• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Clint Eastwood Superbowl ad

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,466
422
126
May I inquire as to the flaw.

Also In short form why was GWB the worst president ever?
Don't know about the flaw...

I'll list one reason why GWB is amongst the worse...

It's because he started two wars while close to the same time cutting taxes and keeping them relatively low...

Something that has practially never been done by any President in the last 100 years (if ever). His administration also ignored sound military advice as to how many ground troops would be needed for Iraq. (Also based on faulty reasoning.... haven't found any signs of a modern nuclear or chemical weapons research program that was started since the first Gulf War).

Rumsfeld had this retardedly low number that he said was necessary for Iraq. The ranking Army representative at the time, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki, told the the administration that to carry out the invasion of Iraq would require many more troops. General Shinseki retired shortly after that argument.

General Shinseki was right and Rumsfeld was wrong, as born out by the fact that a "surge" (euphemism for an increase in troops) was necessary to stabilize Iraq.

There are so many reasons that it's almost impossible to limit it to short form without leaving things out.
 
Last edited:

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,703
1,009
126
That was another part of the GM non-bankruptcy that is a point of contention. Due to the fact that GM did not actually go bankrupt, it is able to keep its carryforward losses and other tax credits, thus not paying taxes into the future. Had GM gone through bankruptcy these are one of the first things that go. GM actually listed the tax credits as a special circumstance in their IPO (meaning a positive).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html
Over and over again you make the factual claim that GM did not file bankruptcy and then add on layers of pseudo legal knowledge. Your basis is untrue-GM did file bankruptcy. It was a structured Chapter 11-which nearly all sucessful corporate bankruptcies are.

Your posts remind me of the current series of Doonesbury cartoons-with his myFacts business. Remember we are all entitled to our opinions but not to our own set of facts. Deal with reality, not made up fiction.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
Over and over again you make the factual claim that GM did not file bankruptcy and then add on layers of pseudo legal knowledge. Your basis is untrue-GM did file bankruptcy. It was a structured Chapter 11-which nearly all sucessful corporate bankruptcies are.

Your posts remind me of the current series of Doonesbury cartoons-with his myFacts business. Remember we are all entitled to our opinions but not to our own set of facts. Deal with reality, not made up fiction.
The GM bankruptcy was in no way a traditional Chapter 11 reorganization and no where near a normal prepackaged structured Chapter 11.

Find any case where the actual deferred tax assets were allowed to be kept post bankruptcy. They simply don't exist.

To call GM a bankruptcy in any sense of the word is an abomination to the term bankruptcy.

Having said there is no way that the government lead debtor in possession reorganization of GM could be a normal bankruptcy. GM however has been given every advantage to succeed. My hope is they do.

Also see: collective action clause, equity class, secured bondholder subordination, etc.
 
Last edited:

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,703
1,009
126
Noid: You claimed GM did not file bankruptcy, and made that claim repeatedly. As I said before your claim was patently false. And it now appears you knew your claim was false and you were knowingly lying to further your political agenda.

I do not care to discuss the nuances of bankruptcy law with you, but I will point out your latest restatement is obviously false as well, as any affected creditor in the (now admitted by you) GM bankruptcy had the right to appeal and out of the multitude of creditors involved none filed a successful appeal.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
Noid: You claimed GM did not file bankruptcy, and made that claim repeatedly. As I said before your claim was patently false. And it now appears you knew your claim was false and you were knowingly lying to further your political agenda.

I do not care to discuss the nuances of bankruptcy law with you, but I will point out your latest restatement is obviously false as well, as any affected creditor in the (now admitted by you) GM bankruptcy had the right to appeal and out of the multitude of creditors involved none filed a successful appeal.
Again claiming that the GM bankruptcy was in anyway normal either shows a complete lack of knowledge of general corporate bankruptcy, or simply that you are trying to paint a one sided argument.

As stated numerous times in the thread discussing the bankruptcy I used the term non-bankruptcy, should I have instead used the term false bankruptcy, would that have been a better choice?

