|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
hymiebravo 
Group: Members
Posts: 4989
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
 |
Posted on: Aug. 31 2011,8:11 am |
|
    |
(Stone-Magnon @ Aug. 16 2011,4:51 am)
QUOTE Chamber director meets Obama
Published 4:54pm Monday, August 15, 2011
Email Comments
CANNON FALLS — Albert Lea-Freeborn County Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Randy Kehr got the rare chance Monday to shake hands with the president and introduce himself prior to the town-hall meeting.
Kehr said he was invited by 1st District Congressman Tim Walz to meet briefly with President Barack Obama prior to the start of the event, along with some other state representatives, the mayor of Cannon Falls, officials from the University of Minnesota and the United States Department of Agriculture.
The local chamber director described the president as a “personable man,” who asked people their names as they shook hands.
Kehr called the meeting a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for him” and said the president’s visit was “a great day for southern Minnesota.”
He was seated to the left of Obama during the event in reserved seating.
“We’ve been talking here in Minnesota about the need for compromise — he echoed that on a national level,” Kehr said. “Hopefully people will get the message that compromise is good — it’s not a dirty word.”
Email Comments
Is Krrrr a republican?
It's certainly a lot bigger deal getting close to him now then it was when he was campaigning, in say Iowa, as a potential candidate.
After he leaves office it will become much less of a big deal.
I remember reading something about Harry Truman saying that when he was president everybody in the world wanted to know his thoughts.
Then after he left office people couldn't care less about his thoughts/ideas on matters.
What ever happened to the last guy that was president anyway? lol
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 31 2011,10:41 am |
|
|
(Liberal @ Aug. 31 2011,9:45 am)
QUOTE As far as your delusions about nationalizing the car companies, how many shares of common(voting) stock did the government take when they gave the car industry a bailout?
Gee, I'm not sure if they sold them yet? They filed for an IPO 2 weeks ago sell off its common stock.
QUOTE Selling stockholders, including the United States Department of the Treasury, are offering shares of our common stock. We are not selling any shares of our common stock in this offering. SEC form
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 31 2011,11:07 am |
|
|
Seriously, you're going to have to try a little harder to keep up.
GM filed with the SEC August 18, 2010 to sell common shares. The IPO was last November, and they raised $20 billion.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 31 2011,1:07 pm |
|
|
OK, missed the 2010. I knew they held out selling shares because of the market flux.
dated 8/10/11  QUOTE General Motors to Remain Government Motors? Submitted by Mark Modica on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 08:02 According to a WSJ report, "people familiar with the situation" said on Tuesday that the Obama Administration has put on hold its decision to sell the taxpayers' stake in General Motors. The article also states that "Treasury officials had anticipated GM's share price would increase following its public stock offering last November at $33 a share." It would seem that Treasury anticipated wrong. Once again, the Obama Administration is arrogantly assuming that GM share price will recover to above $33 a share in the near future. Or perhaps the administration is not as averse to continuing its intrusion in private industry as it would have us believe. Considering that President Obama is staking a great deal on the recovery of GM regarding his reelection chances, the decision to continue a market timing gamble on the company carries significant risk that the government will try and help GM recover at an ongoing cost to taxpayers. The Obama Administration has been very generous with tax credits granted to GM. In addition to the approximate $45 billion tax loss carry over credit gifted to GM when it came out of bankruptcy, the Chevy Volt has been funded on the backs of taxpayers. The Volt receives a $7,500 subsidy on every vehicle sold. I'm sure our government has also siphoned taxpayer funds in the form of green initiative grants or loans to GM as well. All for a vehicle that has no mass appeal. Add the expense of government fleet purchases of GM vehicles to the pile of taxpayer cash thrown away on the continuing GM folly. Also consider the fact that just a few years ago a debate played out on the suggestion that social security assets be invested in equity markets. President Obama was in the camp of those that thought taxpayer assets should not be gambled in the stock market. Why is the president now willing to gamble on the GM taxpayer stake? Will attempts be made to manipulate the stock higher? Why is Treasury so certain GM shares will increase when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has been so wrong to this point? Geithner made statements on a Fox Business News interview in April that guaranteed there was no risk of a credit downgrade of US debt. Prior to that, Geithner and cohort Steve Rattner, former Auto Task Force head, boasted that taxpayers should see all of their "investment" in GM returned. After being so wrong on both counts, it is time for Treasury to drop the arrogance that it has displayed from the beginning of its auto industry intrusion. Face it guys, you are not quite as smart as you perceive yourselves to be. It is time to realize that stock markets can go down as well as up and the same holds true for GM share price. A recovery is not a certainty and Treasury should end what has been an ugly chapter in American history. The US taxpayer has no reason to be invested in GM stock. Geithner should accept the fact that he was wrong on the GM gambit and sell now. Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow National Legal and Policy Center
shares sales put on hold
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 31 2011,2:52 pm |
|
|
Libbie-- QUOTE I'm not going to read a bunch of lies and then respond to the lies.
