are just ridiculous. It is written under archaic thinkings about what happens to people should they consume such evil substances. But no one who lives in a centrist or moral right state has the balls to implement legistlation that addresses this stupidity.

In N. California we are a progressive enough society to address social issues and make changes as the world evolves. It is the the polar opposite of much of the bible belt where things like dancing and women's rights were foreign concepts in the not too distant past.

If the Republicans would free themselves of the moral right and allow the libertarian principles of the true right to rein supreme then all societies would evolve according to their own values and desires. Instead we have right wing social engineering attempting to implement a moral code that feels Orwellian.

Almost more then their economic policy their social policies are an international embarrassment amongst the 1st world.

[LisaLisa]

Well not just to stop the uber rich but address the tax reform code in general.

Tax pot/legal gambling and deficit will reduce real quick!

AND legalize the sex/prostitution industry.

[Ebase]

AND legalize the sex/prostitution industry.

…just don't see it as the government making a profit off of the industry in the form of taxation.

I am for this with regulation. The sex/prostitution industry has a large industrial complex behind it. Women in the Netherlands are being brought in under false pretenses more and more from Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe with the promise of job opportunities. As such a criminal underground is working as an acquisition service for the legitimate red-light district. The Netherlands has forced quite a bit of brothels out of business and prosecuted a lot of people trying to get this under control. So it has its issues.

It is important that if you're are going to tax and regulate the sex and prostitution industry it isn't a for profit industry. The Netherlands has utilized the tax money directly for the purposes of protection, regulation, worker's health, prosecution, and anything else that can-will creep into the industry.

The result is a zero sum gain with one advantage: prostitution is an industry that puts at risk many women and is impossible to eradicate, and so you are taking measures to protect women and men from the horrible downside that can occur. Its a public service. Socialized no less.

And that to me is why it should be legal and protected. But not for any other reason.

But perhaps we should just let the free market decide what should happen here???

Certain measures like producing privacy lots have been used in some places in Asia. Basically, when someone picks up a prostitute she will be in front of a drive in center. Your vehicle is then driven into one of these 3-wall privacy booths and services are rendered. The women carry a panic button with them. They pay a nominal fixed rate for the protection services and the John pays a "toll" to drive in with guaranteed anonymity assuming the law is upheld. Women are kept safe, free to practice their trade and the money collected in entrance fees is used to provide health care.

[Ebase]

Aren't we ready to lock this and create a general election thread?

[jkman61494]

Can someone tell me why having Mitt Romney go on stage with Christine O'Donnell was a good idea? Oy vay. I should be thanking him but my goodness, couldn't they think of ANY other Tea Party person?!

[Ebase]

Can someone tell me why having Mitt Romney go on stage with Christine O'Donnell was a good idea? Oy vay. I should be thanking him but my goodness, couldn't they think of ANY other Tea Party person?!

Because there is still is a huge swath of social conservatives who believe her to be a rising star in the party. These are also the same people who are the skid mark stain of the GOP underground that values anti-intellectualism as a desirable trait.

Whether or not Romney actually likes it, he needs these people to come out and pull levers for him. So I am sure somewhere in Romney's mind he has got to be sitting there thinking, "I can't believe I need to kiss up to these friggin empty nests in order to win."

Romney must do everything he can to get street cred with these folks. O'Donnell is the perfect person for this. She is one of those people that are thought of as being unfairly assassinated by the liberal media. And when he stands there next to this empty vessel she can paint him as the man that will take on the liberal media bias. And that makes those people cum in their pants.

Other than that? She is a tool.

[Hockey101]

Ebase said it well enough.

I think Romney is actually doing a heck of a job talking to all of these key GOP figures and unite them together to support him. Even Bachmann tonight on Greta some some nice things about Romney (though she never had an issue with him, only on the healthcare, but otherwise she didn't hate him as much as she hated Santorum).

He is talking to the NE political figures. He did the midwest. He is trying to unite and that's what McCain did not do. McCain was like "ok...so...me me me me....i i i i .....shoot we need a conservative....who? Sara who? Palin? Alaska? She's hot? Ok."

What is really looking important is the VP pick and i can see why, actually. It's possible that the VP pick will be the future runner up for the GOP. Not 100% sure, but it is probable. It's not easy to pick one. I mean, you have all these people nowadays saying "Nope, it's not me, i am not interested". I can see why, from a strategic standpoint (even Biden guaranteed saying "I'm not the guy"), but it gets annoying.