In the events of actual GM preceding the company would have been liquidated as the concessions forced upon the stake holders were higher than they would have received under liquidation. Due the considerable speed of the prepackaged option, the fact that GM debt was held considerably by retail accounts, the fact that GM was allowed into the TARP program and that that the US Treasury was debtor in possession changed how a normal filing took place. The prepackaged bankruptcy, deviated considerably from normal progression in that again the US Treasury was involved.

This is not an attempt to be politically motivated.

I will be politically motivated, I wholeheartedly agree that the TARP should have been used for the automakers (they are IMO a key industry, even as poorly run as they were during the time of huge SUV's and HELOC's). However the bondholders were considerably impaired compared to how a normal bankruptcy would have transpired, right or wrong.

Also, assuming you actually do work in any bankruptcy related field you know 100% based on the large holdings of GM debt by the retail investor, there was no chance that we would see any appeal work out. We would have to see a large group of the individual holdings join together in some form of CAC, and litigate an appeal. We would also see the Treasury with near limitless capital on the other side of the argument for the prepackaged option. If we would have seen a single or small group of motivated distressed investors, then we would have seen at least a chance for appeal. However, they would have still faced the US Treasury.

You can discuss the nuances all you want, however this wasn't a true bankruptcy, nor should it/could it have been.
 
Last edited:

AznAnarchy99

Lifer
Dec 6, 2004
14,708
117
106
I really feel like Ford, who appears to be doing everything correctly should be showing off an American half-time commercial.
Ford has the worst marketing campaign ever. I mean really? Surprise people with a press conference and add lines like "someone told me they like my 20s, I dont even know what they mean!"

At least the Eminem and Eastwood commercials try to strike at something.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,703
1,009
126
Noid: never heard of class actions? Never hear of politcally motivated & funded lawfirms that take on litigations to further their agenda? And not to mention the impaired creditors of the orignal GM that lost millions and hundreds of millions in stock and bonds, like numerous hedge funds and mutual funds. I guess all of them were too poor to hire an attorney to litigate what you purport is patent illegalities. Either that, or you are dead wrong-gee, I wonder which is correct?

At least you are now finally, belatedly and half heartedly, admitting that your repeated statements that GM did not file bankruptcy were falsehoods and you knew they were false when you made the statements. There is a common jury instruction given to the effect that if the jury finds that a witness has lied to them in any regard, they are entitled to disregard and ignore that witness' entire testimony. Think about it.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
I'm done. There are many good pieces of information explaining the difference between a GM bankruptcy and a normal bankruptcy. I will let you search them out.
 
Last edited:

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
May I inquire as to the flaw.

Also In short form why was GWB the worst president ever?
Clint said "we" came together...if he was referring to our Republican friends in Washington after President Obama took over and many of the rabid right on this forum that statement is indeed flawed.

There isn't enough bandwidth to cover GWB's failure.
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,466
422
126
Clint said "we" came together...if he was referring to our Republican friends in Washington after President Obama took over and many of the rabid right on this forum that statement is indeed flawed.

There isn't enough bandwidth to cover GWB's failure.
This is why Rove, O'Reilly and other commentators taking the ad to task are blowing so much hot air.

That very statement in the ad is forgiving the roadblock republican policy of stonewalling the administration whenever possible. The only reason republicans are offended by the ad is because if they really think about it the ad doesn't apply to the politicians they elected in general.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
It's because he started two wars while close to the same time cutting taxes and keeping them relatively low...
I voted for him both times . Ya I don't like saying the second time but it is what it is .
The First war . Unless there was a conspirecy. Was in the dark as claimed . I gave him a break on Iraq Tho I never believed mass distruction weapons. The fact Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The second time didn't want to change in middle war.