Why NOT? Rush, Hannity, Van Sustern, Imus, Levin, Beck, there are LOTS of people that have made a very good living exposing LEFT wing hypocrisy and lies.  
Libbie-- QUOTE As far as your delusions about nationalizing the car companies, how many shares of common(voting) stock did the government take when they gave the car industry a bailout? Bush didn't bail out the car companies--the Obamunists took them over.
From Heritage-- QUOTE Congratulations: If you are a U.S. taxpayer, you will soon be a part owner of a car company.
Under the latest reorganization plan for General Motors, Uncle Sam would take ownership of 72.5 percent of the troubled automaker while providing an additional $30 billion in funds to the company.
The proposed deal would give Washington controlling ownership of a major industrial corporation for the first time since Conrail railroad was sold in 1986. And, along with the pending acquisition of a minority stake in Chrysler, it would represent the first time the U.S. has ever owned an automaker--joining China and several European governments in that club. It is a road less traveled, for good reason, and one America needs to exit.
Government-Directed Bankruptcy
The reorganization plan was filed by the government with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.[1] At the same time, bankruptcy proceedings for the much smaller Chrysler Corporation are being wound up.
Of course, bankruptcy itself is not necessarily bad news; the process is often the only way for troubled firms to reorganize themselves. The process for General Motors, however--as has that of Chrysler--is to be a government-directed and politically dominated affair, funded largely by tax dollars and creating firms controlled by Washington.
The short drive to bankruptcy and nationalization for Detroit began last December, when GM and Chrysler first accepted bailout money from the government. Both firms were required, as a condition of aid, to prepare detailed plans to return to viability. In March, those plans were flatly rejected by the White House, which (correctly) found the changes being proposed far from sufficient to resolve the problems of the firms.
From that moment on, Washington took over the driver's seat for both firms. To emphasize the point, President Obama took the unusual step of effectively, and unceremoniously, firing GM's chief executive officer Rick Wagoner and half the GM board.
Washington Calling the Shots
Since that time, the federal government has been calling the shots for both automakers. Tellingly, the reorganization plan Chrysler took into bankruptcy was announced not from the firm's Detroit HQ or a courthouse, but from the White House. And creditors who opposed that deal, pointing out that they would get a mere fraction of what the United Autoworkers Union (UAW) would get for its claims, were personally lambasted by the President for their failure to pursue what White House spokesman Robert Gibbs called the "common good."[2] Thanks to government pressure--and billions in additional taxpayer funds--Chrysler is soon expected to emerge from bankruptcy with ownership shared among Italian carmaker Fiat, the UAW, and the federal government.[3]
Now it is GM's turn in court, with a filing expected by June 1. As outlined in the government's SEC filing, current GM bondholders will be offered 10 percent of the firm's stock plus warrants for an additional 15 percent, in return for their $27 billion in claims. The UAW, by contrast--which is owed some $10 billion by GM for health coverage claims--will receive 17.5 percent of the stock, plus another 2.5 percent in warrants and $6.5 billion in preferred shares.
Is it NOT true that Obambi fired the CEO of GM? How could he legally DO that? 
Is it NOT true that the government took a big stake in GM?