Still, i think i am giving myself a pat on the back. Some time ago (i am sure in this thread too) i said that my advice to the Obama campaign would be to pull a 2004 Bush and go with foreign policy and avoid the economy. Well well well!!!! I wish i could so get into politics, but....too friggin dirty. Anyway, this is an excellent move by Obama. I mean, there are some factors that can work against him, but Bin Laden is out, the terrorist networks appear to be getting weaker. We've been safe (albeit got lucky with one attempt over Detroit in Christmas day, i believe), but there are a lot of things to campaign on in regards to foreign policy. And, of course, you do not want to have a ME attitude in regards to what this nation has accomplished against terrorism. Unfortunately i think Obama did a mistake in mentioning it too much frequently (it is perceived as gloating) and the ad asking if Romney would have ever said YES to killing Bin Laden was just ridiculous. They can't make these obnoxious and arrogant errors when executing such a smart political plan. But anyway, Romney does not have much of an experience on foreign policy. So, this kinda changes the game. Before it was going after a VP who is very bright, smart on the economy, and so on. Well, now foreign policy plays a factor, and like i said (and yes, maybe in this thread too) long time ago that i would love to see Condi Rice as a VP candidate. And all of the sudden her name surfaces. I don't think she will. She is a professor and probably that's a better job than going back in the White House, but hopefully she would listen to Mitt if he ever wants to talk to her. And no, this has nothing to do because she is black and a woman. I just love her experience and her intelligence is brilliant. This woman accomplished so much to build this.....bottomless well of knowledge. She was probably my favorite person in the Bush years. She was just smarter than everyone in that administration.

But anyway, it's going to be interesting how things shape out now. The VP person seems to be a big deal this year. Was it ever like this years prior? I can't know since i've really looked at politics since 9/11. I don't recall much about VP choices in prior elections. Any older people on here remember of such?

[Nilan 666]

The only reason this is interesting is because of what a disaster Palin was. Other than that the VP pick probably won't mean nearly as much as most of the political class likes to think.

[Hockey101]

The only reason this is interesting is because of what a disaster Palin was. Other than that the VP pick probably won't mean nearly as much as most of the political class likes to think.

Or the media is just making a big hype about it too.

[Nilan 666]

That's what McCain wanted. Just not how he wanted it.

[Ebase]

The only reason this is interesting is because of what a disaster Palin was. Other than that the VP pick probably won't mean nearly as much as most of the political class likes to think.

Or the media is just making a big hype about it too.

…or there is still a huge fracture in the party regarding Romney. He is trying to reinvent himself as a true conservative even though history shows otherwise.

Therefore, the GOP is looking for a running mate who is capable of solidifying the masses behind Romney.

Someone who can appeal to:

social conservatives
tea-party zealots
independent women
& minorities

These are demographics that Romney has big issues with. The GOP has become much more dynamic in recent cycles. Its become interesting. There is a tremendous dissatisfaction with Romney. And his Veep selection will be every bit as important as counting on masses to pull the lever for Romney simply based on their hatred of Obama.

Still, i think i am giving myself a pat on the back. Some time ago (i am sure in this thread too) i said that my advice to the Obama campaign would be to pull a 2004 Bush and go with foreign policy and avoid the economy. Well well well!!!! I wish i could so get into politics, but....too friggin dirty. Anyway, this is an excellent move by Obama.

Obama is trying to get some mileage out of the Bin Laden thing but the issues about the economy are still so strong in Americans mind he will soon have to pivot out of it.

If anything the GOP tactic that is being run right now of running ads about Obama bowing to Saudi kings and painting him as someone who doesn't believe in American Exceptionalism shows how the GOP is trying to white-wash Obama's Bin=Laden card.

This post has been edited by Ebase: May 4 2012, 12:22 PM

[Hockey101]

Enough with the huge fracture within the party. Every Republican out there is set to vote Obama out at all costs. The base is already energized for that.

Obama overplayed his card with Bin Laden's face on it. National security could be such a huge positive for him and the arrogance in his campaign decided to get cocky with it. What idiots. Poor advices to gloat about this issue. And to slam Romney if he would have said yes or no was the killer. I still think it can still be revisited and planned properly in debates and ads, but right now it's not even touchable. I hope he fired the idiot that designed that ad.

The economy is the nagging issue for him, and the best way to tackle it would be to show optimism, faith, always be positive, and use the "we" factor. "We're going to get through this, we're trying, keep the faith". You can't mention ideas and proposals, at least not many and not frequently. So far the first ideas haven't satisfied the public because they haven't worked that well, or actually not really worked. He has to be very careful in the kind of message that he wants to give to the American people. You don't want to look like a politician handing out destined unfulfilled promises to specific groups of people. It will look cheap and makes a politician look desperate to "buy" votes.

[Ebase]

Enough with the huge fracture within the party. Every Republican out there is set to vote Obama out at all costs. The base is already energized for that.

Obama overplayed his card with Bin Laden's face on it. National security could be such a huge positive for him and the arrogance in his campaign decided to get cocky with it. What idiots. Poor advices to gloat about this issue. And to slam Romney if he would have said yes or no was the killer. I still think it can still be revisited and planned properly in debates and ads, but right now it's not even touchable. I hope he fired the idiot that designed that ad.

