🚀 go-pugleaf

On 10/15/2012 9:22 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>> Gee, maybe we need Romney to send ALL our Jobs to Red China
>>
>>>>> When you have Obama to sell Chrysler to FIAT?
>>
>>>> I'm aware you are too stupid to get the point, but Fiat ain't RED.
>>>> That means Communist.
>>
>>> So it's OK to sell American companies to non-commie foreigners?
>
> yeah, and it's also okay to snip the most important context just to
> pretend you have a point: Regardless of who is stupid enough to invest
> in Chrysler, THE JOBS ARE STILL HERE.

Where are the PROFITS?

Italy?

In a STATE_OWNED automaker???

What did the UAW get in exchange?

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/05/08/gangster-government-gave-chrysler-to-the-uaw-examiner/

�Gangster government gave Chrysler to the UAW�

So reads the Washington Examiner�s editorial today about how Obama 
effectively gave ownership of Chrysler to the United Auto Workers Union 
(which spent millions electing Obama), rather than taxpayers (who have 
spent billions to bail out Chrysler) or the institutions that lent money 
to Chrysler based on the legal right and expectation that they would 
receive its assets before the UAW union would. Veteran political 
commentator Michael Barone also calls it �gangster government.� The UAW 
will also retain �lucrative� pension and health benefits, courtesy of 
the taxpayer.

The liberal USA Today put it more gently, but it, too, criticized the 
Obama Administration. Obama demonized the institutional creditors, like 
hedge funds, that helped Chrysler when it needed funds, and then were 
given the shaft in his sweetheart deal benefiting the UAW. He branded 
them as �speculators� when they objected to it, and then arranged a 
collusive sale of the company in all but name (giving up all its 
valuable assets) to circumvent their legal rights (a sale rubberstamped 
by a liberal bankruptcy judge). As a result of Obama�s attacks, these 
creditors have received death threats. Administration officials also 
threatened to smear the creditors in the press (which might violate the 
First Amendment).

But as USA Today notes, �those creditors have every right to balk. By 
doing so they are not only defending their own interests, they are 
standing up for the principles vital to functioning credit markets. 
Secured lenders get first dibs at recovering their losses if a company 
cannot meet its obligations. They will be less willing to lend if they 
fear they�ll be forced to surrender their position.�

While Chrysler�s lenders have lost almost all of their assets, the union 
has given up little. Indeed, USA Today notes, the UAW has �continued to 
press for retiree health benefits more generous than those available to 
taxpayers funding the bailout.� (Moderate Democrat Mickey Kaus describes 
UAW pension and health benefits under the deal as continuing to be 
�lucrative�).

As reporter and columnist Tim Carney notes, car czar (and Democratic 
fundraiser) Steven


�Rattner and Obama have decided that the United Auto Workers union 
should get 55 percent of Chrysler. At the same time, they�ve attacked 
many of Chrysler�s secured creditors � who, in a regular, nonpoliticized 
bankruptcy, would be repaid in full � for resisting this deal. In a 
federal complaint, these administration targets alleged: �The government 
exerted extreme pressure to coerce all of [Chrysler�s] constituencies 
into accepting a deal which is being done largely for the benefit of 
unsecured creditors at the expense of senior creditors.�

UAW�s political action committee spent $13.1 million last election 
cycle, a slow year for the union�s political arm. Of the PAC�s $2.3 
million in direct contributions to candidates and candidate PACs, more 
than 99 percent went to Democrats. Of 42 Senate candidates to get UAW 
money, only one was Republican, and that was Arlen Specter.

The union�s PAC also reported $4.5 million in independent expenditures 
supporting Obama, plus an additional $423,000 opposing John McCain.

So, here�s the arrangement: You pay your taxes, the Obama administration 
funnels some of the money to Chrysler, whose profits enrich the UAW, 
which in turn funds Obama�s re-election.

Predictability, precedent and the rule of law have been replaced with 
the fiat of politicians. Chrysler could become a pass-through entity 
from taxpayers to the Democratic Party. And in charge of it all is a 
Democratic fundraiser. Boss Tweed would be proud.�


> Now let's hear you whine about how Obama's a "Socialist",

Oh let HIM tell you about that, you Caliphonya phony:

http://www.examiner.com/article/flyer-reveals-barack-obama-headlined-socialist-event-1996

On Thursday, Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski published what he described as 
a "little-seen advertisement that ran in the Hyde Park Herald in 1996" 
showing then state senate candidate Barack Obama listed on a panel 
sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), University of 
Chicago Democrats, and University of Chicago DSA.

Obama's ties to the socialist group was discovered in October 2008 by 
the Politically Drunk On Power blog, causing Newsbusters' P. J. Gladnick 
to wonder if the so-called mainstream media (known here as the 
Democrat-media complex) would report it.

View slideshow: DSA flyer highlighting Obama

. .
"The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is 
not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party 
important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times, 
MSNBC, and the New York Times, among others," he wrote.

He asked: "So now that Barack Obama's membership in the far left New 
Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that 
Socialist organization?"

In 2008, the blog that made the discovery said that "[a]fter allegations 
surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, 
the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and 
Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member 
of either organization."

"The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any 
ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now 
appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member 
of the DSA's New Party," the blog said.

Trevor Loudon wrote Thursday that while Obama has been connected to the 
organization "for at least 30 years," this is the only DSA event Obama 
can be linked to with documentary evidence.

According to a Chicago DSA report of the event, Obama spoke glowingly of 
the role government should play in creating "productive communities."

"The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the 
allocation of wages and jobs," the report said.

The Chicago DSA also endorsed Barack Obama in the 1996 election.

Loudon adds that of the panelists shown on the 1996 flyer, "William 
Julius Wilson and Joseph Schwartz were both confirmed DSA members, Toni 
Preckwinkle, was a long time DSA affiliate, and Michael Dawson was a 
later founder of the Marxist lead Black Radical Congress and a supporter 
of Obama friend and former Weather Underground terrorist leader Bill Ayers."

Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit asked: "Can we call him a socialist now?"

----------------------------------------------------------------


> and how you want to vote for Romney, whose best buddies


No, I won;t be taking the word of some Caliphonyan libitard who spends 
life kvetching on alt.fan.rush-limbaugh for ANY_thing.

Drop dead, you commie puke!