Is it NOT true that the "secured creditors" suddenly found themselve UNSECURED, and were forced to take 10 cents on the dollars owed them?
Is it NOT true that the United Auto Worker's Union received MORE money than the "secured creditors"?
Is it NOT true that Obambi fully funded the huge pensions of the UAW, at the expense of shareholders and creditors?
How does he DO that, without owning the majority of the shares?
From Wikipedia QUOTE The U.S. government still owns a 27% stake in the company.
Do you have anything to dispute that?
C'mon, Libbie--you can do better than name-calling. TELL us why these are not true. 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 31 2011,3:01 pm |
|
|
QUOTE
Is it NOT true that Obambi fired the CEO of GM? How could he legally DO that?
He couldn't, and didn't regardless of what the junkie Limbaugh may have told you.
QUOTE
Is it NOT true that the government took a big stake in GM?
I thought you claim they were nationalized?
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 01 2011,3:17 am |
|
|
(jimhanson @ Aug. 25 2011,10:29 am)
QUOTE Irish doesn't think that Obambi is a liberal. QUOTE If you really think about all these things, only the people who are far right can view Obama as being a radical liberal, because he simply is not.
You're misquoting me again, I explained he is not a radical liberal and I even pointed out reasons why.
I was about to find a definition for radical, just in case there was doubt. But considering you frequently reference the book Rules for Radical, I have a hard time understanding how you could reference radicals frequently, and then take out the word when I use it.
QUOTE Obambi nationalized banks.
Obambi nationalized car companies.
Obambi spent the largest "stimulus" in US history (to no avail)
Obambi created the largest deficit in US history.
Obambi is nationalizing the largest single share of the US economy--the health care industry (at least until it is declared unconstitutional).
His policies are SO RADICAL that the majority of the states are challenging them in Federal court.
He has presided in the largest growth of government since FDR--even more than LBJ.
He is an avowed "redistributor" of wealth--that's "take money from those who earn it, and give it to those who don't"
You have to start getting your news from something other than Brietbart and FNC. He did not nationalize auto or banks, and the teabaggers never cared about any of the stuff you talk about until a guy who isn't a republican is doing it. Before that they loved government money, and the republicans they vote for frequently vote for the same bailouts and redistribution.
Oh, as for deficits and spending. You're right on this, but conservatives have to grasp at some point that every president outspends the previous (you don't have to like it, but as they pointed out to Reagan, you can't keep increasing money for the largest part of gov, defense, and then be confused as to why the budget is exploding). Reagan outspends Carter, George H.W. outspends Reagan, Clinton outspends George H.W., Bush outspends Clinton, and Obama outspends Bush. Surprising, but unprecedented? Not exactly, and it's only a bad thing if it's a dem that's signing the bill, otherwise you frequently blame the Congress for it (unless it's a republican House doing the spending)
You'll notice out of the above list, the only one who could balance a budget and come out with a surplus, was Clinton. 
QUOTE He is a supporter of liberal causes, like ACORN and SEIU. In turn, he is by far the largest recipient of campaign money from these liberal groups. (If he WASN'T as libbie, why would all these far-left groups support him?)
Sure, helping the working class and people who break a sweat when they're on the clock IS a liberal cause. You don't expect those organizations to contribute to the republican nominee, do you? 
QUOTE his socialist Czars.
Again, this is classic talking points from the repub spin machine. If you have an adviser or a director, you can call them a Czar if you want to use conservative newspeak. If I start a thread and refer to you as a Czar of the airport, how are you going to prove me wrong? I can even say you're a socialist czar if I want, and the statement is still correct. If not, feel free to prove it wrong. 
QUOTE He has CREATED jobs-- IN THE GOVERNMENT.
*yawn* False again, private sector has grown in jobs, and the only thing conservatives can do is either outright lie (which is their favorite thing to do), or claim that they were only government jobs. If you look at many of the infrastructure projects, plenty of those workers were private sector. In fact, we've had local projects that the people doing the jobs were private sector, were they not?
QUOTE He follows the liberal orthodoxy of increased spending on ineffective social programs at the expense of defense.
He increased spending for defense, as conservatives have wanted. Hardly a radical liberal move.
QUOTE He has followed libbie dictum in refusing to enforce immigration laws--something that he took an oath to do.
Maybe he should give them amnesty, it worked for Reagan, and conservatives seem to love him. 
QUOTE Only an observer that reveres Karl Marx could consider him non-liberal. And you wonder why his poll numbers are in freefall?
So, we went from me claiming he's not a radical liberal, to you quoting me as saying he's not a liberal, and now you think I consider him a non-liberal? Nope, red marks all over your post. He is not a radical liberal as a President, he's moved to the right on MANY issues and that's exactly what I pointed out. He's still a liberal on other issues, but I never claimed he wasn't.
As for your quote about him as a Senator, I'd say Bernie Sanders seems like the most liberal Senator that I know of. Regardless, we were talking about him as president, since dems frequently have to move closer to center to get the nomination and Presidency, which is odd since repubs have to become far more conservative and less moderate in order to be taken seriously by their party. Just look at McCain, Palins flip-flopping on the Bridge to Nowhere and her state being notorious for asking for federal funds, Mitt Romney and healthcare, etc.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 01 2011,4:08 am |
|
|
(jimhanson @ Aug. 25 2011,10:40 am)
QUOTE Yes, he IS "the TelePrompter President" (ever see him when he DOESN'T have one?)  but that wasn't my point. If you are going to CALL it a "Town Hall Meeting", then it should BE a Town Hall meeting--where people get to speak their piece. That didn't happen, did it? This wasn't about birth certificates and teleprompters--getting a little DEFENSIVE, are you? 
If the conservative press continues repeating things enough, the people will believe it. And yes, I've seen him speak plenty of times without a teleprompter. He went to a Q&A at a republican caucus event, and I didn't see a teleprompter. There wasn't one at the bipartisan meeting they had to discuss health care reform. I can post video of both events if you haven't watched them. I've posted about the republican Q&A before, because I thought it was funny that Obama answers the toughest questions by his opposing counterparts without a teleprompter or being prepared for what questions they would ask, and yet the conservative press ignores that and keeps repeating the spin.
As for town hall meetings, I'll need some specifics on what event you're referring to to verify this. But the tea organization has made the town halls pointless anyway, there wasn't a dialogue as much as people repeating whatever Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity (the billionaire front group) told them to say.
QUOTE QUOTE The conservatives weren't too critical of huge budgets, bailouts, or entitlements not too long ago either. Now Richard Armey and the Koch brothers have got them in a frenzy. Typical libbie response--a juvenile "Well, HE did it!"
So, it's only bad when a democrat does it. Yeah, I've known that for a long time. When repubs have deficits, Czars, entitlements, or amnesty, you don't seem to mind. But have a black community organizer take the oath, and FNC and Brietbart are in full speed spin mode.
QUOTE Don't confuse conservatives with Repubs.
It's not very confusing, conservatives (or teapartiers, if you prefer) continue to hammer on certain issues, and then they vote for, support, and defend republicans all the while saying they're not republicans. If it looks like duck, quacks like a duck...
QUOTE "Armey and the Kock Brothers"? Who ever HEARD of the Koch Brothers until the libbies got their panties in a wad in Wisconsin over making government employees contribute to their health and pension plans--just as private industry employees do?
That may be when you heard of them, but the conservative organizations that run the Tea organizations have been in the press for a long time. Armey himself was doing interviews in 2009 (before Walker was even Governor of Wisconsin) to talk about FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. So we knew about the link between Armey and the Koch brothers before Scott Walker came onto the scene.
QUOTE It is yet another example of libbie hypocrisy--they passed Obamacare and Socialist Security--FORCING every employee to pay for health and retirement--then OPPOSE making government employees do the very same thing.
Would you prefer they not pay into the program, because every conservative seems to love SS & Medicare when they receive it. It's the paying for things part that seems to be the issue.
As for federal workers long ago, you're right. But if the conservatives formed something like the Amish, they could probably exempt themselves also. But the problem is if they did that they wouldn't be able to receive them either, and there seems to be some dissonance on that part.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
