Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Which presidential candidate wouldn't have done what Obama did when it comes to the economic crisis? Can you imagine the gak storm a president would have if he let one of the most iconic American companies like GM go down and have even more Americans unemployed?

@Cane: That's the problem right there. Being 'in charge' of a country isn't about doing right by the people who live there, it's about sucking the right c***s and licking the right r***s to make sure you stay in your 'position of power'.

Sad, but true :(

J.Black wrote:@Cane: That's the problem right there. Being 'in charge' of a country isn't about doing right by the people who live there, it's about sucking the right c***s and licking the right r***s to make sure you stay in your 'position of power'.

Sad, but true :(

Yes, all politicians are evil ingrates that just want to stay in power. Thank you for that little bit of brilliance. You must spread this message, I can't believe more people don't believe as you do. Do you have a book? I want to start a book club about this message.

Can all posters be polite to each other when posting please ?

Much obliged.

Cane wrote:...Can you imagine the [censored] storm a president would have if he let one of the most iconic American companies like GM go down and have even more Americans unemployed?

GM employed a handful of people (few thousand) compared to the many millions of jobs our economy is hemorrhaging. Where is the bailout for other companies that employ hundreds of thousands whose results are down 40% or more? What about industries of millions?

He just "saved" GM as payback for the cash and support the unions provided him and his Democrat peers.

GM employed a handful of people (few thousand) compared to the many millions of jobs our economy is hemorrhaging.

IIRC it was a few hundred thousand down the chain when you include dealers (which would almost certainly go out of business along with the supplier), parts makers, and other services dependent on the supply chain of the brand.

Where is the bailout for other companies that employ hundreds of thousands whose results are down 40% or more? What about industries of millions?

It's a lot harder to save an "industry" of disparate elements. Though they did bailout the auto "industry" and it does, down the line, provide jobs for hundreds of thousands to millions of americans. Then again, you would probably say the same no matter what their target was.

He just "saved" GM as payback for the cash and support the unions provided him and his Democrat peers.

Do you have a book I can buy also? I'm going to have quite the collection here!

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes, all politicians are evil ingrates that just want to stay in power. Thank you for that little bit of brilliance. You must spread this message, I can't believe more people don't believe as you do. Do you have a book? I want to start a book club about this message.

Wow, do you just sit at home chewing lemons all day, or is there another reason for your 'seinfeld-esque' attitude to life?

@reds8n: *cowers before the lash*

J.Black wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes, all politicians are evil ingrates that just want to stay in power. Thank you for that little bit of brilliance. You must spread this message, I can't believe more people don't believe as you do. Do you have a book? I want to start a book club about this message.

Wow, do you just sit at home chewing lemons all day, or is there another reason for your 'seinfeld-esque' attitude to life?

@reds8n: *cowers before the lash*

I dunno, are you green, fuzzy, and do you live in a trashcan (if so, I'm sorry mister Grouch, you are a western institution all of your own and have every right to be grouchy)? How would you suggest someone combat a post like yours?

Umm, by combating yours?

Not that your post wasn't filled with insights beyond the ken of mortal beings or anything....

Don't tussle with Shuma, J, its not a winning proposition.
He may be the only person on this board as angry and bitter as I am. Thats an achievement I have to respect.

J.Black wrote:Umm, by combating yours?

Not that your post wasn't filled with insights beyond the ken of mortal beings or anything....

Umm. I responded in a sarcastic obsessive "Seinfield-esque" manner because your post was an essentially contentless, pointless, reasonless, and unsupported assertion that democracy is inherently broken because everyone in government is there for the simple purpose of staying in power. How do you expect someone to respond to it? With logic and reason? Thats like debating the guy on the corner screaming about how the world is going to end on the finer points of his rant.

Don't tussle with Shuma, J, its not a winning proposition.
He may be the only person on this board as angry and bitter as I am. Thats an achievement I have to respect.

I can only imagine the shriveled hateful husk of pain and fury that I'll be in a decade.

ShumaGorath wrote:IIRC it was a few hundred thousand down the chain when you include dealers (which would almost certainly go out of business along with the supplier), parts makers, and other services dependent on the supply chain of the brand.

This is correct. Whether or not you believe the carmakers should have received assistance, there are many, many more jobs in related companies that would be in trouble if GM and company failed. Bush likely would have done the same thing, although for some inexplicable reason he wouldn't have been labeled a dirty, filthy socialist by the right-wingers.

The POTUS is in a no-win situation with regards to bailouts and such. Do something, and people will grumble about government welfare. Do nothing, and people will grumble as related companies all over the country fall like dominoes and more people lose their jobs. It'd be the same situation if it was Bush or McCain or Taft or Jefferson. As many people said during the prez race (but apparently have since forgotten), it's hard to imagine who'd really want to be POTUS right now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I can only imagine the shriveled hateful husk of pain and fury that I'll be in a decade.

gorgon wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:IIRC it was a few hundred thousand down the chain when you include dealers (which would almost certainly go out of business along with the supplier), parts makers, and other services dependent on the supply chain of the brand.

This is correct. Whether or not you believe the carmakers should have received assistance, there are many, many more jobs in related companies that would be in trouble if GM and company failed. Bush likely would have done the same thing, although for some inexplicable reason he wouldn't have been labeled a dirty, filthy socialist by the right-wingers.

He would have been labeled as a traitor. Either would have been nailed. Like you had said, no-win.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Umm. I responded in a sarcastic obsessive "Seinfield-esque" manner because your post was an essentially contentless, pointless, reasonless, and unsupported assertion that democracy is inherently broken because everyone in government is there for the simple purpose of staying in power. How do you expect someone to respond to it? With logic and reason? Thats like debating the guy on the corner screaming about how the world is going to end on the finer points of his rant.

Do you really take all things you read on the internet at face value?

1) Content can be provided if you really like.

2) Pointless from your viewpoint maybe. But clearly not pointless enough to stop you ignoring it.

3) I don't recall you asking my reasons.

4) Unsupported? Have you ever moved out of your parents basement?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I can only imagine the shriveled hateful husk of pain and fury that I'll be in a decade.

Like that except I work out, can use a gun, and I'm strangely beautiful.

Do you really take all things you read on the internet at face value?

As this is written text and you have no body of work for me to compare it to yes. This isn't a conversation. The upward inflection of your voice doesn't come across the information superhighway.

2) Pointless from your viewpoint maybe. But clearly not pointless enough to stop you ignoring it.

Of course not. I combat ignorance and trolling with aggressive sarcasm. I would be more up front about it, but this is a moderated forum.

ShumaGorath wrote:
As this is written text and you have no body of work for me to compare it to yes. This isn't a conversation. The upward inflection of your voice doesn't come across the information superhighway.

It was actually a downward inflection. The one i normally reserve for my shoes

J.Black wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
As this is written text and you have no body of work for me to compare it to yes. This isn't a conversation. The upward inflection of your voice doesn't come across the information superhighway.

It was actually a downward inflection. The one i normally reserve for my shoes

See? It's hard to tell in written format!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I can only imagine the shriveled hateful husk of pain and fury that I'll be in a decade.

Like that except I work out, can use a gun, and I'm strangely beautiful.

Old people can use a gun. We invented random shooting at passersby. You don;t think that sport just appeared out of no where? You are talking to Frazzled after all.

for.. for.. for almost too many reasons to say really.