The economy is the nagging issue for him, and the best way to tackle it would be to show optimism, faith, always be positive, and use the "we" factor. "We're going to get through this, we're trying, keep the faith". You can't mention ideas and proposals, at least not many and not frequently. So far the first ideas haven't satisfied the public because they haven't worked that well, or actually not really worked. He has to be very careful in the kind of message that he wants to give to the American people. You don't want to look like a politician handing out destined unfulfilled promises to specific groups of people. It will look cheap and makes a politician look desperate to "buy" votes.

This is overstated. You forget that some of the hype is not just political. It is an anniversary of the end of the arch enemy of America.

Obama has played the card but I don't see it as over played. I do think it was a mistake to question whether Romney would do it. But I think Romney shit the bed and made a total mistake with the "Carter" comment.

Yesterday and today, Obama has been razor sharp on the economy everywhere he has been stumping. And of course some of this is reaction to the jobs report.

As far as a fracture? Yes, there is… Romney does not have a unified party YET.

[jkman61494]

Here is another question? Why on earth is Romney and the GOP running on a platform that Barack Obama is the one trying to divide us?

I know that the vast majority of voters are uninformed (I'm being kind on this term). But the fact is, the Democrats should have countless audio and video bits waiting in the vaults to debunk this and make the Republicans look stupid.

From McConnell going on record numerous times that the top legislative agenda was to defeat Barack Obama, to other Republicans going on record that they won't agree to any compromises because they won't help him get re-elected, to the countless times Barack Obama has publicly spoken about the need to compromise, I can't fathom that this is a winning strategy.

Also found it funny how Romney is going on about how we need to create 500,000 jobs per month...not 150,000. Great stats I saw.

In the past 600 months (50 years), we have seen 500,000 jobs created in a month only 16 times. 13 out of those 16 occurrences, a Democrat was President.


Another interesting talking point I see is how Obama is creating so many government and public service jobs. During the Bush Presidency, we saw over 1.5 million public sector jobs created. Since 2009? There has been a loss of over 600,000.

[Ebase]

Another interesting talking point I see is how Obama is creating so many government and public service jobs. During the Bush Presidency, we saw over 1.5 million public sector jobs created. Since 2009? There has been a loss of over 600,000.

Facts never matter in politics. In this particular construct, it's off narrative. President Obama is a socialist and therefore if he shrunk the government that doesn't make sense.

Remember that part of the rural GOP voters issues with Obama include a tacit racism, xenophobia, and antiintellectualism (educated by what they see as socialist indoctrinating universities.)

And so making the President equal socialism is VERY important to the narrative.

Personally, I hate it. I think the president can be slammed for his handling of many events but this type of stuff infuriates me. The constant smile and wink attitude when people decree him as a Muslim, a foreigner, an illegitimate president etc...

I have said it before re: McCain. I think he was the wrong guy against Obama but the way he went and defended Obama against these nut jobs always spoke volumes to me. That wasn't politics to him, that was something ugly and he spent time in town halls defending Obama. That was class. And you notice that Santorum just let that fire fan itself with a smile.

To me, these people are a tumor on America.

However, these people are a large swath of the GOP base and they pull levers.

[jkman61494]

I pretty much agree with you Ebase, but I want to just try and be objective here, even though I'm a big Obama supporter.

While they are a tumor (and I think even some intelligent Republicans would agree with that), I think a big "tumor" period is just the incredible amount of people that pull levers that have absolutely no idea about politics and generally how our government works.

I can concede a good amount of 2008 voters simply voted for Barack Obama because he was "cool". Same for Bush. Yet they have no idea about checks and balances much less a politician's policies. I see it so much in Pennsylvania. People voted for Tom Corbett because it was "cool", that we needed to wash away anything involving Ed Rendell, even though he did a lot of good for the state (and some bad).

But now people hate Tom Corbett. Why? Cutting mental health funding by $150 million. Cutting public education by 12%. Cutting higher ed funding by over $300 million the past 2 years. Supporting oil drilling on state park lands. Refusing to tax natural gas industries. Spending $11 million on a voter ID bill.

Yet, Corbett did not hide the fact that these were his initiatives during his campaign. People just ignored it.

[Ebase]

But now people hate Tom Corbett. Why? Cutting mental health funding by $150 million. Cutting public education by 12%. Cutting higher ed funding by over $300 million the past 2 years. Supporting oil drilling on state park lands. Refusing to tax natural gas industries. Spending $11 million on a voter ID bill.

Yet, Corbett did not hide the fact that these were his initiatives during his campaign. People just ignored it.

...so in essence he is a modern day Republican. Not a Reagan Republican.

[jkman61494]

Absolutely. But like many of the Tea Parties that won in 2010, people didn't check out their platform.

[Hockey101]

Enough with the huge fracture within the party. Every Republican out there is set to vote Obama out at all costs. The base is already energized for that.

Obama overplayed his card with Bin Laden's face on it. National security could be such a huge positive for him and the arrogance in his campaign decided to get cocky with it. What idiots. Poor advices to gloat about this issue. And to slam Romney if he would have said yes or no was the killer. I still think it can still be revisited and planned properly in debates and ads, but right now it's not even touchable. I hope he fired the idiot that designed that ad.

The economy is the nagging issue for him, and the best way to tackle it would be to show optimism, faith, always be positive, and use the "we" factor. "We're going to get through this, we're trying, keep the faith". You can't mention ideas and proposals, at least not many and not frequently. So far the first ideas haven't satisfied the public because they haven't worked that well, or actually not really worked. He has to be very careful in the kind of message that he wants to give to the American people. You don't want to look like a politician handing out destined unfulfilled promises to specific groups of people. It will look cheap and makes a politician look desperate to "buy" votes.

This is overstated. You forget that some of the hype is not just political. It is an anniversary of the end of the arch enemy of America.

Obama has played the card but I don't see it as over played. I do think it was a mistake to question whether Romney would do it. But I think Romney shit the bed and made a total mistake with the "Carter" comment.

Yesterday and today, Obama has been razor sharp on the economy everywhere he has been stumping. And of course some of this is reaction to the jobs report.

As far as a fracture? Yes, there is… Romney does not have a unified party YET.

I disagree. Obama, and again he gloated in his """official campaign kick off""", is mentioning UBL too much. Save that for later if anything. He already had his speech about it in Afghanistan. Don't mention it again soon after. But so far interviewed Navy Seals are not happy with how Obama appeared to be patting himself on the back too much for this. He overplayed it and if his campaign was not so arrogant he would be doing the right thing and use this strategically at the right times. He has a story to tell on this event. Don't gloat about it. Use it effectively.

Carter comment? Who cares...

Razor sharp on the economy? What's there to be razor sharp about when the numbers that just came out are awful and our labor force continues to shrink? He can't be razor sharp on the economy because there's nothing really positive to say about it. The message has to be supportive with a "i feel you, but let's battle this together, we'll get through it together" emotion.

And no...you are too much into this fracture in the GOP. Once things kick off in fluidity the whole GOP will land punches. Be they moderates, "established", conservative/libetarian-wise, or religious conservative. Republicans are ready to team up and win this year.

[leetchie69]

Romney trying to take credit for something he said should fail is not helping his cause......

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1

[Hockey101]

GM and Chrysler should have fired for bankruptcy. I regret my stance four years ago saying that GM must have been saved by the government, but according to reports of the results that GM would have had if they filed for bankruptcy it would have worked out fairly well and the taxpayers' would not have paid billions.

Chrysler would have been bought by FIAT anyway, or another car maker.

Ford did what exactly GM should have done. Said no to government money. Change management top to bottom, and revamp its vehicle line-up with actual quality cars. Ford has been magnificent since then. They are the proof that we should not have bailed out GM. GM should have been left to fail.

[Beamer]

Ford had also taken precautions to avoid needing a bailout that GM had not. GM would have failed.


The US will profit off of the bail out, just like it has off of TARP.

[Hockey101]

Ford had also taken precautions to avoid needing a bailout that GM had not. GM would have failed.


The US will profit off of the bail out, just like it has off of TARP.

What precautions? I mean, Ford's main advantage is that its expenditures were not nearly as high as GMs. Ford also sold other brands, which they were killing, and took in a lot of cash. GM's poor management just sat back and decided to go for the government bailout. This was really driven by the union and hierarchy of management. But if GM went through a full process of Chapter 11 and taking advantage of 363 of Chapter 11 (it allows a company freedom from financial commitments, obligations) it could have been just as fine without taking bailout money.

The issue is that GM had the resources to go through bankruptcy from start to finish, and come out of it by itself. In the few car threads that we have on here, from some years ago, you can find my comments on how GM will come out strong and that the bailout had to happen, and that Ford was DONE. I had Ford as "the beginning of the end". And i was wrong. Right now it's Ford making the right moves, and GM is making some right moves, and some wrong ones. I hate being wrong on anything that is economic related, but i concede here. Back then if i read that Romney piece that you posted i would have disagreed.

GM should have gone through bankruptcy. It would still be here today and possibly even better just as Chrysler and Ford are.

This post has been edited by Hockey101: May 8 2012, 10:43 AM

[jkman61494]

Another moderate Republican in Dick Lugar is about to bite the dust today.

Even Republican commentators in CNN are really upset by this because he was one of the last Republicans left who has been open to negotiating and compromise on important issues. Now, another Tea Party person will be a member of the Senate.

[Ebase]

Ford had also taken precautions to avoid needing a bailout that GM had not. GM would have failed.


The US will profit off of the bail out, just like it has off of TARP.

What precautions? I mean, Ford's main advantage is that its expenditures were not nearly as high as GMs. Ford also sold other brands, which they were killing, and took in a lot of cash. GM's poor management just sat back and decided to go for the government bailout. This was really driven by the union and hierarchy of management. But if GM went through a full process of Chapter 11 and taking advantage of 363 of Chapter 11 (it allows a company freedom from financial commitments, obligations) it could have been just as fine without taking bailout money.

The issue is that GM had the resources to go through bankruptcy from start to finish, and come out of it by itself. In the few car threads that we have on here, from some years ago, you can find my comments on how GM will come out strong and that the bailout had to happen, and that Ford was DONE. I had Ford as "the beginning of the end". And i was wrong. Right now it's Ford making the right moves, and GM is making some right moves, and some wrong ones. I hate being wrong on anything that is economic related, but i concede here. Back then if i read that Romney piece that you posted i would have disagreed.

GM should have gone through bankruptcy. It would still be here today and possibly even better just as Chrysler and Ford are.

I think its easy to Monday Morning QB the whole GM thing but the biggest unknown was not the company but its domino effect. For starters, GM ran a shitty business model. And everyone knows this. And as we go down the line the real unknown here is what the effect of GM's fail really would have been. Keep in mind the economy was on the precipice of failure and should GM collapse (not just their car products but their soft industries,) dumped and restructured there probably wouldn't have been 2-million more people out of work (that was extreme) but it would have hurt pretty badly.

I personally in hindsight think GM probably should have failed and allowed to go thru bankruptcy but I don't think that was the economic climate at the time. And I think that is why the bailouts receive a certain amount of leeway. But its too easy to go back and say, "oh, that wouldn't have hurt anything" or some of the other political silliness that was occurring at the time. Rome was burning and there was straight panic. From the business community, to the financial, political, and manufacturing things were becoming like an economic disaster perfect storm.

And one thing that is quickly overlooked by Romney: Politics. Romney is easily able to look at it as a business problem. Obama like most politicians have to look at this as a political problem as well.

I think GM should have gone thru bankruptcy knowing what we do know now. But we didn't at the time.

[Beamer]

Ford mortgaged itself in 2006. It put up almost 100% of its assets, from plants to office space to spare parts to unfinished inventory, and took out a $25.6 billion dollar line of credit. This line of credit is what kept it afloat. GM and Chrysler did no such thing prior to the economic meltdown and doing so was an impossibility afterwards.


"Bailout" is such a dirty word with republicans, and it's weird to me. Their stance is usually "well, I mean, the outcome was good, but it wasn't necessary." How do you know it wasn't necessary? And what harm came from the bailout? Chrysler and GM cleaned house, like Ford did a few years prior, and really started changing how they design cars, like Ford did a few years prior. And Chrysler has repaid all the money! Chrysler and GM both got bailed out and both still had to declare bankruptcy. The odds of them both surviving without doing both those things is slim to none. But hey, who really needs US auto companies, right UK?

[jkman61494]

I just think it's kind of sad that Romney is already having to use the GOP playbook of "lie enough times until people believe you". I'm not blind to the fact EVERY political party does this, but in the past several election cycles, the GOP, or should I say the far right have continuously stooped to new lows.

For all the talk about John McCain being a decent guy by having the amazing "courage" to tell people Barack Obama is actually an American, he was the same guy that endorsed an ad that attacked Barack Obama for supporting sex education for kindergartners. What did then Senator Obama support? Small funding for a "good touch/bad touch" program so children could know if adults were doing something bad.

I can personally tell you the Obama campaign did no such thing in 2008, and I hope they don't do it again in 2012. It just sucks that you have to go against a political party that can't talk about a single solution that doesn't revolve around cutting taxes to the rich, eliminating jobs, getting "tough" on Iran, or just baselessly lying about everything else.

[Hockey101]

Another moderate Republican in Dick Lugar is about to bite the dust today.

Even Republican commentators in CNN are really upset by this because he was one of the last Republicans left who has been open to negotiating and compromise on important issues. Now, another Tea Party person will be a member of the Senate.

Who were those Republican commentators? Lugar has been too long in DC. He has been part of the problem. The guy has been a closet liberal anyway. Too involved with NARAL.

[Hockey101]

Ford had also taken precautions to avoid needing a bailout that GM had not. GM would have failed.


The US will profit off of the bail out, just like it has off of TARP.

What precautions? I mean, Ford's main advantage is that its expenditures were not nearly as high as GMs. Ford also sold other brands, which they were killing, and took in a lot of cash. GM's poor management just sat back and decided to go for the government bailout. This was really driven by the union and hierarchy of management. But if GM went through a full process of Chapter 11 and taking advantage of 363 of Chapter 11 (it allows a company freedom from financial commitments, obligations) it could have been just as fine without taking bailout money.

The issue is that GM had the resources to go through bankruptcy from start to finish, and come out of it by itself. In the few car threads that we have on here, from some years ago, you can find my comments on how GM will come out strong and that the bailout had to happen, and that Ford was DONE. I had Ford as "the beginning of the end". And i was wrong. Right now it's Ford making the right moves, and GM is making some right moves, and some wrong ones. I hate being wrong on anything that is economic related, but i concede here. Back then if i read that Romney piece that you posted i would have disagreed.

GM should have gone through bankruptcy. It would still be here today and possibly even better just as Chrysler and Ford are.

I think its easy to Monday Morning QB the whole GM thing but the biggest unknown was not the company but its domino effect. For starters, GM ran a shitty business model. And everyone knows this. And as we go down the line the real unknown here is what the effect of GM's fail really would have been. Keep in mind the economy was on the precipice of failure and should GM collapse (not just their car products but their soft industries,) dumped and restructured there probably wouldn't have been 2-million more people out of work (that was extreme) but it would have hurt pretty badly.

I personally in hindsight think GM probably should have failed and allowed to go thru bankruptcy but I don't think that was the economic climate at the time. And I think that is why the bailouts receive a certain amount of leeway. But its too easy to go back and say, "oh, that wouldn't have hurt anything" or some of the other political silliness that was occurring at the time. Rome was burning and there was straight panic. From the business community, to the financial, political, and manufacturing things were becoming like an economic disaster perfect storm.

And one thing that is quickly overlooked by Romney: Politics. Romney is easily able to look at it as a business problem. Obama like most politicians have to look at this as a political problem as well.

I think GM should have gone thru bankruptcy knowing what we do know now. But we didn't at the time.

Fairly put. We panicked. But, Bush started the bailout as well, not Obama. I think we all panicked and gave in thinking we needed to save this and that. What we did not know back then was the further spending and another bailout that was needed, which was done too soon by Obama. I think if we look back at certain companies going fully through bankruptcies that you will find the number of lost jobs not being much different than the lost jobs through a "bankruptcy filing" but bailed out by government as GM did. I know we gave out some money to the airline industry after 9/11, but that was due to 9/11 for the most part, not by terrible management. But, i think it was US Airways that went through a full on Chapter 11 process a few years after that 2001 government bailout and after mergers and going through some very unpopular cost cutting moves, you now see US Airways maybe taking over AA.

I think one government bailout can be acceptable when times are desperate for a string of companies in the same industry. But a soon-after bailout? It should never be considered.

[Dunc]

A few words from Vest Man, via Andy Borowitz...

http://www.borowitzreport.com/


The following open letter to America was published today by former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum:

My Fellow Americans:

I am writing to you today to endorse Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Now, some of you may recall that during the campaign, I took a slightly different position on Mitt Romney. In fact, I said that Mitt Romney was the worst person in America to run against Barack Obama for President. Well, there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind. In fact, as Mitt Romney himself has proved, changing your mind is the surest path to the Republican nomination. LOL.

Why do I no longer think Mitt Romney is the worst person to run for President? Well, I started thinking about that Jet Blue pilot who went off his nut a few weeks ago and had to be tackled by passengers. That dude would definitely be a worse person to run for President than Mitt Romney. Say what you will about Mitt Romney and how he made his fortune by putting thousands of people out of work and how he invented Obamacare before Obama did and all, he has never jeopardized the lives of people on an airplane (that I know of). That is probably because he flies everywhere on a private jet, staffed entirely by undocumented workers.

I also started thinking about Michael Vick. He was involved in some of the most despicable acts in recent memory, involving the deaths of multiple dogs. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has only endangered the life of one dog, his own, and he didn’t actually kill the dog, he just literally scared the shit out of it. So if you compare Mitt Romney to someone who has actually been responsible for the killing of dogs and not just scaring them to death, I would have to say Michael Vick would be slightly worse than him (although in some ways slightly better, since Michael Vick did not create Obamacare or have gays on his staff).

In conclusion, my fellow Americans, Mitt Romney is a total douche. No one’s arguing that he isn’t. But if you compare him to either the insane Jet Blue guy or a heartless dog-killer like Michael Vick, Mitt Romney is no longer the worst person in America to run for President. I should add, however, that if anything should happen to Mitt Romney between now and November, such as him getting trapped in his Swiss bank vault with all his ill-gotten money and tragically suffocating to death, I stand ready and willing to be your nominee. Plus I am an actual Christian who does not believe in magic underpants.

Vote for Romney,

Rick Santorum

[jkman61494]

Is it kind of sad that I actually thought that was Rick Santorum's letter up until the whole lay off hundreds of thousands of workers part? I actually could see him use that Jet Blue pilot in some form letter! HA

[Hockey101]

Ford mortgaged itself in 2006. It put up almost 100% of its assets, from plants to office space to spare parts to unfinished inventory, and took out a $25.6 billion dollar line of credit. This line of credit is what kept it afloat. GM and Chrysler did no such thing prior to the economic meltdown and doing so was an impossibility afterwards.