Wilson was the worse president of all 1913 He sold America to Rothschild in form of federal Reserve . The man was a traitor to the constitution

Find the key. That shows the trigger result. Become 1step closer
 
Last edited:

prism

Senior member
Oct 23, 2004
995
0
0
To me the one thing that really and truly pisses off the Repubs to this very day about the auto industry bailouts and their successful recovery are those thousands and thousands of union jobs that got saved because of it. I feel it's the main reason the Repubs wanted the industry to fail: To get rid of the unions.

It also disproves the worn out myth that Repubs like to belch out any chance they get that "the unions alone caused the auto industry to go under".

I give credit to the American auto industry's management teams for much of the recovery, just as I assigned them most of the blame for it's near collapse. I also give credit to the auto unions for the concessions they offered up when it was necessary for them to do so. I also give credit to the American consumer who responded positively to the improved products the auto industry provided.

This is what I feel Eastwood reflected in his ad: That the auto industry's management, it's unionized workers and the American consumers all worked together to create the successful recovery the industry experienced.

And yes, credit is due to those responsible politicians who wanted to save all those union jobs and all those NON-union jobs related to the auto industry, and took the necessary risks to make it happen.
+1
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,466
422
126
I voted for him both times . Ya I don't like saying the second time but it is what it is .
The First war . Unless there was a conspirecy. Was in the dark as claimed . I gave him a break on Iraq Tho I never believed mass distruction weapons. The fact Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The second time didn't want to change in middle war.

Wilson was the worse president of all 1913 He sold America to Rothschild in form of federal Reserve . The man was a traitor to the constitution

Find the key. That shows the trigger result. Become 1step closer
Afghanistan was were Bin Laden was... so that in and of itself wasn't bad... it was the tax policies along with that war and the starting of the Iraq war when it had nothing at all... to do with 9/11. Hell Bin Laden didn't even like Sadam because Sadam wasn't pious enough.

Bush deserves no break on Iraq especially considering the shabby treatment of Gen. Shinseki by the administration when he gave them sound advice on the numbers of troops that would be required for Iraq. Not to mention the way they wrecked Colin Powell's credibility by having him sell the war to the U.N.

Incredibly shameful.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
8,878
1,158
126
Actually, they wanted Ronald Reagan to play Clint's part. And Reagan would have gladly done it too, except he was dead...
And THAT is the God's truth!
Because if anything, Reagan would have put country 1st, and politics 2nd.
Something todays tea bagger, right wing, fundie republicans "have a little issue" with doing"...
Not to mention that guy they hate with the funny colored skin residing in "their" oval office.
The nerve!
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Actually, they wanted Ronald Reagan to play Clint's part. And Reagan would have gladly done it too, except he was dead...
And THAT is the God's truth!
Because if anything, Reagan would have put country 1st, and politics 2nd.
Something todays tea bagger, right wing, fundie republicans "have a little issue" with doing"...
Not to mention that guy they hate with the funny colored skin residing in "their" oval office.
The nerve!
It's amazing how the Rabid Right constantly refer to Ronnie Raygun but he wouldn't have a cold chance in hell of passing todays Republican purity test.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
This is why Rove, O'Reilly and other commentators taking the ad to task are blowing so much hot air.

That very statement in the ad is forgiving the roadblock republican policy of stonewalling the administration whenever possible. The only reason republicans are offended by the ad is because if they really think about it the ad doesn't apply to the politicians they elected in general.
QFT

We need you to visit this forum more often to offset the Rabid Right wing attacks in here.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
QFT

We need you to visit this forum more often to offset the Rabid Right wing attacks in here.
The truth is, that in your liberal mind any tax money going to your Union buddies is good. No matter what.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,583
0
0
If you are an average American you already know the game is fixed. After years & years of practice, you know what to do. Huddle up, grab your ankles,,,& don't forget to smile when you say thank you.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
The truth is, that in your liberal mind any tax money going to your Union buddies is good. No matter what.
First you need to have a job to worry about Tax money and secondly your fear of Unions is almost comical.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
Its not unions we need to fear ,. Its the men who run them that is of greatest concern . No union rep is entitled to pay hire than those he /she represents. Thats not the case. Union Mob =no differance
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY