US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dude Abides said:
Judge Gonzalez overruled Lauria's group's objection because it would have sent Chrysler into liquidation. You don't know how bankruptcy works and apparently neither does Mittens.
Click to expand...

I pointed that out to him a while ago, but just like the "47% don't pay taxes" thing, he still peddles it after being corrected.
 
Dude Abides said:
Judge Gonzalez overruled Lauria's group's objection because it would have sent Chrysler into liquidation. You don't know how bankruptcy works and apparently neither does Mittens.
Click to expand...

Depends under which code it is filed - not all bankruptcies end up in liquidation.
 
Kosmo said:
Yes, who cares about the people who actually invest in the company who paid for those jobs...why should they be given any protection when we have people downing 40's and smoking weed at lunch to protect!?
Click to expand...
Why should they be, indeed? They receive compensation for the risk they take in the form of higher investment returns.
 
Kosmo said:
Yes, who cares about the people who actually invest in the company who paid for those jobs...why should they be given any protection when we have people downing 40's and smoking weed at lunch to protect!?

As to your point, those people would not have all been laid off, since the private investors knew there is a multiplier effect to making an automobile - they could not just fire all the line workers, not produce cars, and then expect the suppliers to be there later, since they would quickly be out of business. It would have likely happened exactly as it did, with the exception being private investors, not the UAW getting that stake of the company.
Click to expand...

First, no person that earns an hourly wage should be held responsible for the mismanagement of the capitalists. They do exactly as they are told, and get paid to do so - they should never ever be laid off just because the management caused the company to go bankrupt - the only time they should be removed is when they do not perform their jobs correctly. It's also very rude that you see these employees as nothing but proles. Wage jobs should be zero-risk for the laborer, they've already given up enough.

Second, you are right a large portion probably would not have been without a job for long, new management would probably try to cut some expenses by the good old fire and rehire technique. Lay someone off, let them squirm of a while, and then offer their job back to them with fewer benefits, less pay, and a chance to start a new pension program. Win-win certainly. :lol
 
Cyan said:
Why should the be, indeed? They receive compensation for the risk they take in the form of higher investment returns.
Click to expand...

You live in a bizarre world. Imagine you own a lumber yard and can no longer make payroll and bankrupt. I imagine out of the goodness of your heart you would sell your assets and give it to the workers and take nothing for yourself. You are either extremely benevolent, or clueless.
 
Kosmo said:
You live in a bizarre world. Imagine you own a lumber yard and can no longer make payroll and bankrupt. I imagine out of the goodness of your heart you would sell your assets and give it to the workers and take nothing for yourself. You are either extremely benevolent, or clueless.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm imagining it.

Why am I imagining something completely unrelated to what we were talking about?
 
Kosmo said:
Depends under which code it is filed - not all bankruptcies end up in liquidation.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. If you can't restructure under Chapter 11, it converts to a Chapter 7 and gets liquidated. You really don't know what you're talking about. The bondholders you're crying about only owned about 30% of the secured debt anyway. The majority of secured lenders opposed Lauria's stupid crusade.
 
Kosmo, just admit you're a racist dumb fuck so the rest of us don't have to feign suprise when you say something dumb as fuck, and racist.

Why do you even post in this thread? Do you enjoy being wrong?
 
Kosmo said:
Yes, who cares about the people who actually invest in the company who paid for those jobs...why should they be given any protection when we have people downing 40's and smoking weed at lunch to protect!?
Click to expand...

I enjoy this post because the part I bolded has just the right amount of distilled freeper.

On a side note, this part of PPP's polling of Minnesota today sure is a thing. In trial heats for the 2012 general Amy Klobuchar beats Tim Pawlenty by 15 (54-39) and Michele Bachmann by 23 (58-35). Pretty much a safe win at this point.

PPP also tested the two against Franken for 2014 and they both do about 10 points better (but then that race is two years out).
 
Kosmo said:
Yes, who cares about the people who actually invest in the company who paid for those jobs...why should they be given any protection when we have people downing 40's and smoking weed at lunch to protect!?

As to your point, those people would not have all been laid off, since the private investors knew there is a multiplier effect to making an automobile - they could not just fire all the line workers, not produce cars, and then expect the suppliers to be there later, since they would quickly be out of business. It would have likely happened exactly as it did, with the exception being private investors, not the UAW getting that stake of the company.
Click to expand...

Please don't do this.

RoninChaos said:
Kosmo, just admit you're a racist dumb fuck so the rest of us don't have to feign suprise when you say something dumb as fuck, and racist.

Why do you even post in this thread? Do you enjoy being wrong?
Click to expand...

And please don't respond like that.
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I had found this a couple days ago:

To compare your effective rate to Romney's, get your 2010 Form 1040 and divide line 60 (total tax) by line 37 (adjusted gross income).
There are other ways to measure effective tax rates.

Some say you should divide line 61 (total tax) by line 22 (total income), which typically results in a slightly lower effective rate. (Obama's drops to 25 percent.)

The Tax Policy Center uses an even broader measure of income that includes some items left out of adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest and un-taxed Social Security benefits.

By this measure, the effective tax rate is 9 percent for all individuals and 14.7 percent for those in the $200,000 to $500,000 bracket. The rate is higher for people in higher brackets and lower for those in lower brackets.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/18/BUD91MR4RS.DTL#ixzz1kOqLm74G
Click to expand...


Damn, I paid only 9.3% for federal for 2010!! Craziness! That is the 61/22 route, the 60/37 route actually shows me only paying 3%!! I dont get that...
 
Clevinger said:
.
Click to expand...

Between this PPP look at Minnesota and the Gallup national tracker swing, I think my comment the other day about Newt's national momentum translating to state level success is probably coming true. I think much will depend on Florida. If Newt takes that state, then his momentum will carry over to other states even without the groundwork and money that Romney has put in. Romney is entering full-on panic mode.

Jason's Ultimatum said:
Well, what he said was pretty racist.
Click to expand...

I've grown accomtumed to those kinds of posts from him, and I still literally winced reading that post. Unfortunate that another poster was snared by it, I can only guess he was unfamiliar with Kosmo. He got Kosmo'd.

I should clarify that I don't think the post was necessarily racist - just an ugly and uncalled for broadside on auto workers.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Wait ... why was Kosmo banned?! You know he was referencing a very specific incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX7KlUgdCDk




The rush of some of you to label people racist or whatever is embarrassing. It just shows how conditioned you are. I once got called racist because I said Mrs. Obama was ugly.
Click to expand...

I suppose ones posting history comes to play. I don't know if Kosmo is racist but its easy to take some of the things he says as having racist undertones. I do agree that he should've been able to explain himself with that particular post instead of just straight banning him.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Wait ... why was Kosmo banned?! You know he was referencing a very specific incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX7KlUgdCDk
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Opiate, but reference or no the response was quite ugly, even in context. He was lumping in all auto workers into that characterization. When taken as part of his overall post history, which is filled with such broadsides, I can imagine it being the straw that broke the camel's back his posting privleges.
 
ClovingSteam said:
I suppose ones posting history comes to play. I don't know if Kosmo is racist but its easy to take some of the things he says as having racist undertones. I do agree that he should've been able to explain himself with that particular post instead of just straight banning him.
Click to expand...

That is an inexcusable and ignorant viewpoint to have. You judge people on what they specifically say, not what you think they say or if they happen to carry the same viewpoints of others you believe to be racist.


That's ridiculous.
 
ToxicAdam said:
That is an inexcusable and ignorant viewpoint to have. You judge people on what they specifically say, not what you think they say or if they happen to carry the same viewpoints of others you believe to be racist.


That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I judged him on what others have said. I said his previous posting history. What I have said about a particular subject speaks volumes about what I believe. It's also why I said he should've been able to explain what he meant by the comment and if he actually believes in such a generalization.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Wait ... why was Kosmo banned?! You know he was referencing a very specific incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX7KlUgdCDk




The rush of some of you to label people racist or whatever is embarrassing. It just shows how conditioned you are. I once got called racist because I said Mrs. Obama was ugly.
Click to expand...

Because I didn't know the reference. I'll unban him, but this is why behavior on message boards needs to be above the behavior one would have in regular conversation -- not below it, as some would assume.

In this case, if you make this "joke" with a close friend who you are quite sure understands the reference, then there is no problem. In a crowded group of people who don't know you and may not know the reference, however, this is dangerous.

Let's say instead he made some sort of blatantly racist comment that was a reference to an obscure film. Where do we draw the line there? Should we simply assume that everyone knows this reference? Is referential humor a shield against all offenses?

I suggest the answer is "no, it is not." I'll unban Kosmo in this case, but hopefully this message gets across over time: you can't make relatively obscure, bigoted references and simply assume everyone will understand them. If you play with fire in that manner, you're eventually going to be burned.

salvador said:
Just to ensure I don't follow the same fate, would you mind explaining what he did wrong to warrant the ban?
Click to expand...

Don't say offensive, bigoted things (like implying that auto workers sit around drinking 40s and smoking weed) and assume that eveyrone will get that it's a joke because it's a reference to a couple of auto workers. Don't make offensive jokes of any kind -- racist, sexist, bigoted in any way -- and then expect to hide behind "but this was a reference to something you didn't understand!"

This is an internet forum. Unless the reference is to Barack Obama, Shigeru Miyamato, or someone else enormously famous, you can't expect everyone to be in on the "joke." I certainly wasn't, in this case. Behavior which can be appropriate in a small group of friends is not necessarily appropriate in a large group of people, most of whom you have little knowledge of.
 
Opiate, you have a point, but he didn't say anything racist at all. Negative towards drug users and union people, but not specifically black people at all.
 
Opiate said:
Because I didn't know the reference. I'll unban him, but this is why behavior on message boards needs to be above the behavior one would have in regular conversation -- not below it, as some would assume.

In this case, if you make this "joke" with a close friend who you are quite sure understands the reference, then there is no problem. In a crowded group of people who don't know you and may not know the reference, however, this is dangerous.

Let's say instead he made some sort of blatantly racist comment that was a reference to an obscure film. Where do we draw the line there? Should we simply assume that everyone knows this reference? Is referential humor a shield against all offenses?

I suggest the answer is "no, it is not." I'll unban Kosmo in this case, but hopefully this message gets across over time: you can't make relatively obscure, bigoted references and simply assume everyone will understand them. If you play with fire in that manner, you're eventually going to be burned.
Click to expand...

But Opiate, shouldn't the responsibility also fall on the mods to not be so quick to ban but rather ask if the person in question is referencing a film, a particular case, etc? In order for conversation to take place, people should be able to not fear referencing something, even in jest with it being taken as fact immediately, leading to a straight ban. For instance, the person in the Germany thread who was arguing that the Jewish community embellished its suffering during the Holocaust. I could see that as being incredibly offensive to many (it was) but if said person is banned no discussion can come out of it.
 
Opiate said:
Because I didn't know the reference. I'll unban him, but this is why behavior on message boards needs to be above the behavior one would have in regular conversation -- not below it, as some would assume.
Click to expand...

That's okay. I wasn't lashing out at you, but the rest of this board that dogpiled on Kosmo. You did your job correctly (with the information you had in hand). It was the others that should have known better.


Don't say offensive, bigoted things (like implying that auto workers sit around drinking 40s and smoking weed) and assume that eveyrone will get that it's a joke because it's a reference to a couple of auto workers.
Click to expand...


Too bad this doesn't apply to religious threads where accusations of mental retardation or pedophillia are quite frequent. Usually by the same users.
 
ClovingSteam said:
But Opiate, shouldn't the responsibility also fall on the mods to not be so quick to ban but rather ask if the person in question is referencing a film, a particular case, etc? In order for conversation to take place, people should be able to not fear referencing something, even in jest with it being taken as fact immediately, leading to a straight ban. For instance, the person in the Germany thread who was arguing that the Jewish community embellished its suffering during the Holocaust. I could see that as being incredibly offensive to many (it was) but if said person is banned no discussion can come out of it.
Click to expand...

No, it should not. It is your responsibility to not play with fire. For readers, it's absrud to ask them to wait and not be offended until they are absolutely sure that this enormously racist or sexist or offensive comment wasn't just a reference to something.

You cannot hide behind referential humor to shield yourself in all cases. The concept has limits, particularly on a message board. As an extreme example, if I just came in and said "All you black people are stupid," and then thirty minutes later pointed to some joke eddie murray made in 1973 and omg how did you guys not remember that, I've clearly crossed the line. Disclaimer: I am not suggesting this specific incident with two auto workers is that obscure, the example is deliberately extreme to prove the point.

Simple solution to this problem: don't make racist jokes at all. That way, you don't have to hope that everybody "gets it."
 
Salvor.Hardin said:
Opiate's point I think is that what Kosmo said could very easily be perceived as racist given that it touches on familiar stereotypes.
Click to expand...

Yes, but its a slippery slope. I'm not defending what Kosmo said but rather the type of unexpected and undesired effects it can have on dialogue and conversation in this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gwen Stefani invites us to pray with her, Chris Pratt and Mark Wahlberg to promote a meditation app
2
82
4K
Insane Metal replied
Colorful Stage! The Movie: A Miku Who Can't Sing
0
459
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Soundgarden planning to release final album with Chris Cornell on vocals...
18
719
Mr Reasonable replied
  • Poll
When you read a book and it has a song, do you sing it?
14
284
DGrayson replied
Pour one out for those of us working on Christmas
48
2K
Wastelander92 replied
Top Bottom