"Bailout" is such a dirty word with republicans, and it's weird to me. Their stance is usually "well, I mean, the outcome was good, but it wasn't necessary." How do you know it wasn't necessary? And what harm came from the bailout? Chrysler and GM cleaned house, like Ford did a few years prior, and really started changing how they design cars, like Ford did a few years prior. And Chrysler has repaid all the money! Chrysler and GM both got bailed out and both still had to declare bankruptcy. The odds of them both surviving without doing both those things is slim to none. But hey, who really needs US auto companies, right UK?

And Ford sold its other owned brands for cash. GM and Chrysler could have done these same things and maybe not even have gone through Chap 11. Chrysler was also saved by Fiat more so than the actual bailout. So, it is Fiat repaying that money, not Chrysler. And as for GM, they "repaid" the pure loan, not the whole loan. It is impossible for a company to pay back a $50MM dollar loan in a few years. GM ass raped the taxpayers' with the deal it made. I think the pure loan was $10MM and the interest rate was 8% (may have been 7 or 9 but i always go with even numbers on interest rates). In this deal, a large chunk of this "loan" was given and used as capital in which GM has used to "pay off" the debt. And let's not forget, GM also took money from Canada and they have to pay them back as well, which they could do using the taxpayers' bailout money.

So...don't buy into this BS that GM has repaid the loan it took. It did not and i am not sure how it could since i doubt they will many any significant profits within the next few years.

All of this could have been avoided if GM and Chrysler did what Ford did. I applaud Ford. I don't like the fact that Chrysler was again taken over by a foreign car maker, albeit one that i like. I don't like the fact that GM begged for mercy and while i think the new fleet of GM vehicles have a much higher quality, i think they are botching, still, because of government interest (i.e. Volt).

[Ebase]

Ford had also taken precautions to avoid needing a bailout that GM had not. GM would have failed.


The US will profit off of the bail out, just like it has off of TARP.

What precautions? I mean, Ford's main advantage is that its expenditures were not nearly as high as GMs. Ford also sold other brands, which they were killing, and took in a lot of cash. GM's poor management just sat back and decided to go for the government bailout. This was really driven by the union and hierarchy of management. But if GM went through a full process of Chapter 11 and taking advantage of 363 of Chapter 11 (it allows a company freedom from financial commitments, obligations) it could have been just as fine without taking bailout money.

The issue is that GM had the resources to go through bankruptcy from start to finish, and come out of it by itself. In the few car threads that we have on here, from some years ago, you can find my comments on how GM will come out strong and that the bailout had to happen, and that Ford was DONE. I had Ford as "the beginning of the end". And i was wrong. Right now it's Ford making the right moves, and GM is making some right moves, and some wrong ones. I hate being wrong on anything that is economic related, but i concede here. Back then if i read that Romney piece that you posted i would have disagreed.

GM should have gone through bankruptcy. It would still be here today and possibly even better just as Chrysler and Ford are.

I think its easy to Monday Morning QB the whole GM thing but the biggest unknown was not the company but its domino effect. For starters, GM ran a shitty business model. And everyone knows this. And as we go down the line the real unknown here is what the effect of GM's fail really would have been. Keep in mind the economy was on the precipice of failure and should GM collapse (not just their car products but their soft industries,) dumped and restructured there probably wouldn't have been 2-million more people out of work (that was extreme) but it would have hurt pretty badly.

I personally in hindsight think GM probably should have failed and allowed to go thru bankruptcy but I don't think that was the economic climate at the time. And I think that is why the bailouts receive a certain amount of leeway. But its too easy to go back and say, "oh, that wouldn't have hurt anything" or some of the other political silliness that was occurring at the time. Rome was burning and there was straight panic. From the business community, to the financial, political, and manufacturing things were becoming like an economic disaster perfect storm.

And one thing that is quickly overlooked by Romney: Politics. Romney is easily able to look at it as a business problem. Obama like most politicians have to look at this as a political problem as well.

I think GM should have gone thru bankruptcy knowing what we do know now. But we didn't at the time.

Fairly put. We panicked. But, Bush started the bailout as well, not Obama. I think we all panicked and gave in thinking we needed to save this and that. What we did not know back then was the further spending and another bailout that was needed, which was done too soon by Obama. I think if we look back at certain companies going fully through bankruptcies that you will find the number of lost jobs not being much different than the lost jobs through a "bankruptcy filing" but bailed out by government as GM did. I know we gave out some money to the airline industry after 9/11, but that was due to 9/11 for the most part, not by terrible management. But, i think it was US Airways that went through a full on Chapter 11 process a few years after that 2001 government bailout and after mergers and going through some very unpopular cost cutting moves, you now see US Airways maybe taking over AA.

I think one government bailout can be acceptable when times are desperate for a string of companies in the same industry. But a soon-after bailout? It should never be considered.

One of the things that concerns me in the coming years is the way the economy can be so skizo the political process doesn't move fast enough and the result can be government monies being thrown around.

[Nilan 666]

Another moderate Republican in Dick Lugar is about to bite the dust today.

Even Republican commentators in CNN are really upset by this because he was one of the last Republicans left who has been open to negotiating and compromise on important issues. Now, another Tea Party person will be a member of the Senate.

Who were those Republican commentators? Lugar has been too long in DC. He has been part of the problem. The guy has been a closet liberal anyway. Too involved with NARAL.

Over the years your definition of liberal has gotten to the point where roughly 96.7% of the planet is liberal.

[Beamer]

Ford mortgaged itself in 2006. It put up almost 100% of its assets, from plants to office space to spare parts to unfinished inventory, and took out a $25.6 billion dollar line of credit. This line of credit is what kept it afloat. GM and Chrysler did no such thing prior to the economic meltdown and doing so was an impossibility afterwards.


"Bailout" is such a dirty word with republicans, and it's weird to me. Their stance is usually "well, I mean, the outcome was good, but it wasn't necessary." How do you know it wasn't necessary? And what harm came from the bailout? Chrysler and GM cleaned house, like Ford did a few years prior, and really started changing how they design cars, like Ford did a few years prior. And Chrysler has repaid all the money! Chrysler and GM both got bailed out and both still had to declare bankruptcy. The odds of them both surviving without doing both those things is slim to none. But hey, who really needs US auto companies, right UK?

And Ford sold its other owned brands for cash. GM and Chrysler could have done these same things and maybe not even have gone through Chap 11. Chrysler was also saved by Fiat more so than the actual bailout. So, it is Fiat repaying that money, not Chrysler. And as for GM, they "repaid" the pure loan, not the whole loan. It is impossible for a company to pay back a $50MM dollar loan in a few years. GM ass raped the taxpayers' with the deal it made. I think the pure loan was $10MM and the interest rate was 8% (may have been 7 or 9 but i always go with even numbers on interest rates). In this deal, a large chunk of this "loan" was given and used as capital in which GM has used to "pay off" the debt. And let's not forget, GM also took money from Canada and they have to pay them back as well, which they could do using the taxpayers' bailout money.

So...don't buy into this BS that GM has repaid the loan it took. It did not and i am not sure how it could since i doubt they will many any significant profits within the next few years.

All of this could have been avoided if GM and Chrysler did what Ford did. I applaud Ford. I don't like the fact that Chrysler was again taken over by a foreign car maker, albeit one that i like. I don't like the fact that GM begged for mercy and while i think the new fleet of GM vehicles have a much higher quality, i think they are botching, still, because of government interest (i.e. Volt).

What brands could GM sell for cash? Hummer? They tried. Saab? They did. Saturn? They tried. Pontiac? Who'd buy it? All they have now is Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Chevy, Vauxhall, Opel and Holden. Which of those do you propose they sell? Buick is the key to their future, Cadillac is the only luxury they have in the US, GMC carries their name, Chevy is their primary brand, Holden designs a disproportionately high amount of their cars and Vauxhall/Opel are their only foothold in Europe. None of those brands can really be sold off without really damaging the mother. GMC is the only one possible but, honestly, who is going to buy GMC?

As for profit, GM earned a quarterly profit of a billion Q1/12. It earned four billion Q1/11.

[rightbug]

I love how Republicans are all in favor of government helping out corporations to "create jobs" and "stimulate the economy" until a Democrat does it successfully in which case we should stop buying American and shun the Commie bastards at GM.

In a better economy, GM could have secured financing to ride out the crisis but with the banking crisis making it impossible for them to secure loans from a bank, the government had to step in. This was a wildly successful bailout which saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. (Not just at GM -- The auto-industry's manufacturing footprint is huge and there are tons of company's that rely on a healthy General Motors:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-1...-by-state_N.htm

)

[leetchie69]

Back to my original point..if Romney had said I regret my stance back then rather than now trying to take credit I would have more respect for that.

He is so slimey, I don't know how anyone would trust him in the business world...let alone as president.

This post has been edited by leetchie69: May 8 2012, 12:52 PM

[Hockey101]

Another moderate Republican in Dick Lugar is about to bite the dust today.

Even Republican commentators in CNN are really upset by this because he was one of the last Republicans left who has been open to negotiating and compromise on important issues. Now, another Tea Party person will be a member of the Senate.

Who were those Republican commentators? Lugar has been too long in DC. He has been part of the problem. The guy has been a closet liberal anyway. Too involved with NARAL.

Over the years your definition of liberal has gotten to the point where roughly 96.7% of the planet is liberal.

........ and you're view of my opinions is what you considered fascist, no? Makes your point pretty vapid.